9 game redshirt rule could have changed Husan Longstreet's USC career

NCAAF College Football News, Photos, Stats, Scores, Schedule & Videos...

On Wednesday, FBS head coaches voted to expand redshirt eligibility from a maximum of four games to a maximum of 9 games. It’s not a set in stone rule change yet, but with so much support from DI coaches, we could be headed that way.

I wrote about how that could affect USC’s future, but it also has me wondering how it could have affected USC football‘s past. Especially with Husan Longstreet in the transfer portal.

Longstreet played in only 4 games this past season, preserving his redshirt eligibility. He didn’t have much of an impact for USC on the field beyond mop-up duty in the Trojans‘ first two games.

If USC was able to use him more throughout the season, setting him up for an even bigger role in 2026, would he be sticking around? Let’s explore the idea:

Longstreet could have been more baked into the offense

If Longstreet was able to play in 9 of USC’s games, the Trojans could have made him a more regular part of their offense against FBS teams. When Longstreet was used this season during high-leverage situations (appearances other than garbage time) he made came in briefly to run a play buried deep in the playbook, not dissimilar to how USC utilized Sam Huard to run a fake punt play against Northwestern.

If USC could have used him in 9 games rather than 4, maybe Lincoln Riley would have spent more time developing plays in his playbook around Longstreet’s skillset. Longstreet could have come in several times in several different games, unlocking parts of USC’s playbook that Jayden Maiava did not. Specifically, using Longstreet as a run-first quarterback would have been a big change of pace for opposing defenses.

Here are my thoughts. Let’s say USC played Longstreet against Missouri State so he could get an extended chance to run the offense, but let QB3 Sam Huard handle garbage time against Georgia Southern. Let’s just assume USC also would keep him sidelined against Purdue either way, believing that they could keep that part of the playbook under wraps and still easily beat the Boilermakers.

After that, USC faced 8 straight massive games. Michigan State, Illinois, Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Northwestern, Iowa, Oregon. What if Longstreet could have played in all of them?

Could he have made a big impact in USC’s three losses, to Illinois, Notre Dame and Oregon? Would he have made USC’s win against Nebraska, a game in which Jayden Maiava struggled, a little easier? I think so!

That would have given USC the runway to use Longstreet with reckless abandon until the season finale against UCLA. If USC was still a three-loss team by that point and out of the CFP, no worries, bench Longstreet for the UCLA game and the bowl game and he keeps his eligibility. If the Trojans were instead on the brink of the CFP, burn Longstreet’s redshirt and keep playing him as needed. I’m sure he’d much rather chase a national championship as a meaningful contributor than preserve his redshirt.

If Longstreet had received a big role and meaningful playing time in 9 games, I think he’d have felt more confident that he would have an important role at USC in 2026 despite Jayden Maiava’s return.

Longstreet would have had more of an opportunity to prove himself

Let’s say Longstreet was able to play in 9 games, and he came in while Jayden Maiava was struggling and played great football. That would have given USC’s staff more of an opportunity to evaluate and consider making him QB1 over Maiava based on actual, in-game results.

If Longstreet always felt that he had the chance to become USC’s QB1 at any point into the season, and that he was going into this offseason with a real chance to win the starting job, would he have still transferred?

The program would have had more of an opportunity for the program to prove itself to him

When Husan Longstreet remembers his time at USC, what’s he going to think about? Bulldozing a couple of Missouri State players? Running for no gain against Notre Dame?

If he got more of an opportunity to play, he could have a better picture of why playing in a Lincoln Riley offense is so beneficial. Imagine if he was able to score several key touchdowns for the Trojans throughout the season. He would know that playing in a Lincoln Riley-led offense is fun, and that it could enable him to have real success at the college level.

The more great memories you have of a place, the harder it is to leave. And the more Riley was able to use Longstreet, the more he could prove to Longstreet directly, on the field, why he is one of the best QB developers in the country.

But, USC’s use of Longstreet was weird, so would they really have been smart with 9 games?

I’m not even sure if expanding eligibility to 9 games would have changed things for Husan Longstreet at USC though, because USC probably would have still screwed up its utilization of him.

USC used Longstreet in garbage time in the first two games, which allowed him to get plenty of experience but didn’t allow him to meaningfully contribute in an actual high-leverage situation. Then, for the rest of the season, he appeared in 2 games and ran 3 plays, running the ball twice for 16 yards.

Who’s to say that if USC did put Longstreet in the game, the Trojans wouldn’t have just continued to use him like that? Put him in for 1 play a game to run a predictable QB run.

If USC’s entire philosophy around Longstreet didn’t change, then more opportunity to use him would not have made a difference.

Longstreet’s transfer could be more about 2026 than 2025

When Husan Longstreet committed to come to USC in 2025, he probably knew that he’d most likely sit on the bench during his first season. With Jayden Maiava returning as the incumbent starter, Longstreet faced a tough path to earning the QB1 job as a freshman. But he was willing to become a Trojan anyway.

But now that Maiava is returning for 2026, Longstreet is headed out. It may not have mattered if USC used Longstreet more in 2025, this could be about wanting to be QB1 in 2026.

Or, maybe Longstreet simply didn’t like USC for a reason that had nothing to do with his playing opportunities. Maybe he didn’t like the coaching staff or the campus, or didn’t believe this roster could compete for national championships over the course of the next couple of seasons.

USC also could have just disregarded the idea of preserving Longstreet’s redshirt and played him however much they wanted. Preserving a redshirt isn’t always necessary.

We’ll likely never know for sure what different redshirt rules would have changed. And ultimately, USC could only work with the 4 game rule in place.

But hopefully, if the redshirt limit is expanded to 9 games, it will help decrease the amount of young players who transfer just because they aren’t seeing the field enough.

This article originally appeared on Trojans Wire: College football coaches want to make redshirt eligibility 9 games

More at NCAAF College Football News, Photos, Stats, Scores, Schedule & Videos