Amid squabble on private investments, larger question arises: Is the Big Ten failing USC?

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

News came out this past week that the Big Ten conference is looking to move forward with a capital investment proposal without the support of USC football and Michigan.

"The league has signaled to schools that it may hold a vote in two weeks to potentially adopt a 20-year, $2.4 billion deal with a California pension fund and extend the conference grant of rights an additional 10 years in what would be an unprecedented decision from a major conference — striking a membership extension without all of its current schools," Ross Dellenger wrote for Yahoo Sports.

"The move for a vote, supported and encouraged by many university administrators at 16 Big Ten schools, threatens to drive a schism within the league — between those supportive universities and the Wolverines and Trojans, who are not in support of the measure."

I'm not a financial expert, so I am not here to analyze if this deal is financially advantageous. I trust that if the Trojans think it isn't, then it probably isn't.

But I am here to talk about the subtext behind why USC doesn't want to make the deal. USC reportedly is hesitant about a deal that would distribute more funds to Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan than other schools.

USC and Oregon would reportedly be in a second financial tier, with all other Big Ten schools falling in the third tier.

That's the issue USC has faced ever since joining the Big Ten. It is treated like a second tier program despite the fact that the Trojans are securely in the first tier of college football history.

Let's talk about it and all the different ways it has shown up.

USA TODAY column

Matt Hayes of USA TODAY Sports wrote his own column on this topic. It's part of the discussion, but now I want to dive into my own read of the situation below:

No power over scheduling

A big reason why the future of the USC-Notre Dame rivalry is in jeopardy is because the Trojans are concerned about all of the travel they have to undertake now as a member of the Big Ten.

This could be mitigated with one easy fix: if the Big Ten gave any consideration to when it scheduled USC games against Purdue or Indiana.

The Trojans have been to the state of Indiana twice this season, when they played games at Purdue in September and at Notre Dame in October. There's no reason that needs to happen. The Trojans should have stayed in Indiana for a week and played Purdue and Notre Dame back to back.

Fan attitude

At nearly every turn, the Trojans have faced Big Ten fans and other people affiliated with their longer-tenured rivals who disrespect the program without any true knowledge of it.

This was especially a big issue before the USC-Michigan matchup. Many fans assumed the Wolverines would bully the Trojans in the trenches despite USC's excellent offensive and defensive line play throughout the early season. They were surprised when USC instead spanked the Wolverines.

There's some unspoken attitude, whether it's because USC is from California, because Lincoln Riley-led teams have struggled in the trenches in the past, because the Trojans generally had a so-so final decade in the Pac-12, that USC is a soft, fraudulent Big Ten program. That attitude has continued despite the fact that USC has shown this year that they can hold their own against Big Ten schools of varying identities.

Semi-Recency bias

The idea that Penn State is a national brand more deserving of extra financial kickback than USC is ludicrous. The Nittany Lions claim only 2 national championships, both in the 1980s. USC claims 11, from several different eras of college football.

Penn State has also made only 1 college football playoff appearance, in 2024, and has a 3-6 record in 2025.

Penn State isn't even a blue blood. USC very clearly is, at least historically.

USC clearly bothers everyone — the alliances and rivalries

Despite this attitude that USC is a second tier team, no one can seem to stop talking about USC. The Trojans are already one of the biggest villains in the conference.

Think about it: No one hates Rutgers, Northwestern, Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan State or Purdue besides maybe their closest geographic rivals. The top teams in the conference are not bothered by lower competition.

But they're bothered by the Trojans. Michigan — ironically USC's ally in the private equity issue — is their biggest rival on the field and on social media just two years into their Big Ten tenure. Sherrone Moore famously disparaged the history of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

Nebraska made USC its blackout game. Kirk Ferentz subtly called USC a school that can only pass and said they can't win that way. Michigan State fans complained about the 8 p.m. start time as though USC didn't have to deal with start time issues of their own.

If the Big Ten is doing USC a favor, and not vice versa, why does everyone treat them like the Evil Empire and not like a charity case?

Not making excuses

Fans of other Big Ten schools who are reading this probably think I am making excuses or complaining about realities USC should have been aware of before it joined the Big Ten.

I am not saying that. I think USC should be grateful for the opportunities and intrigue the Big Ten has infused its program with. I just wish both sides could mutually appreciate each other.

Should USC go independent?

Here's an interesting post:

Again, I don't pretend to be a financial expert so I won't comment on that side of things.

One issue I would worry about is USC's strength of schedule if the Trojans go independent. I don't want to play a bunch of cupcakes like Notre Dame does every year. I want USC to schedule a really tough nonconference schedule like the Trojan women's basketball team does. It's better for the sport and better for USC in the long run.

But here's one thing I will say: Notre Dame does a good job embracing its villain role as the country's most famous — and infamous — independent team. USC is also at its best when the rest of the country considers the Trojans a villain. If no one wants to play nice with USC, why hold onto any alliances?

This article originally appeared on Trojans Wire: USC and Michigan disagree with Big Ten Conference investment plan

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