Trojans at a Crossroads: A Strategic Review of USC Athletics in the Big Ten Era

The University of Southern California enters the Big Ten in 2024 not as a regional upstart, but as a national brand carrying immense historical weight—and immediate expectations. With elite Olympic programs, a global media market, and a football legacy as rich as any in college athletics, USC joins the Big Ten with every opportunity to lead. But from a management consultant’s perspective, the school also enters amid organizational volatility, driven most clearly by a football program under pressure and an evolving approach to athlete health and development.

Financially, USC is well-equipped. Media rights from Big Ten membership are expected to generate upwards of $75–80 million annually by 2026. The athletic department generated approximately $138 million in revenue in fiscal year 2023, and its donor base has consistently funded facility projects, including the renovated Coliseum and the John McKay Center. These figures place USC in the Big Ten’s upper financial tier, but financial parity is no longer enough to guarantee competitive results.

The football program is a prime example. Hired in 2021, Lincoln Riley was supposed to restore USC’s status as a perennial national title contender. He brought Heisman winner Caleb Williams with him and quickly installed a high-octane offense. The Trojans went 11–3 in 2022, but defensive deficiencies emerged quickly. By 2023, USC had slipped to 8–5. In 2024, the regression deepened: a 7–6 finish, defensive breakdowns, and a humbling bowl loss triggered questions about culture, conditioning, and adaptability.

Much of the scrutiny centers on Riley’s insistence on prioritizing scheme over structure. His offense is effective, but the program lacks the toughness, depth, and balance necessary for success in the Big Ten. Defensive coordinator turnover, a soft strength program, and underwhelming recruiting on the line of scrimmage have created a gap between USC and the physical programs that dominate the Midwest. From a consulting lens, this reflects a leadership architecture problem: a coach with a defined system but no surrounding infrastructure to support adaptation in a tougher league.

But strategy isn’t just about wins and losses anymore. The modern college athletic department must prioritize athlete health, wellness, and long-term development, and this is an area where USC, unlike some of its peers, has been proactive.

The university has significantly expanded its athletic support services over the past five years. The USC Performance Science Institute, in collaboration with the John McKay Center, provides players with access to resources in sports psychology, biomechanics, nutrition, and injury prevention. USC’s student-athlete mental health program, launched in conjunction with Keck Medicine, offers 24/7 access to counselors and clinical staff, one of the more comprehensive offerings among Power Five institutions.

From a consultant’s standpoint, this wellness infrastructure is not just a compliance checkbox; it’s a competitive differentiator. Travel within the Big Ten will add stress, jet lag, and compressed recovery cycles. Programs that invest in sleep science, mental resilience, and recovery tech will retain talent and reduce injuries. USC has begun implementing Oura Rings, WHOOP bands, and GPS-based workload tracking. The opportunity now is to scale that investment across all teams—and to position athlete well-being as a cornerstone of the Trojan brand, not just a behind-the-scenes function.

That said, the wellness structure must be aligned with coaching culture. Riley’s teams have faced criticism for burnout, high rates of soft-tissue injuries, and a lack of physical conditioning during the late season. Consultants would recommend better integration between the performance science team and the coaching staff, formalized player load management protocols, and deeper offseason collaboration between medical and football personnel.

Beyond football, USC continues to thrive in Olympic sports. Women’s and men’s water polo, beach volleyball, track and field, and swimming consistently rank among the nation’s best. The school is a perennial top 10 finisher in the Learfield Directors’ Cup and has led all Division I institutions in Olympic medal production. High-quality facilities back these sports and receive relatively strong donor engagement, but their branding potential remains underleveraged. With the right media and NIL support, they could define USC’s athletic identity in the Big Ten’s non-football landscape.

Men’s basketball, led by Andy Enfield, remains respectable but underachieving relative to its recruiting profile. The addition of Bronny James and other high-profile recruits generated national buzz, but the team has yet to break through in March. The Big Ten transition presents an opportunity to recalibrate, potentially around a more defensive identity and West Coast player development, but results must materialize quickly to maintain relevance.

NIL remains a relative strength for USC. With its location in Los Angeles and ties to the entertainment industry, the school offers athletes access to endorsement and branding opportunities unmatched by most conference rivals. Collectives like “Student Body Right” and affiliated donor groups have helped facilitate deals for football and basketball players. However, consultants caution that scalability, legal coordination, and consistency are still under construction. A centralized NIL office reporting directly to the athletic director would provide stability and standardization.

So, how does USC stack up in the Big Ten?

From a brand and revenue perspective, the Trojans are a top-three program alongside Michigan and Ohio State. But on the field, especially in football, USC currently ranks as a middle-tier performer. The defense remains suspect, the physicality isn’t there yet, and the head coach is under pressure. Lincoln Riley is not yet on the verge of dismissal, but another 7–6 season could force difficult conversations.

To thrive in the Big Ten, USC must answer three questions:

1. Can Lincoln Riley adapt his system to prioritize line play, defense, and physical culture?
2. Can the department scale its wellness infrastructure across sports and align it with performance outcomes?
3. Will USC formalize and centralize NIL and athlete services into an integrated operational unit?

​In conclusion, USC Athletics enters the Big Ten with more upside than perhaps any program in the conference, but only if it matches its vision with the necessary infrastructure. Lincoln Riley can still be the right coach, but his success depends on embracing a more holistic, physically demanding model that the Big Ten rewards. The Trojan brand is built on championships, not aesthetics. The following two years will determine whether USC can evolve or whether it will be defined by unmet expectations in a new era.