The Wolverines may have passed Ohio State as the most disliked program by opposing Big Ten fans. Gregory Shamus / Getty Images

With coaching speculation, rivalry questions, tension among programs on off-field matters and 11 teams still harboring College Football Playoff aspirations, this is the perfect time for a Big Ten mailbag. Enough of my yapping, let's get to your questions.

Does USC need the Notre Dame rivalry? If USC desires to keep the rivalry, what changes should be made? -- John H.

College football is built upon rivalries, but expansion and realignment have damaged many of the sport's greatest series. USC-Notre Dame is in this category. This summer, I ranked it No. 5 in college football. It's unique because it's a cross-country rivalry outside of any conference structure, so hopefully both sides can come to a mutually beneficial solution to ensure its future.

However, USC now competes in a national conference that requires at least three annual trips to the Eastern or Central time zones. It plays Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Oregon and other high-level programs with regularity. With Notre Dame in that category of prominence, USC jeopardizes its future CFP opportunities by keeping this series in a postseason structure driven primarily by at-large selections. If conference commissioners approve the Big Ten's plan for an expanded field in which the league was assured four automatic bids, USC might be able to make it work. But the Trojans' brass needs to put its Big Ten membership and self-interest ahead of any nonconference series. That includes its rivalry with Notre Dame, as well as dormant in-state rivalries with former Pac-12 foes Stanford and Cal.

Don't expect much sympathy for Notre Dame inside the Big Ten on this topic. The Irish have cycled out a ton of rivalries that were important to Big Ten programs. Remember former athletic director Jack Swarbrick handing Michigan counterpart Dave Brandon a "Dear John" letter on the field before their 2012 meeting? (Swarbrick said he'd called Brandon about ending the series the day before.) Or when Notre Dame ended an annual series with Purdue that lasted from 1946 through 2014? Then the Irish shut down their yearly rivalry with Michigan State, which was played every year from 1959 through 2013.

Notre Dame has gotten what it wants for more than a century, from pseudo-ACC membership to a voice on CFP matters. Every entity in the sport has made accommodations for the Irish, but their historic independence comes with risk. Notre Dame's series with USC is one of them.

I'm new to B1G fandom and could use a primer. It seems that Big Ten fans universally hate Michigan. Is this because of Jim Harbaugh? There seems to be disdain for Penn State, too. I don't pick up the same kind of fan reaction to any other team. How does perennial contender Ohio State escape? Is there a corn belt school that other corn belt fans dislike more than others? -- Abala S.

First off, remember I'm just the messenger here. There are nuanced differences between the programs that extend well beyond the outcome of games or the number of championships.

Historically, the hate fluctuates between Michigan and Ohio State, and there's no shortage of it across the board. From what I've gathered (remember, I'm the messenger), Michigan's aura of superiority off the field includes an extra level of conceit. Jim Harbaugh's persona, coupled with the Connor Stalions saga, made it fair to say Michigan is the league's most disliked program.

Ohio State's arrogance is tied to on-field results, but when Urban Meyer was the coach, the Buckeyes easily topped this list. Penn State generally wasn't viewed in a negative light by most of the league until the Jerry Sandusky scandal (which we won't get into here). Opposing fans were not fond of now-former coach James Franklin, which helped stoke the anti-Penn State sentiment.

After those three, the disdain splinters into regional feuds among the traditional Big Ten schools. Iowa probably attracts the most hate after Michigan and Ohio State. The century-old rivalry with Minnesota that spawned the Floyd of Rosedale traveling trophy still lingers, and fans of Nebraska and Iowa spar every day. Hawkeyes fans are pretty vocal, which irritates a stable of rivals that also includes Iowa State, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois -- especially for the Illini in men's basketball.

Every 5-2 SEC team is ranked. Few of the B1G 5-2 teams are. Will the committee have the same SEC bias, or do the metrics they use screen the bias out? Seeing projections with six SEC teams makes me want to puke. -- Charlie C.

How many Big Ten teams make the Playoff? -- Terry G.

I'm glad the Playoff selection committee doesn't unveil its first ranking until Nov. 4 for that very reason. There is a logjam in both leagues, and it's difficult to tell the difference among many squads. The next two weeks should provide some separation.

I went through the CFP mock selection process, and the sheer volume of numbers and metrics applied at times feels overwhelming. Voting comes down to each committee member's opinion, so you cannot rule out perception. But from rewatching games to using a sortable comparison tool, the committee has the necessary tools to navigate through bias.

A trait among college football media -- which shows up among AP poll voters -- is for blue bloods to default into a higher tier than traditional mid-level programs. The SEC has more traditional powers that recruit at a high level, pay high coaching salaries and have fuller stadiums than even in the Big Ten. Those brands receive the benefit of the doubt over mid-level programs, especially with the initial preseason rankings, but ultimately it evens out. Last year, 13 teams in the inaugural preseason AP poll finished the year unranked, while five didn't even qualify for a bowl.

Barring a Penn State-type collapse, three Big Ten teams appear as Playoff locks: Ohio State, Indiana and Oregon. The Big Ten also has eight teams with two losses. The SEC has seven teams with only one loss and three others with just two. Based on how the teams have performed thus far, I'd put only those three Big Ten teams in the CFP. There are a few two-loss teams that could enter that discussion, but they're a long way from the Playoff right now.

Why is it that only USC and Michigan are vocally opposed to the private equity deal? Does Ohio State have something to gain from PE money? -- Ben S.

Very few times in Big Ten history have schools squared off so vigorously on an impactful issue, especially a financial one. Probably the last one in this category took place in 1988 when the league pushed through a grant-of-rights for football and men's basketball. At that time, Iowa had just signed the most lucrative contract in college athletics for second-tier broadcasting rights, while Indiana was close behind. Michigan and Ohio State struggled to air many of their non-national games in local markets. It was contentious, but the league prevailed.

Now, the Big Ten is 80 percent larger than it was in the late 1980s and stretches from coast to coast. Each athletic department has its own agenda and financial challenges. For instance, Washington and Oregon receive only half-shares from the league office through 2029. Maryland and Rutgers borrowed significantly as non-vested members and still are repaying the league through 2027. Ohio State athletics spent nearly $34 million in fiscal 2024 in debt service, with total debt exceeding $286 million. Illinois' debt is more than $312 million, while Penn State has a $700 million stadium renovation underway.

With 16 public institutions, most campuses expressed significant resistance to private equity. The Big Ten and its broker, Evercore, turned to UC Investments, which is a non-profit organization with a $200 billion-plus investment portfolio that serves the University of California pension system. The league planned to create a subsidiary called Big Ten Enterprises, of which UC Investments would own 10 percent for at least 15 years. UC Investments would provide $2.4 billion up front, which the league would divide into 19 slices (including one for the Big Ten office) with the larger brands receiving bigger cuts. Each campus would gain at least $100 million, and nothing would change regarding governance.

Most of the league sees the cash infusion as transformational, but Michigan and USC don't face those types of financial challenges. They believe the equity stake is too large, according to sources well-versed in this situation, and tout fiscal responsibility. Neither school wants to tie itself to a grant of rights through 2046 in an ever-changing collegiate landscape. That's not to say either wants to leave the Big Ten; they just don't see the value. Perhaps the league will continue to pursue this opportunity and figure out how to alleviate concerns at Michigan and USC. But as of now, the effort has stalled.

Is Curt Cignetti the worst thing ever to happen to other coaches? -- Andy M.

In a word, yes. Taking over the losingest program in college football history and immediately turning it into a CFP contender cranks up the pressure on every coach. Nearly every fan, booster and college administrator now says, if Curt Cignetti could do it at Indiana, why can't (fill in the blank) do it at my school? Or, and perhaps even worse, now those stakeholders believe all they need to do is fire the current coach, hire a new one, pile up NIL resources and enjoy Cignetti-like results.

But Cignetti's immediate success provides athletic departments with something they couldn't always obtain previously: hope. If he had landed in Indiana a decade ago, Cignetti would have needed to build a program through traditional recruiting based on faith, not results. Considering IU struggled to match even second-tier Big Ten programs in that department, it might have taken five or more years just to become a league contender. In today's world, Indiana provided the funding, and Cignetti convinced a plethora of talented players at James Madison and elsewhere to join him at Indiana. Then, he won. And if you don't believe it, just Google him.

When (not if) the Wisconsin job opens, who are the prospective replacements for Luke Fickell? Rumors are Will Stein would be near the top of the list. -- Robert Z., Paul E.

Wisconsin needs a robust evaluation of its football program after an inconceivable plummet. It had a clear identity for 30 years, with a mauling offensive line coupled with an elite running back and a gap-sound, attacking defense. That structure has collapsed over the last two seasons.

Oregon offensive coordinator Will Stein should have plenty of suitors, as could Alabama offensive coordinator Ryan Grubb. But if the Badgers make a move, they need to reclaim their line-of-scrimmage identity. Wisconsin native and Kansas coach Lance Leipold, who led Division III Wisconsin-Whitewater to six national championships, should top the list. Others I'd recommend include Iowa State's Matt Campbell, Kansas State's Chris Klieman, North Dakota State's Tim Polasek and Army's Jeff Monken. Leipold and Monken certainly fit in the Cignetti category.

Is it more likely Michigan State will replace assistant coaches than fire Jonathan Smith because the school does not have the money to buy out Smith and hire a new head coach and staff? -- Matt S.

The Spartans do not look like a serious program under Smith, and changes must be made. According to the Detroit Free Press, Michigan State would pay Smith $33 million should it make a change this year. With new athletic director J Batt, it's unclear whether Smith has enough equity to dismiss his staff to save his job. In addition, Michigan State has lost a combined $28 million in fiscal 2023 and 2024, so paying a large buyout isn't a given, either. But if the Spartans stand pat, expect the same conversation next October with the potential for apathy.

Big Ten football mailbag: CFP hopefuls, the Cignetti Effect and a Notre Dame history lesson