Taylor Henry: Significant Deal- USC is 0-3 since removing the interim tag from Clay Helton. USC was out classed, out manned, and ill prepared. Not taking away from how good Alabama is, but that looked like USC shouldn't be on the same field as Alabama, like a squash game, when USC is supposed to be an upper tier football institution.
Jose Bouquett: Little deal: USC had no chance going into the game. No one gave them a chance because they didn't have one. If Alabama had any other offensive coordinator the game would ended in a closer margin. Alabama is in another league compared to USC. USC isn't even the best team in the PAC-12. This is exactly what was suppose to happen just with larger margin due to a salty Lane Kiffin.
Simeon Moses: It will be little deal unless coupled with a big loss to Stanford in two weeks. Alabama was fully expected to win this game. The only reason for concern for folks was the margin of victory. If USC beats Utah State and at least keeps it close against Stanford it will be just talking points for the pundits. If Stanford crushes USC though the water will start to get hot for Helton.
Alois Piet: Big deal: Alabama was a test for the new team under Helton and they failed miserably. Trojans were not asked to win the game, of course, but the way they lost it is alarming. Definitely not ready on offense, the new QB does not seem to be ready yet (even though it was Bama defense). USC defense was pretty good in the first quarter but it still looks pretty thin and lacks playmakers outside of Adoree Jackson.
Ryan Larson: Significant Deal: the end game for USC and the conference as a whole is to get into the College Football Playoff after being left out last year. If the Trojans keep it close then this loss doesn't hurt them, because quality of loss is important to the committee, but Alabama embarrassed them. This brings into question the quality of the entire Pac-12 when USC was supposed to be a top 4 team. This is a bad look for the Trojans and the Pac-12 going forward.
Gabey Lucas: Little to Significant Deal: USC has been perceived as I think better than they are during the off season when in fact they lost a decent amount and have some units that are missing (looking at you, D line). I think to an extent the common prediction before the game that they were gonna hang in there was based more on the fact that they have the name recognition and history and so people felt like it was two giants going up against each other when in fact it was The Giant versus a team that's a shadow of what it used to be. I still think USC will be okay - Alabama is a monster of a team and that's an insane task to take them on the first game, especially when you're breaking in a new QB. That being said, because the perception of USC was relatively high going into this game (whether right or wrong), the magnitude of their loss does hurt how the Pac 12 is seen nationwide quite a bit. Now I didn't think the Pac was gonna make the playoff anyway, but this doesn't help.
Travis King: Significant Deal - USC had a reality check last night in Arlington. Clay Helton is going to need to show significant improvement, and fast if he wants to stick around. Alabama was expected to dominate, but last night was shocking. If we see a similar result against Stanford in a couple weeks, the USC situation will be upgraded to Big Deal.
DC23AZ: Significant Deal- The truth is USC began the season ranked because their name is USC. No one realistically gave USC a shot at making the playoff this year. A more realistic exectation was USC maybe competing in the Pac-12 South. Having said that, when you go out and get utterly dominated like they did, that's something that will stick to a team all year long. It hurts the brand. Even more, SC is now left with serious questions about their quarterback position, an unenviable spot to be in.