It also as you have pointed out spreads its $ across an entire athletic department that's pretty damn good overall. But, I think you give ole' Pete a little too much credit--I don't think coaches don't pick a school b/c of who's coaching in the vicinity. To be fair, UCLA has seen very competitive days in football in recent history. The 90's were pretty damn good overall (top 5 finishes were common place), and where USC lost to UCLA like six years in a row. The recruiting grounds of Southern cal can certainly also support more than just one school. USC can recruit nationally, and UCLA can just pick up Cali All-staters, and still be very competitive.
So, to answer the question posed, why not UCLA? I guess I'd say, one money for coaching. Dorrell's salary was in the $700k range, and most "top tier" coaching jobs are $2-3M these days, so big-name coaches would actually have to take less money to go to UCLA. Two, is it really a "football school"? You've got to compete with Ben Howland, but also college football out there is not like in the SEC, where that's the end all be all on Saturday. The Rose Bowl is just hard to fill on Game day and the campus is not religious about the sport like it is about Pauley and Wooden. Three, it's like recruiting anyone to any job to Cali--if you're not a die hard Californian with a love for the state, you have to deal with L.A., smog, cost of living, etc. UCLA has the most success with folks with ties to the city, perhaps the school, and those are folks that would love to get back live in LA. That was Howland, Dorrell and it's no coincidence that Rick played QB there.
Lastly, vball, I know you're partial, but calling Westwood a security nightmare, compared to Compton is flat out insane. I'd take my chances with gunfire in Bel-Aire over E.L.A. any day... :grin:
Click to expand...