Originally Posted by TexansSeminole
People are saying that it is a combination of a number of things that give USC better recruits and a better shot at a consistent winner.
So, no myth.
So it went from "No Heisman winners would pick a school in a small town like BCS over LA" to "It's a combination of things gives USC better recruits".
Of course it's a combination of things, including the coach, the direction the program is headed, the system, the depth chart, where the school is in relation to his family, whether they want to be near their family or leave the state".
USC is in a state that is talent rich, just like A&M. But USC is headed down and A&M is headed up. A&M also has a recent Heisman winner. If you don't think it's important, look at Baylor and how their program has skyrocketed since RG3 left.
Not everyone is attracted to the lifestyle of LA or Southern California. Also, any coach who hasn't actively recruited CA, would have to start over making in-roads with HS coaches and still has to fight off schools like UCLA, Stanford, Cal and others.
Plus, succeeding at USC isn't a slam dunk just because it's USC and in LA, as Lane Kiffen thoroughly proved. Further, if a coach is successful and winning at the school he is at and the money is close (which it will be in Sumlin's case) then it certainly is reasonable for a coach to stick around and continue the success rather than try to rebuild a program that was flushed into the crapper.