I do think Trakh did a fine job at NMSU. I don't remember his first stint at USC being particularly memorable (just looked it up; 52-38 in conference and 90-64 overall in 5 years w/ 2 NCAA Tourney appearances that were both 2 and out; never finished higher than 4th in conference).
I think the city of LA pretty much sells itself. USC and UCLA both tend to recruit fairly well in just about every sport, regardless of the coach or the on the field/court product. After many many years of following Pac 10/12 sports, I think both of the LA schools generally underachieve relative to their level of recruiting. There of course have been exceptions.
So I guess I pretty much answered myself about why so many recruits are eyeing USC. Maybe not so much to do w/ Trakh but just the school/location itself.
I feel like this observation and discussion is, indeed, a self-circular conversation.
Remember, you brought up up that USC was being mentioned in several of recent prospects' final lists. Now, if the city has perpetually sold itself, that should've been happening all along and, henceforth, you shouldn't have had to make the initial point, right?
Perhaps the real levels to judge whether any LA-based coach is making a difference:
- will he/she seal the deal on the recruit. After all, it's one thing to make a finalist list; another to get a letter of intent signed.
- and, will he/she do something with those recruits?
So, your points are well made and taken in that vein, but I think USC could possibly be given some credit here, along with the Santa Monica Pier, La Brea tar pits, etc.
BTW, most Notre Dame fans always have an idea of what USC is doing, part of the football DNA rubs over into other sports.
)
