[Noah930]

Having grown up in L.A., I'd have to agree with McLovin that overall, UCLA has a higher level of academic prestige than USC. Obviously that's not true for all departments, and the prestige ranking of a school doesn't equate the quality of education you actually take home after 4 years. But from an objective, nerdy, no legacy, academic perspective, UCLA rates higher than 'SC. At the same time that doesn't necessarily mean 'SC kids wished they went to UCLA, instead. It's school pride. For the most part, 'SC kids are happy at 'SC, and UCLA kids are happy over in Westwood.

Some non-academic benefits to attending the "lesser" school: USC has a tremendous alumni presence. Far greater than anything UCLA has got going. I've certainly met more people who would admit that purely for alumnus reasons they'd hire an 'SC grad over a UCLA grad, rather than the other way around. Not saying that's a smart/successful way to do business--it just is. We live in a world where it's far easier to succeed based upon who you know, as opposed to what you know. And while I knew non-rich kids who went to USC, there's a reason it's nicknamed the University for Spoiled Children. Take a look at the student parking structure. Plenty of cars that are nicer than what most of us are driving, now. Finally, I'm sure RNajarian knows what I mean when I say the quality of eye-candy walking around the 'SC campus is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

In the end McLovin, mascot sabotage is just part of school pride. It's meant in good, sneaky fun.

Fight on.