Southern CA MBA- UCLA Anderson or USC Marshall?

I've heard from some UCLA and USC students that if you're staying in LA, USC's network is stronger. Me personally, I live in Northern California and plan to stay here long term. I think UCLA has more reach up here. So I guess it just depends on your long-term goals..

In terms of MBA programs, UCLA is the stronger program in terms of recruiting, reputation and student body.

Yes, USC as a *university* seems to have a more rabid alumni base in LA, but that sense of kinship has more to do with those who went to undergrad than the graduate b-school itself. And also, its very clustered in Southern California.

I'm in the process of school shopping, and two schools I'm examining are Anderson and Marshall. I'm interested in high-tech marketing, including for cleantech.

I'm open to working in Los Angeles (there are definitely high-tech firms based in LA or OC that I'd be interested in working for), but I also want to be taken seriously if I apply for work in the Bay Area, as well (as much as I can be w/o an MBA that says Stanford, Harvard, or Haas.)

Which school would you recommend in my situation?

I get that USC is king in LA, and that UCLA may be more portable to the Bay Area. But does that hold for each school's marketing programs? Even though UCLA is the higher ranked b-school overall, is USC's marketing program considered stronger than UCLA's? Or is it going to be a high hurdle to leave SoCal with a USC MBA, regardless of specialty?