That's an interesting email. I think UCLA and NYU are two of the more "regionalized" elite schools. I think the reason is that historically, many oof the people choosing to attend these schools already have a preference for the area (LA & NY respectively), and that graduates of these schools have chosen to stay local in substantial numbers. This leads to strong ties and alumni bases in the nearby areas; the flip side of which is fewer alumni go to other areas and ties are not as strong.
I believe that depending on how you look at them, NY and UCLA are equal to the other elite schools, but certain peer schools absolutely have a more dispersed alumni base balanced out by a local alumni base that is not as concentrated.
My opinion is that once again, Hjort's cluster system works best here. The schools in the higher clusters can honestly claim a national presence, and more importantly name recognition among business professionals. The Washington job market might be uniquely insular and favor local schools to a disproportionate degree - I don't know. I do know that San Francisco is a competitive region to crack as well; but this is balanced out by the fact that it's home to the 2nd most MBAs - after NY. Certainly, Berkeley is probably preferable to it's elite peers for those looking to move to Bay Area, but generally speaking it's advisable to stick to the cluster system. For example, USC is squarely within the region, but I would personally take my chances with any of the elites over USC if searching for a job in SF. When considering elites and ultra-elites and comparing to other schools, cluster almost always trumps specialty rankings or regional concerns.