Also hurts that while 4 Texas schools went to R1 with the 2016 ranks (evaluation through 2015), they were the wrong schools for us. If SMU had made it to R1, for example, I think there'd be a strong case to be made for SMU/Houston to make a Pac-16. Hard to say no to the Dallas and Houston markets and recruiting grounds.
One measure of academics that is probably more important to the presidents/chancellors than the Carnegie Classification of research intensity (R1, R2, etc.) is the ARWU ranking. That's the Academic Ranking of World Universities which comes out of China and determines a lot in terms of the number of applications that come from Asia. It was cited as a key measure the Pac-12 and Big Ten were using the last time I looked at this (back when CU split from the Big 12).
Here's some data from the 2016 ARWU global ranks:
Current Pac-12
2. Stanford
3. Cal
12. UCLA
15. Washington
38. Colorado
49. USC
100. Utah
101-150. Arizona State
101-150. Arizona
151-200. Oregon State
301-400. Oregon
401-500. Washington State
7 schools among the Top 100 universities in the world is a big damn deal for the Pac-12. And it was a major reason why CU and UU were added.
So, where on the list are some of the schools we've been talking about?
14. UCSD (if only they had a football program)
44. Texas
72. Rice
75. UC Davis (if only they were FBS instead of FCS)
101-150. Texas A&M
151-200. Hawaii
201-300. CSU
201-300. Nebraska
201-300. New Mexico
201-300. Houston
201-300. Kansas
401-500. BYU
401-500. San Diego State
401-500. Texas Tech
401-500. Utah State
unranked. Tulane (301-400 in 2015)
unranked. Oklahoma (401-500 in 2015)
unranked. Oklahoma State (401-500 in 2015)
unranked. Kansas State (401-500 in 2015)
unranked. Nevada (401-500 in 2011, unranked since)
unranked. SMU (401-500 in 2013, unranked since)
unranked. Baylor (never ranked)
unranked. TCU (never ranked)
not in database. UNLV
not in database. Boise State
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2016.html
So, here's the academic profile on the 3 categories the presidents/chancellors will care about for the universities we have mentioned for Pac-12 expansion:
| School | ARWU | Carnegie | AAU |
| Air Force | unranked | R3 | no |
| Baylor | unranked | R2 | no |
| Boise State | unranked | R3 | no |
| BYU | unranked | R2 | no |
| Colorado State | 201-300 | R1 | no |
| Hawaii | 151-200 | R1 | no |
| Houston | 201-300 | R1 | no |
| Kansas | 201-300 | R1 | yes |
| Kansas State | unranked | R1 | no |
| Nebraska | 201-300 | R1 | no |
| New Mexico | 201-300 | R1 | no |
| Nevada | unranked | R2 | no |
| Notre Dame | 201-300 | R1 | no |
| Oklahoma | unranked | R1 | no |
| Oklahoma State | unranked | R2 | no |
| Rice | 72 | R1 | yes |
| San Diego State | 401-500 | R2 | no |
| SMU | unranked | R2 | no |
| Texas | 44 | R1 | yes |
| Texas A&M | 101-150 | R1 | yes |
| Texas Christian | unranked | R2 | no |
| Texas Tech | 401-500 | R1 | no |
| Tulane | unranked | R1 | yes |
| UC Davis | 75 | R1 | yes |
| UC San Diego | 14 | R1 | yes |
| UNLV | unranked | R2 | no |
| Utah State | unranked | R2 | no |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
From the standpoint of the presidents/chancellors, the 2 universities they'd do backflips over to go to a Pac-14 would be Texas & Rice. Larry Scott and the Athletic Directors would also be very cool with that since it would bring huge markets in the bargain (though they'd argue for Houston over Rice as a compromise on academics vs athletics).
After that, it gets very sketchy. No one really has it all going on in regard to academics, market and athletics. Compromises would have to be made. And history shows us that there's only so far the presidents/chancellors are willing to compromise. They voted down an invite to the combo of Oklahoma & Oklahoma State. Part of that, per rumors, is that they didn't believe it would be accepted but that the Pac-12 was only being used for leverage. But there were also whispers that Oklahoma is a compromise they'd be willing to make (justifiably good enough on academics), but Oklahoma State was a non-starter.
I think that points to any school needing to have at least 1/3 of these measures on the academic side to be a real candidate for the academics. And I think that "1" is a minimum standard of being R1. Then, having AAU membership or being Top 100 ARWU is a huge bonus to the candidacy. That, I believe, is the backdrop to Larry Scott's efforts.
