(04-23-2013 10:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Curious... why do small population states like New Mexico, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana continue to operate two large schools that are mediocre in almost everything (academics, athletics, research, etc.) but not great in anything for an extended period? It seems they would want a singular great school as the flagship and treat the state school as the complement, similar to how MO, MN, WI, IL, WA, OR and a number of other states operate. If those Western states would make that concerted effort and get their flagships into the top 100 academically, raise their research and athletic profiles, and build a brand that had the whole state behind them, I'm sure the PAC would love it. They just all seem content to have two schools that are both outside the top 150 academically, revenues between 20-40 mil, and can never get over the hump to becoming elite.

This largely goes back to the Morrill Act in 1862 and the creation of "land grant" universities. Land grant universities, which include agricultural studies as part of their original focus, were established in rural parts of states, away from population centers which often had their own Universities.
Examples:
UW (Seatle)/WSU-lg- (Pullman)
BSU (Boise)/Idaho-lg- (Moscow)
Utah (SLC)/USU-lg- (Logan)
UNM (ABQ)/NMSU-lg- (Las Cruces)
GT (Atl)/UGA-lg-(Athens)

This is entirely manageable for more populated states, but does split resources in less populous states. Often the LG school will have very strong engineering or other programs while the non-LG school will house the med school, life sciences, law, etc. programs. This makes merger impractical because there is less redundancy at the academic departmental level.

Good explanation. I understood the landgrant/rural idea but was not sure about departmental redundancy.