Every university that is in the lower rung of research rankings aspires to move further up, but how? Is it realistic to expect that a top-ranked one is willing to be replaced that easily? Not so, in my humble opinion, unless the financial picture is so rosy that research money is fairly and equitably distributed. Currently there is a clear systematic inequality and hierarchy in both research grants and faculty hiring (see Clauset et al, Sci.Adv. 2015;1:e1400005). Most of the efforts are going to take several years and decades to achieve even marginally forwards in rankings; that too, only if a university is strategic in its research priorities and willing to maintain these efforts even with administrative changes that are too frequent. Universities have to look internally first to strategically enhance existing, inherent strengths rather than go after each new area that crops up. Targeted opportunities of cooperation between institutions is the best way to obtain needed resources that might be otherwise unattainable. “Team Science” as it is called is the surest way to overcome these tough times. Foundations and private sources are hard to come by, even though they may be of substantial value. Industrial sector has already divested themselves off basic research and left universities holding that portfolio; they are only willing to enjoy the fruits of that effort and not invest in blue sky research anymore. Having faculty in groups with a good leadership with substantial track records of funding is a tested method, but not realizable at resource-limited small institutions. All these are only possible if the leaderships of universities are wedded to these ideas even when money is tight so that the ultimate goal is never compromised.