<p>Knowing that Business school ranking methods consist of parameters and their weightages, rationalizing the latter remains questionable across innumerable B-school indexes and rankings worldwide. Using stakeholder, signaling, and reputation management theories, this study develops arguments favoring faculty as the stakeholder group for obtaining the weightages and uses a robust empirical method to assimilate the individual faculty responses in the case of National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), a government established ranking metric for educational institutions in India. Group aggregation technique is utilized for a large number of faculty members through Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP). The consensus was thereafter evaluated for the obtained responses, validated further by sensitivity analysis to test robustness. Significant gaps were identified among the existing weights of NIRF and the collective faculty group in equity and inclusion criteria, classroom teaching, consultancy, projects and executive programs, resource utilization, research output and graduate outcomes. Yet, weightages for faculty qualification, campus placements and graduate salaries were similar. While financial utilization was accorded less importance, B-school ‘perception’ was weighted higher than before. This research is an atypical method of weight conception in ranking, highlighting differences between government policymaking and ground realities in a regional context, pinpointing specific areas for focused intervention.</p>