in the sand. Top 25 is an established metric that has been used for decades in official rankings for relevance. Using terms like "Big Boys" and making arbitrary statements of means top 15 have no bearing on reality. The discussion here is about national relevance. We are talking about an either or issue. We are not measuring the level among those programs that are nationally relevant, but understanding that BYU meets the definition and is nationally relevant.

It seems that much of what several here seem to latch on regarding national relevance is tied to one metric and that is winning. If we take a historical view you will see that very few teams can show a consistent level of winning over the time frame that identifies the modern Div I football.

To understand this you begin in 1973 when Div I was established from the old University Level. In 1978 Div I was further divided into Div I A and I AA. It is during this transition that we have a cohesive environment with all participants playing the same game, same rules, same measurement in terms of wins losses (ties) and participating in the same system to qualify for bowl eligibility/playoff. Here is where measurements become relevant to defining a national brand amongst participating peers.

Now some programs where national brands prior to this shift in 1973 while others once relevant have lost their relevance and others have become so. Based on what actually matters in the business of branding collegiate athletics BYU matters.

Based on what matters to fans in terms of always winning every time no room for losses or losing seasons, It is like a leaf on the wind, tossed and turned to the whims of the weather.