I'll start by saying some things that will not be popular.

Here are things we don't like...but are defensible and not inherently the reason the list is bad

• BYU not included: If you're ranking the Top 40 or 48 teams, then it's probably reasonable to not include BYU. That may change with increased NIL and money, but for now, it's not crazy
• Utah is included: Utah absolutely isn't a slam dunk or guarantee.. but having them in isn't unreasonable. Based on their viewership and on-field performance, they could well be in...even if BYU isn't

So those two factors alone aren't enough to say it's a laughable list. It's enough to disagree with it, but viable metrics can end up with a situation where Utah makes it and BYU doesn't. 

But here's what doesn't happen if you have viable metrics

• Utah at #15: I'm data oriented and listen to numbers, which is why I'm more positive/realistic about Utah's value than most.  And if you were building from scratch, Utah could be ranked as high as the mid 30s among programs.  But no decent metric has Utah #15 in program value. Not ahead of teams like Texas and USC
• Nebraska doesn't get left out: There's a lot of teams that are borderline and could be included or not. Utah is one of them. So is TCU or Kentucky or Georgia Tech or a few others (including arguably BYU). Nebraska isn't borderline though. The name of the game is $$$, not on-field success. And $$$ mostly comes from TV viewership. Last year Nebraska had 27.7M regular season viewers. Utah had 18.3M, TCU had 17.1M, BYU had 14.4M, Kentucky had 12.4M and UCF had 7.2M.  
• Boise St, Northwestern, Wake Forest aren't included: Last year Boise St had 3.9M viewers, Northwestern had 3.3M and Wake Forest had 5.2M. These aren't schools that make up for poor engagement by other metrics either. Boise St has been very good on the field, but has fallen back to the pack. Northwestern can offer Chicago (though more there are fans of Notre Dame), and Wake Forest offers...literally nothing