of competition. All teams will go through cycles of being good or bad in a sport. The interesting thing though is that when the FBS conferences made the arbitrary decision to divide themselves into a P5 group and G5 group, it resulted in a few programs, who have a history of being good, suddenly being on the outside looking in. While other programs, who have a history of being more bad than good, suddenly finding themselves with a seat at the table because of their conference affiliation.

If you look at the history of the following football programs, then I am not sure anyone can say the P5s are "more deserving" than the G5s beyond what conference the school was a member of at the time the decision was made.

P5: Duke, Vandy, NW, Wazzou, Kansas, Baylor
G5: Houston, SMU, Boise St, Fresno St, UCF, USF

If the FBS had not divided itself into the P5s and G5s, then I think fans would have continue to see a larger pool of team have the opportunity to be good in any given season. Similar to how college football was in the 1960s, 1970s, and even the 1980s. Yes, there are will always be programs (i.e. the blue bloods) that will probably always be good. However, when you look at that next tier of schools, it is pretty much the same P5s and the same limited number of G5s who are good.