This argument comes with the question of whether the elite non-Power Four teams of the past can be recreated.
Squads like the 2004 and 2008 Utah Utes, the 2006 and 2008 Boise State Broncos, the 2010 TCU Horned Frogs, and the 2017 UCF Knights are among the reasons why this format was created in the first place.
It’s not good for the overall health of the sport if more than half of the teams in college football are eliminated from national title contention before the season even begins.
Nevertheless, with the modern-day transfer portal and pay-to-play, the argument from Klatt and other analysts is that those elite squads are a figment of the past.
The Group of Five’s subsequent response to this new era has been to create its own kind of super conference, the new PAC-12, to generate more revenue and compete with the Power Four.
The football participants for the PAC-12 in 2026 will include Washington State, Oregon State, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Utah State and Texas State.
Even more importantly, the new Pac-12 media rights deal is projected to generate roughly $7–10 million per school annually, which is more favorable than the American Athletic Conference and Mountain West.
This new revenue still pales well below that of the Power Four conferences. By comparison, Big Ten schools receive over $60 million per year, SEC schools exceed $50 million and the Big 12 and ACC generally fall in the $40–50 million range.
This gap, therefore, means the Pac-12 operates at a fraction of the revenue scale of the Power Four, but it’s still a positive step in the right direction.
Time will tell whether this move will help field more competitive Group of Five teams, but for now, as the debate over the CFP format and the landscape of college football overall rages on, it’s at least something.
