Despite the mythology put forward by some lazy columnists, the changes that seem to be on the horizon aren't going to have a mega impact on the G5 schools and I think quite a few G5 will end up better off.

First of all the CFP will provide money to help keep pace. There are 350+ Division I schools, of them 129 are getting a new revenue stream this year in the CFP (not sure just how much BYU, Army, and UMass receive but my understanding is it is substantially less than the G5 conference members).

So 220+ Division I schools have the right to follow the P5 lead but no new revenue source to fund it.

Second the CFP selection committee, if they behave in the manner they state they will, should create an incentive for schools to avoid playing FCS opponents. It is thought that the tools they will have access to (rating systems) are weighted to not only reward playing all FBS to reward playing games out of your regular stadium (note men's basketball had this formalized for a time in RPI and removed it though the committee still gets a breakdown when considering schools).

More G5 programs are taking steps to increase home revenue and have less need for road money games. This will change the scheduling dynamic as well.

I think this points to FCS needing to re-evaluate their model. If game guarantees plateau or become harder to get they are looking at little growth in revenue and possibly a decline. Fewer players will be willing to transfer away from a full ride and cash for a full ride. The other sports will have to increase budget to remain competitive.