Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I have known about this for some time, but never really thought about it until now.

Alaska has no college football programs. Why? There are seven colleges (no including community colleges) in Alaska and yet none of them support football. What are the specific reasons? Is there lack of interest? Not many good athletes? There must be a reason. I found a page on facebook supporting that Alaska Anchorage get a football team, but what are the odds of that?

Going to take a guess, but probably cost of travel and weather (they would have to have a dome). There is some high school ball, but do they play earlier in the year and not in late fall?

If I'm not mistaken, the only university with any size is AA. I'd love to see them start football.

That said, there are only a handful of places in Alaska that would be all that playable for the late football season. Anchorage would fit the bill as it is more of a Seattle-type climate (rainy, cool, but not crazy-ass cold). Fairbanks is the other major college and would be brutal in November.

And the travel... Keep in mind the NCAA has to feature provisions for teams that travel to Hawaii to entice them to travel there. And comparing Hawaii in November to Alaska is laughable. And due to the distance, Hawaii only has one college football team despite some of the best HS football in the country (more DI kids per capita than any state).

Interestingly, British Columbia now features the only non-American NCAA football-playing school in Simon Fraser University. There is some talk of the much larger UBC also featuring an NCAA team.

UBC used to have a border rivalry with Eastern when we were a D-II school, but it was a totally unfair advantage to Eastern because it was the only game a year they played under American rules. Teaching kids the massive differences in schemes for a single game is a big waste of time.

I'd love to see some of the larger Canadian universities field teams. No way they'd ever be D-I though.

LDopaPDX wrote:Interestingly, British Columbia now features the only non-American NCAA football-playing school in Simon Fraser University. There is some talk of the much larger UBC also featuring an NCAA team.

UBC used to have a border rivalry with Eastern when we were a D-II school, but it was a totally unfair advantage to Eastern because it was the only game a year they played under American rules. Teaching kids the massive differences in schemes for a single game is a big waste of time.

I'd love to see some of the larger Canadian universities field teams. No way they'd ever be D-I though.

Idk, I think there are a few that have the potential to be FCS-DI. McGill, Toronto, Queens, Manitoba, UBC, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Calgary all have facilities, decent bases and could slot in to some pre-existing conferences. I think it would be cool if the CIS merged with the NCAA. The merger would probably be the door Alaska football needs.

Aside from the weather issues, travel alone would be a back-breaker for any Alaskan football program. Simon Fraser may be in Canada but it's just barely so, located just across the border in Vancouver.

LDopaPDX wrote:If I'm not mistaken, the only university with any size is AA. I'd love to see them start football.

That said, there are only a handful of places in Alaska that would be all that playable for the late football season. Anchorage would fit the bill as it is more of a Seattle-type climate (rainy, cool, but not crazy-ass cold). Fairbanks is the other major college and would be brutal in November.

And the travel... Keep in mind the NCAA has to feature provisions for teams that travel to Hawaii to entice them to travel there. And comparing Hawaii in November to Alaska is laughable. And due to the distance, Hawaii only has one college football team despite some of the best HS football in the country (more DI kids per capita than any state).

It's called a dome. Look into it.

It looks like the university already has a football field in place that has field turf and it only sits 4,500 fans but looks pretty nice for a small school. Other then that if the Seawolves were to get a football team the only options in terms of conferences would be the Big Sky if they went FCS or the GNAC if they went D2. Along with that they could probably get some money games from playing FBS teams in Washington, Oregon and California or even Hawaii.

SUUTbird wrote:It looks like the university already has a football field in place that has field turf and it only sits 4,500 fans but looks pretty nice for a small school. Other then that if the Seawolves were to get a football team the only options in terms of conferences would be the Big Sky if they went FCS or the GNAC if they went D2. Along with that they could probably get some money games from playing FBS teams in Washington, Oregon and California or even Hawaii.

Oh, for the love of GOD, no!!! That's ALL we need.

canyoncat wrote:Going to take a guess, but probably cost of travel and weather (they would have to have a dome). There is some high school ball, but do they play earlier in the year and not in late fall?

If AA can sponsor a "minor" sport like gymnastics with some modicum of regional success, then why can't they do football? Dopa makes some good points about climate.

canyoncat wrote:Going to take a guess, but probably cost of travel and weather (they would have to have a dome). There is some high school ball, but do they play earlier in the year and not in late fall?

Weather-wise, Anchorage is not nearly as cold in November as what Montana can be. Being on the ocean, it is similar to Seattle and Portland (helluva lot of rain and cool). As far as travel, getting to Anchorage is easier than some Big Sky cities (Flagstaff, Cedar City, Bozeman, Grand Forks, San Luis Obispo).

LDopaPDX wrote:And the travel... Keep in mind the NCAA has to feature provisions for teams that travel to Hawaii to entice them to travel there. And comparing Hawaii in November to Alaska is laughable. And due to the distance, Hawaii only has one college football team despite some of the best HS football in the country (more DI kids per capita than any state).

I can't tell if you're saying if Hawaii can do it so can Alaska, or no way would it make sense for Alaska. If the latter , if the former, no way.

AFAIK, the NCAA's only provision specific to football for somebody playing Hawaii is that they can one extra game that year. The only other provisions for travel are removing the time restrictions for travelling when going to Hawaii OR Alaska (or when teams from HI and AK travel to the continental US).

16.7.2.1 Exceptions. The time limitations related to the provisions of travel expenses do not apply in the following circumstances:
(a) Travel prior to and following contests in Hawaii or Alaska;
(b) Travel prior to and following contest in the 48 contiguous states for member institutions located in
Hawaii or Alaska;

I can't imagine teams would be clamoring to fly to Alaska to play unless those games were in August.

I'm sure the Big East would take them

Theee Catrabbit wrote:I'm sure the Big East would take them

Theee Catrabbit wrote:I'm sure the Big East would take them

So would the WAC.

Money would be a big reason. Alaska-Anchorage and Alaska (formerly known as Alaska-Fairbanks) both sponsor DI hockey. Hockey is expensive especially if you travel from Alaska to almost every team in your conference. This is the last year UAA and UA play in separate conferences (UAA-WCHA, and UA-CCHA). Next season with the creations of the BTHC (Big Ten Hockey Conference), and the NCHC (National Collegiate Hockey Conference) the CCHA disbands and some of those teams, including Alaska, joins the WCHA.