clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Not through with Notre Dame

I wasn't planning to comment on Notre Dame floating a proposal to play a game at the new Yankee Stadium in the near future (likely against Army). I'm not thrilled about them playing there or at the new Giants Stadium, but what can you do. The Yankees and the NJSEA need to worry about the bottom line, and there's always the off chance that it backfires through lackluster ticket sales.

However, the AP version of the story has an interesting line in it. (BTW, from this, I think this is mostly a non-story. YS isn't as good of a football venue as GSII)

Swarbrick said he took a tour of Yankee Stadium and inquired whether a football field would fit, but the game is only in the idea stage.

"There have been no substantive discussions because among the things that we might conclude here is that the economics don't work. So we haven't had any of those," he said.

A game at Yankee Stadium, though, would work into Notre Dame's plan to play one game a season at an offsite venue. The Irish will play their first such game against Washington State at San Antonio, Texas, on Oct. 31.

The Yankees declined comment. They also are interested in possible games with Army, Rutgers and Syracuse.

I'm not opposed to the idea in general of playing at Giants Stadium or Yankee Stadium, but I think the logistics are problematic, especially with a smaller venue like Yankee Stadium. Rutgers now makes more from a home game than it would have from games at Giants Stadium in the proposed arrangement with Notre Dame that never got off the ground, which is why Rutgers ultimately never agreed to the deal. There was no acrimony involved; it was just business. The numbers worked pre-expansion and didn't with a larger stadium and more ticket revenue. Teams with smaller home crowds can afford to forgo their home games for neutral sites that will (the expectation is) largely be packed with Notre Dame fans.