UFC 105
Don Geddis
Oil. But really, sometimes there are martial arts events in the world
too. I didn't see anybody here say anything about Fedor beating Rogers
last weekend. Is the Last Emperor the best 1-on-1 unarmed combat human
that the world has ever seen, thoughout all of history? Could be...
Anyway: Saturday night, UFC 105, SpikeTV (free!). Make your calls.
COUTURE vs VERA. Randy is 46, and his body needs to give out someday.
That said, it hasn't yet. He last two fights (Lesnar, Minotoro) were
losses, but Couture looked good during the losses. There's no shame in
losing to those two guys. Vera, meanwhile, is younger and has a lot of
talent. But Vera's weaknesses unfortunately pair up with Couture's
strengths. Vera is good at striking and submissions, but just ok at
wrestling. (Couture is, or at least was, a world-class wrestler.) Vera
sometimes has weak conditioning, and a weak gameplan. He often
underperforms what on paper should be his abilities. Couture has been
in lots of 5-round wars, and Couture may well be the best game-planning
strategist in the game. Put it together, and I say Couture pulls this
one out, by constantly clinching, dirty boxing, press against the cage,
and GnP.
SWICK vs HARDY. I'm going with Swick, by KO or by Swickotine.
BISPING vs KANG. I think Kang has the better skills on paper, but like
Vera, Kang often seems to underperform his apparent abilities. I call
this one a tossup. If I have to make a choice, I guess I'll go with
Kang.
A few other fights too ... I know of Matt Brown, Aaron Riley, Matthew
Riddle ... but not enough about their opponents to call those fights.
Anybody else?
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?
Sam the Bam
> I know you guys are all busy with Obama and racism and birthers
> and Peak Oil. But really, sometimes there are martial arts events
> in the world too.
Iraq?
> I didn't see anybody here say anything about Fedor beating Rogers
> last weekend. Is the Last Emperor the best 1-on-1 unarmed combat human
> that the world has ever seen, thoughout all of history?
Yes.
And he will remain so, as long as he ducks Brock
Lesnar... (making him not only the best, but also
smartest fighter ever)
> If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?
If you suffered cardiac arrest during sex, would you
be coming and going?
Sam
SPORTfighter
> I know you guys are all busy with Obama and racism and birthers and Peak
> Oil. But really, sometimes there are martial arts events in the world
> too. I didn't see anybody here say anything about Fedor beating Rogers
> last weekend. Is the Last Emperor the best 1-on-1 unarmed combat human
> that the world has ever seen, thoughout all of history? Could be...
>
> Anyway: Saturday night, UFC 105, SpikeTV (free!). Make your calls.
>
> COUTURE vs VERA. Randy is 46, and his body needs to give out someday.
> That said, it hasn't yet. He last two fights (Lesnar, Minotoro) were
> losses, but Couture looked good during the losses. There's no shame in
> losing to those two guys. Vera, meanwhile, is younger and has a lot of
> talent. But Vera's weaknesses unfortunately pair up with Couture's
> strengths. Vera is good at striking and submissions, but just ok at
> wrestling. (Couture is, or at least was, a world-class wrestler.) Vera
> sometimes has weak conditioning, and a weak gameplan. He often
> underperforms what on paper should be his abilities. Couture has been
> in lots of 5-round wars, and Couture may well be the best game-planning
> strategist in the game. Put it together, and I say Couture pulls this
> one out, by constantly clinching, dirty boxing, press against the cage,
> and GnP.
vera standing.probably easily.
> SWICK vs HARDY. I'm going with Swick, by KO or by Swickotine.
swick, just not convinced hardys anything more than an average boxer
with very weak grappling.swick wiull try and win standing and if it
isnt easy he;'ll take it down and run thru him like nuthing
> BISPING vs KANG. I think Kang has the better skills on paper, but like
> Vera, Kang often seems to underperform his apparent abilities. I call
> this one a tossup. If I have to make a choice, I guess I'll go with
> Kang.
skills are similar.kang maybe better.bisping maybe better competitor.
ill go with kang the conquerer too.
Don Geddis
> On Nov 13, 1:37 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
[...]
>> Put it together, and I say Couture pulls this one out, by constantly
>> clinching, dirty boxing, press against the cage, and GnP.
>
> vera standing.probably easily.
Excellent! So that's a really, really different call. It comes down to
whether Couture can force the clinch (and then dominate the takedown),
vs. whether Vera has some kind of Machida-like skills to avoid the
clinch, or at least Liddell-like skills to avoid the takedown and/or get
back up.
I say Vera can't so easily ignore Randy's wrestling. We'll see tomorrow!
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
Barb: "I'd like to help, but I can't."
Brother: "Well, why not?"
Barb: "I have no compassion."
-- The New Adventures of Old Christine
u...@invalid.net
Sam the Bam <samth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes.
> And he will remain so, as long as he ducks Brock
> Lesnar... (making him not only the best, but also
> smartest fighter ever)
He isn't ducking Lesnar, any more than he was ducking Randy
Couture when he refused to join UFC while _he_ was the HW champion.
Ron
> On Nov 13, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
>
> > I didn't see anybody here say anything about Fedor beating Rogers
> > last weekend. Is the Last Emperor the best 1-on-1 unarmed combat human
> > that the world has ever seen, thoughout all of history?
>
> Yes.
> And he will remain so, as long as he ducks Brock
> Lesnar... (making him not only the best, but also
> smartest fighter ever)
How EXACTLY is he ducking BL?
Jimmy Egan
Fedor tried an arm bar and how easily Fedor literally slid out from under
Rogers. Fedor is a wise and crafty MMA artist. Sure he took a pounding but
he has always come out the winner. You would have to be Fedor to beat Fedor
--
JIMMY
"It's never to late to do nothing at all"
Allen Ginsberg
Marcello
"Ron" <BigEL...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:88307065-477a-426e...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
_________________
He is not ducking anyone, and I don't think deep down anyone honestly thinks
Fedor is afraid to fight anyone. Many do believe, and perhaps rightly so,
that he willingly let business and/or personal pride get in the way of
fighting the best remaining fighter available to him to fight.
I believe Fedor would handle Brock 9 times out of 10 right now, and if Fedor
had retired today he would easily go down as the best HW ever, and possibly
the best P4P ever as well. But Brock is only getting better, and there may
come a time when Brock has gained enough skill to add to his other
attributes beat Fedor convincingly. Every fight that Fedor takes that gets
him no closer to fighting Brock is a step in the wrong direction in terms of
the perception of who is the best HW in the world.
Fedor's legacy can hardly be improved by fighting anyone outside the UFC, so
at best he is just going to maintain his legacy by winning? Fedor is a
bleeder, he is susceptible to a decision loss to a lessor fighter one day in
a fight where he doesn't come from behind for an amazing finish, so he does
also have a lot to lose. Meanwhile, every fight Brock wins and every skill
he improves ads more credence to the notion that he might be the best HW in
the world. As much as I hate to admit it, at this pace, I believe one day
he will be too much for Fedor (maybe 2-3 years from now) as he really does
seem to improve with every fight.
So, as a fan of Fedor and good MMA, I find it very disappointing the actions
that Fedor took no matter what his reasons, and although I don't think he is
ducking anyone, I think finding the UFC so unacceptable when so many greats
in he UFC have no issues is a very weak decision made by Fedor.
u...@invalid.net
Marcello <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
> So, as a fan of Fedor and good MMA, I find it very disappointing the actions
> that Fedor took no matter what his reasons, and although I don't think he is
> ducking anyone, I think finding the UFC so unacceptable when so many greats
> in he UFC have no issues is a very weak decision made by Fedor.
I'm still hoping the contrary. I hope Fedor's greatest legacy is
to bring down the UFC. I believe the show they put on was
entertaining enough for the masses, and it was free. They've got
Arlovsky, TS, Werdum, Fedor, and a bunch of others. If they can
keep putting on shows like that, I know I'll be watching.
Marcello
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:8r6dnWiDkpD...@giganews.com...
How can you call yourself a fan of MMA and want the organization that puts
on about 80% of the shows to go under?
u...@invalid.net
Marcello <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
False dichotomy. You act like the option is either support UFC,
or eliminate MMA. "Shows" don't have to be put on by UFC to be
good "shows". Another organization can put on "shows". Of
course the support has to grow, then they can put on more and
more shows with better fighters, etc.
Marcello
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:j4-dnVPEX-S...@giganews.com...
No, you specifically said "bring down the UFC", and now are backtracking.
Its not worth arguing, I just think such an ideal is ridiculous. The moment
MMA reaches a level where one major organization is successful and on
national television we all win...just like with the NFL, MLB, or any other
major sports organization...and the UFC is the closest one there.
u...@invalid.net
Marcello <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> False dichotomy. You act like the option is either support UFC, or
>> > eliminate MMA. "Shows" don't have to be put on by UFC to be good "shows".
>> > Another organization can put on "shows". Of course the support has to
>> > grow, then they can put on more and more shows with better fighters, etc.
> No, you specifically said "bring down the UFC", and now are backtracking.
We're not talking about UFC instantaneously going out of
business, and Strikeforce or M1 instantly taking over all MMA.
I'm talking about a transition from UFC to another group, over a
period of several years.
> Its not worth arguing, I just think such an ideal is ridiculous. The moment
> MMA reaches a level where one major organization is successful and on
> national television we all win...just like with the NFL, MLB, or any other
> major sports organization...and the UFC is the closest one there.
Another UFC apologist.
Marcello
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:EoKdnZlz14i...@giganews.com...
What specifically is it you do not like about the UFC?
> Another UFC apologist.
>
>
Marcello
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:EoKdnZlz14i...@giganews.com...
> Another UFC apologist.
What exaclty does the UFC need to aplogize for?
The UFC has put on a card every month for the last several years with
marquee matchups in 90% of the cards. Added to that is TUF and the numerous
free shows which I think total about 12 more a year. The UFC has run its
business model profitably ensuring long term stability while other
organizations ran themselves into the ground and dropped shows. The UFC has
brought MMA mainstream so that now MMA is considered noteworthy among all
the major sporting news reporting agencies. UFC is far from perfect, but I
have enjoyed a lot of great MMA over the years.
Compare that to Strikeforce which has the fantastic opportunity of having
their fights free on CBS which would not likely be afforded to them had the
UFC not gained its massive popularity in the US. Stikeforce runs its
business in a manner which permits it champions to go AWOL for years,
leaving fans void of top matchups. I am not against Strikeforce and if will
watch any fights they offer of interest to me, but if any organization
should be apologizing it should be the one that can't even get its supposed
top fighters to fight in a given year.
Lotto
"Jimmy Egan" <jue...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4aff09eb$0$22527$607e...@cv.net...
#You would have to be Fedor to beat Fedor#
Very well put :-)
u...@invalid.net
Marcello <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
> What exaclty does the UFC need to aplogize for?
An apologist isn't someone who apologizes for something, but
someone who defends it. In this case, what I object to is the
idea that it's UFC or bust, like we owe it to UFC to be loyal
financial supporters who go about faithfully preaching and
defending the gospel of UFC.
The argument has never been that UFC has been useless and boring,
but that
the Fertita brothers, in my opinion, are totally arrogant and
greedy bastards.
1) They don't seem to pay their fighters enough.
2) They seem to try and monopolize all money-making rights of
their fighters
3) You have to pay to see the fights, which means some people are
excluded
from watching them. And yes, that includes what they air
for "free" on
Spike, because you have to pay for access to that channel.
The only thing
they really offer for free, is UFC wired.
Don Geddis
much better than Couture, standing. Every time they were apart,
standing, was great danger for old, slow Couture.
However, Vera didn't win, certainly not easily.
I was right that Couture could force the clinch, and the vast majority
of the fight was against the cage. But Randy couldn't get the takedown!
That was a surprise to me. He got the clinch (over and over again), but
Vera's grappling skills were good enough to neutralize Randy's
takedowns.
As for the decision ... this was pretty much a draw. Randy wins on ring
control, I guess. Vera did pretty much all the damage. But 90% of the
fight was clinched against the cage, and that's what Randy wanted and
Vera didn't want, so Randy got to decide how the fight went.
I have to admit, I don't think Randy is any threat to Machida. Or
Shogun. Or even Chuck Liddell, if he decides to fight again.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We
might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
Greendistantstar
> So, we were basically both wrong. You were right, that Vera was much,
> much better than Couture, standing. Every time they were apart,
> standing, was great danger for old, slow Couture.
>
> However, Vera didn't win, certainly not easily.
>
> I was right that Couture could force the clinch, and the vast majority
> of the fight was against the cage. But Randy couldn't get the takedown!
> That was a surprise to me. He got the clinch (over and over again), but
> Vera's grappling skills were good enough to neutralize Randy's
> takedowns.
>
> As for the decision ... this was pretty much a draw. Randy wins on ring
> control, I guess. Vera did pretty much all the damage. But 90% of the
> fight was clinched against the cage, and that's what Randy wanted and
> Vera didn't want, so Randy got to decide how the fight went.
>
> I have to admit, I don't think Randy is any threat to Machida. Or
> Shogun. Or even Chuck Liddell, if he decides to fight again.
I'm glad I don't bet...I'd have lost a bundle...didn't pick any of these results.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Marcello
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:vtWdnZ-eorO...@giganews.com...
> On Sat, 11/14/09, at 4:05:52PM,
> Marcello <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> What exaclty does the UFC need to aplogize for?
>
>
> An apologist isn't someone who apologizes for something, but someone who
> defends it. In this case, what I object to is the idea that it's UFC or
> bust, like we owe it to UFC to be loyal financial supporters who go about
> faithfully preaching and defending the gospel of UFC.
But I specifically responded to your comment that you want to bring down the
UFC. The UFC currently puts on about 90% of all the shows and when you
include the WEC, it even much higher than that. I have no loyalty to the UFC
other than they are currently where I get to see the most and best MMA. You
still have not given any reasonable answer as to why you would want to
eliminate that, and I doubt there is one reasonable answer. As long as they
put on the best fights and do it often, they have my support. You can call
me all the names in the world, but at least I am giving legitimate reasons
for how I feel.
> 1) They don't seem to pay their fighters enough.
Except they have the vast majority of all the fighters happily under
contract. Meanwhile, the organizations that somehow pay the fighter enough
tend to keep going under. If you are expecting everyone to always be happy
you don't understand business. There are just as many fighters who are
demanding above their market value as there are possibly underpaid. But
what difference does it matter to you how much a fighter even gets paid if
you are seeing quality fights? It would seem you are just an apologist for
the fighters then, by your reasoning.
> 2) They seem to try and monopolize all money-making rights of their
> fighters
Based on the complaints of a few fighters. What about all the fighters who
happily receive extra money from all the things the UFC promotes for them.
Perhaps you need to be a little more open minded rather than listed to only
negative media. Again, if by your definition of being an apologist is mere
defending a position than you are a blatant fighter apologist, defending
perhaps even those fighters who are exceptionally greedy.
> 3) You have to pay to see the fights, which means some people are excluded
> from watching them. And yes, that includes what they air for "free"
> on
> Spike, because you have to pay for access to that channel. The only
> thing
> they really offer for free, is UFC wired.
The reason people pay is because there is value in what they offer. The UFC
has might higher value than any other organization evidenced by what people
pay. Maybe if less people like you tried to steal the product watching it
for free on the internet (something you have admitted before) the price
would not be need to be as high.
You also overlook the fact that the UFC is on the path of eventually gaining
large network contracts which ultimately will make their fighter free. It
has been poor organizations like Elite XC and Stirkeforce that have been
willing to take bad contracts with national networks (bad being contracts
the UFC deemed unacceptable) which has been their only deterrent. Had these
poorer organization not been wiling to step in CBS likely would have been
more willing to compromise and one day will still likely realize that they
made a mistake going with MMA promotions other than the UFC since the UFC
totally dominates the market.
Root for whatever you want, but don't kid yourself into thinking the UFC is
somehow the bad guy in MMA. Nearly all the benefits we get from MMA today
come from what the UFC has done over the years.
Don Geddis
> [...] UFC [...]
> 1) They don't seem to pay their fighters enough.
[...]
> 3) You have to pay to see the fights, which means some people are excluded
> from watching them.
Let me see if I understand this. You would be happier if the UFC both
paid its suppliers (the fighters) a whole lot more, while at the same
time charging its customers (the viewers) a whole lot less? Free, in fact?
I'd also love it if Bill Gates just decided to give me a few billion of
his dollars. That's be cool.
Let me guess. You've never had a real job? You have no idea how any
business works?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it,
and I just hate it. -- Clarence Darrow
u...@invalid.net
Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
> "u...@invalid.net" <u...@invalid.net> wrote on Sun, 15 Nov 2009:
>
>> > [...] UFC [...]
>> > 1) They don't seem to pay their fighters enough.
> [...]
>> > 3) You have to pay to see the fights, which means some people are excluded
>> > from watching them.
> Let me see if I understand this. You would be happier if the UFC both
> paid its suppliers (the fighters) a whole lot more, while at the same
> time charging its customers (the viewers) a whole lot less? Free, in fact?
Yeah. Ever heard of network television? You pay by purchasing
the products of those who advertise. It's been working just fine
for decades now.
> I'd also love it if Bill Gates just decided to give me a few billion of
> his dollars. That's be cool.
>
> Let me guess. You've never had a real job? You have no idea how any
> business works?
On the contrary. I'm a self-employed contractor.
SPORTfighter
the above is why im an mma coach.
im a fucking idiot whpo cant hold a real job.
Marcello
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:DLmdnW8HlYN...@giganews.com...
Who finds 50 bucks a month so offensive to pay for fights that he steal by
watching them on TV. You must be doing great.
You also missed the point, since you want the UFC to pay more for fighters
but want them to charge less at the same time. Your complaint should be
that they don't have a network contract, and the reason is because lessor
organizations are willing to take a lot less for the same rights...such as
Stikeforece.
u...@invalid.net
Marcello <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
> You also missed the point, since you want the UFC to pay more for fighters
> but want them to charge less at the same time.
You're an idiot. Did you ever pay to watch Leno or Letterman?
Well then, how do they get paid $15,000,000 per year? Commercial
advertising.
trav...@aol.com
> > You also missed the point, since you want the UFC to pay more for fighters
> > but want them to charge less at the same time.
>
> You're an idiot. Did you ever pay to watch Leno or Letterman?
> Well then, how do they get paid $15,000,000 per year? Commercial
> advertising.
Don't buy the products if you don't like them.
Enough of the gibs me dat
Trav
Don Geddis
> On Sun, 11/15/09, at 1:52:50PM,
> Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
>> "u...@invalid.net" <u...@invalid.net> wrote on Sun, 15 Nov 2009:
>>> > [...] UFC [...]
>>> > 1) They don't seem to pay their fighters enough.
>>> > excluded from watching them.
>> Let me see if I understand this. You would be happier if the UFC both
>> paid its suppliers (the fighters) a whole lot more, while at the same
>> time charging its customers (the viewers) a whole lot less? Free, in fact?
> Yeah. Ever heard of network television? You pay by purchasing the products
> of those who advertise. It's been working just fine for decades now.
Let's see how much you understand about the television business.
Why are there EVER pay-per-view events? Why is most high-profile boxing
on PPV? But the Superbowl isn't?
If you're an organizer/promoter of a given event, what determines
whether you would make more money delivering your product via PPV,
vs. via advertising-supported "free" television?
(I note, by the way, the the UFC has both. TUF and Fight Nights are on
advertising-supported SpikeTV, while the main UFC cards are on PPV. Why
is that, do you think? What's the business philosophy that leads to
different choices for these different events?)
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
While travelling near Tampa, Florida I passed the "Jehovah's Witness Assembly
Hall" and was struck by the fact that that must be where they make them.
James L. Hankins
"Don Geddis" <d...@geddis.org> wrote in message
news:878we6i...@geddis.org...
The "business philosophy" is which one makes the most money for the
person/entity in charge; and whether the person/entity in charge is a
broadcast company or a promotor. It ain't rocket science.
But what's your point? Just asking a bunch of rhetorical questions like
you're giving a lecture doesn't address or undermine the point The Invalid
made in response to the previous poster.
yugffuts
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow, I thought SanityCruiser came back for a minute there...
Invalid is comparing the UFC to Jay Leno, so I'll stick with
that...Google shows that Jay earns anywhere from $15 to $30M per
year. We'll assume that's for his TV show alone, and I'll stick with
the highest figure.
$30M per year. His show is on 5 days a week. There are 260 weekdays
in a year (give or take - subtract for days off as you see fit). That
means he makes $115K per episode. Each episode is 1 hour, and can
sell 15 minutes of advertising. That's 65 hours or advertising time
over the course of the year. Or, $4K per 30 second spot to pay Jay's
salary. Granted, that doesn't pay the other talent, producers,
cameramen, etc...but I also used the high end estimate of salary, so I
would think it evens out.
Now lets look at UFC 104. Disclosed FIGHTER payroll is $922,000.
Again, that's before promotion, on air talent (rogan/Goldberg), camera
men, etc. Just fighters. And is before bonuses are awarded.
http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=9873&zoneid=4
You really want to apply that model to the UFC? An entity that runs
maybe 2-3 shows a months, 3 hours each. Roughly 45 minutes of
advertisements per 3 hour event, and as a live sporting event, that
time isn't guaranteed. Assuming the 104 salary, and 3 events per
month, that would be a Fighter payout of $33M over the course of a
year. That would be 27 hours of advertising over the course of the
year. Or, $10K per 30 second spot.
You see how that doesn't work? And UFC 104 (Shogun-Machida) isn't
even a particularly high payout for an event. For example, UFC 102
had a payout over 1.5M.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/245795-punchouts-and-payouts-ufc-102-salary-info-released
No problem, though. We'll just sell our ads for more money, right?
And we'll figure out a way to increase the fighter salary at the same
time.
Lurker
> "Sam the Bam" <samth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:160b1761-4a17-4546...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 13, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
> > I know you guys are all busy with Obama and racism and birthers
> > and Peak Oil. But really, sometimes there are martial arts events
> > in the world too.
> Iraq?
> > I didn't see anybody here say anything about Fedor beating Rogers
> > last weekend. Is the Last Emperor the best 1-on-1 unarmed combat human
> > that the world has ever seen, thoughout all of history?
> Yes.
> And he will remain so, as long as he ducks Brock
> Lesnar... (making him not only the best, but also
> smartest fighter ever)
> If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?
> If you suffered cardiac arrest during sex, would you
> be coming and going?
> Sam
... and if you die on the down stroke, you a get a free one when they pull
you off.
James L. Hankins
"yugffuts" <tomca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f40311c-38e1-495e...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>Invalid is comparing the UFC to Jay Leno, so I'll stick with
>that...Google shows that Jay earns anywhere from $15 to $30M per
>year. We'll assume that's for his TV show alone, and I'll stick with
>the highest figure.
No, he's comparing PPV vs. free television. What Jay Leno or any other
individual entertainer or on-air talent makes is not relevant to anything.
>$30M per year. His show is on 5 days a week. There are 260 weekdays
>in a year (give or take - subtract for days off as you see fit). That
>means he makes $115K per episode. Each episode is 1 hour, and can
>sell 15 minutes of advertising. That's 65 hours or advertising time
>over the course of the year. Or, $4K per 30 second spot to pay Jay's
>salary. Granted, that doesn't pay the other talent, producers,
>cameramen, etc...but I also used the high end estimate of salary, so I
>would think it evens out.
>Now lets look at UFC 104. Disclosed FIGHTER payroll is $922,000.
>Again, that's before promotion, on air talent (rogan/Goldberg), camera
>men, etc. Just fighters. And is before bonuses are awarded.
>http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=9873&zoneid=4
>You really want to apply that model to the UFC? An entity that runs
>maybe 2-3 shows a months, 3 hours each. Roughly 45 minutes of
>advertisements per 3 hour event, and as a live sporting event, that
>time isn't guaranteed. Assuming the 104 salary, and 3 events per
>month, that would be a Fighter payout of $33M over the course of a
>year. That would be 27 hours of advertising over the course of the
>year. Or, $10K per 30 second spot.
>You see how that doesn't work?
Doesn't work for who? The network or for Dana White and the UFC?
The Invalid's point (and I can be corrected on this) is that
advertiser-based television might be an alternative to PPV. I don't think
it's out of the question.
>And UFC 104 (Shogun-Machida) isn't even a particularly high payout for an
>event. For example, UFC 102
>had a payout over 1.5M.
>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/245795-punchouts-and-payouts-ufc-102-salary-info-released
>No problem, though. We'll just sell our ads for more money, right?
>And we'll figure out a way to increase the fighter salary at the same
>time.
Does it work for the NFL? The poster before asked why isn't the Superbowl
on PPV. That's an interesting question.
Mr.Will
"James L. Hankins" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MOjMm.34325$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
NFL surely reaches a huge audience, thus attracts lots of advertising etc.
I would suggest as a sport MMA still has an underground "fight club" image
and has nowhere near the same audience and ability to attact advertisers in
comparison.
PPV is usually because its the better source of revenue.
Mr.Will
SPORTfighter
well if you wanna get etchnical a frind counted the money in my wallet
today and it was 3,600.mostly 100's
it was in there for no reason, it just adds up.when my wallet wouldnt
close he wondered why.
honestly tho i drav a shit car, and have little to show for my work, i
got more cash squirrled away than the guys making over 100 gs i know,
by far,
i got simple tastes, little reason to spend, but if i wanna fly to
vegas this wekend and lose 20 large it wouldnt even nruin my week.
> You also missed the point, since you want the UFC to pay more for fighters
> but want them to charge less at the same time.
i said that? im the original capitalist, they can charge whatever, i
just wont pay 45 on a shit card on pricibel.
frankly im bored of mma come saturday night having live dit all week,
not just train and teach iof but hours on cell and email negotiating
fights for a 25 man fight team, privates, lifting and running for mma,
fitness classes, hearing guys all week talk of the ufc.
hety you know when i fouynd out ther was a ufc saturday? here on brma.
and i put it totally out of my mind cause last two weekends i spent
going to shows where my guys were fighting.
i talk to spnsers and shit.
i mean it beats a real job, dpont get my wrong.by far.
but i need a great ufc card to wanna see it really.
Your complaint should be
> that they don't have a network contract, and the reason is because lessor
> organizations are willing to take a lot less for the same rights...such as
> Stikeforece.
my complaint is fancy fags like you, that wanna talk ufc all fucking
day on the web cause uyou waint man enough to fight for yourself.
and a close second in the smell of your moms snatch.
Don Geddis
> The "business philosophy" is which one makes the most money for the
> person/entity in charge;
Of course, of course. But I was asking what factors make some sporting
events more profitable on PPV, while others are more profitable on (free)
broadcast TV.
> It ain't rocket science.
Oh, but you haven't yet figured out why most (but not all!) UFC events
are PPV events. Especially the biggest ones. Yes, surely it makes them
more money. But why is that? Why wouldn't the Superbowl make more
money as a PPV?
> But what's your point? Just asking a bunch of rhetorical questions like
> you're giving a lecture doesn't address or undermine the point The Invalid
> made in response to the previous poster.
The original (inane) point was that the UFC "should" both pay their
fighters more, and also put their shows on for free (to the viewer).
Not because this was good business; apparently instead out of some
notion that the UFC must be a kind of charity, putting on MMA shows for
the good of the world.
I was just pointing out that asking a business to both reduce revenue
and also increase costs, as a choice, is kind of stupid.
It's also worth noting that there have been a whole bunch of other
organizations that have tried to put on MMA shows in the US (Extreme
Fighting, MARS, EliteXC, etc.) and pretty much -- aside from the UFC --
they've all quickly gone bankrupt. And it's not just a first-mover
thing; the UFC wasn't all that important either, until Dana White took
over. Whatever you might think of the man, he's clearly MUCH better at
making business decisions than anybody else in the business.
Anyway, the answer to the PPV vs. free TV thing has to do with the
audience. Ad-supported TV works for events that have broad-based appeal
in the public. You need a whole lot of people who want to watch. They
don't have to care too much individually, but just enough to tune in.
Then you sell their attention to advertisers. That works for Seinfeld
and the Superbowl.
Events like MMA have only a tiny audience ... but one that cares very
much. MMA is a long, long way from broad-based public appeal. But for
those few who are interested, they're _so_ interested that they're
willing to pay for it. Hence, a PPV model is viable. Ad-supported
shows (TUF, Fight Nights) can work, but only if you cut salaries WAY
down. Given MMA audiences, you'll never get the $100K+ fighter salaries
without PPV. It's simply the case that not enough people choose to
watch these things, as everybody who tries it finds out.
That's why the OP was stupid to demand both higher fighter salaries and
also free TV. That's the path to corporate bankruptcy, as a bunch of
organizations have already discovered.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
Too bad you can't buy a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin real
fast and freak everybody out. -- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988
Marcello
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:xumdndAYYdh...@giganews.com...
> On Sun, 11/15/09, at 7:20:03PM,
> Marcello <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> You also missed the point, since you want the UFC to pay more for
>> fighters
>> but want them to charge less at the same time.
>
>
> You're an idiot. Did you ever pay to watch Leno or Letterman?
It was only a matter of time until you had to resort to name calling. Way
to crop out the point you totally missed...yet again.
Marcello
"Mr.Will" <wi...@mr-will.co.uk> wrote in message
news:U1kMm.99510$MG6....@newsfe13.ams2...
You guys are making it way too complicated. The UFC earns predominantly via
PPV because it has not yet reached a capacity attractive enough for any
network to offer it a deal to match those earnings. CBS is paying
Strikeforce a lot less than they would have to pay the UFC. There will be a
point where the UFC can generate so big an audience to make it worthwhile
for a network to offer more money than the UFC is currently earning in PPV
dollars, but as of yet, that has not happened. If the UFC keeps on growing,
there is no reason to think it won't, and that will be a great day for
everyone, fighters, fans, the Network, and the UFC (maybe not for invalid
though who is clearly too emotionally wrapped up in his unfounded hatred
towards the UFC.
Marcello
> advertiser-based television might be an alternative to PPV. I don't think
> it's out of the question.
This was not his point. He brought this up after being exposed for a poor
argument against the UFC when he complained that the UFC doesn't pay its
fighters enough and also charges too much. Invalid completely missed the
point that one of the main elements that stands in the way of the UFC having
a network contract that would PERMIT them to pay fighter more and not have
to charge for their fights is lessor organizations like Strikeforce
accepting much lower paying network contracts. The UFC is not going to
accept less money than they earn in PPVs just to be on TV, that only makes
logical sense in invalids irrational thinking.
Everyone agrees that a network deal for the UFC is ultimately best for
everyone...and as far as having few events and huge payrolls, it doesn't
seem to stop the PGA from succeeding in that model. But hating on the UFC
because they are not there yet is asinine. But again, it was invalid making
the point, so no shocker.
James L. Hankins
> "James L. Hankins" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009:
>> The "business philosophy" is which one makes the most money for the
>> person/entity in charge;
>
> Of course, of course. But I was asking what factors make some sporting
> events more profitable on PPV, while others are more profitable on (free)
> broadcast TV.
More profitable ***FOR WHOM***??? You can't just ask about profit without
reference to the entity making the profit. That's why the questions don't
mean much.
>> It ain't rocket science.
>
> Oh, but you haven't yet figured out why most (but not all!) UFC events
> are PPV events. Especially the biggest ones. Yes, surely it makes them
> more money. But why is that? Why wouldn't the Superbowl make more
> money as a PPV?
Makes "them" more money? WHO?
Jeebus, dude, we all know how television works. You don't have to act like
you've got some sooper sekrit knowledge. The coy act is a little annoying.
The networks buy programming from entities such as the NFL through licensing
and then collect money from advertisers, whereas PPV is a product put on
directly by the provider (in this case the UFC).
You seem to assume that the Superbowl would not make money as a PPV, but
that seems rather shortsighted to me. I doubt the NFL would do that (or
could do that under its current network contracts), but it isn't far-fetched
an idea at all.
>> But what's your point? Just asking a bunch of rhetorical questions like
>> you're giving a lecture doesn't address or undermine the point The
>> Invalid
>> made in response to the previous poster.
>
> The original (inane) point was that the UFC "should" both pay their
> fighters more, and also put their shows on for free (to the viewer).
> Not because this was good business; apparently instead out of some
> notion that the UFC must be a kind of charity, putting on MMA shows for
> the good of the world.
I don't think The Invalid was advocating it as the best business model, just
an alternative to what we have now. It probably would not work just because
the UFC would not draw top-paying advertising like the NFL, but there is
nothing wrong with the model.
> I was just pointing out that asking a business to both reduce revenue
> and also increase costs, as a choice, is kind of stupid.
It's only stupid if there is no chance of long-term gain from such an
investment, which is far from being the case as far as I can tell.
> It's also worth noting that there have been a whole bunch of other
> organizations that have tried to put on MMA shows in the US (Extreme
> Fighting, MARS, EliteXC, etc.) and pretty much -- aside from the UFC --
> they've all quickly gone bankrupt. And it's not just a first-mover
> thing; the UFC wasn't all that important either, until Dana White took
> over. Whatever you might think of the man, he's clearly MUCH better at
> making business decisions than anybody else in the business.
Sure, he's an innovative thinker in this area. But all that is beside the
discussion at hand.
> Anyway, the answer to the PPV vs. free TV thing has to do with the
> audience. Ad-supported TV works for events that have broad-based appeal
> in the public. You need a whole lot of people who want to watch. They
> don't have to care too much individually, but just enough to tune in.
> Then you sell their attention to advertisers. That works for Seinfeld
> and the Superbowl.
>
> Events like MMA have only a tiny audience ... but one that cares very
> much. MMA is a long, long way from broad-based public appeal. But for
> those few who are interested, they're _so_ interested that they're
> willing to pay for it. Hence, a PPV model is viable. Ad-supported
> shows (TUF, Fight Nights) can work, but only if you cut salaries WAY
> down. Given MMA audiences, you'll never get the $100K+ fighter salaries
> without PPV. It's simply the case that not enough people choose to
> watch these things, as everybody who tries it finds out.
Uh, yeah, all that's common knowledge.
> That's why the OP was stupid to demand both higher fighter salaries and
> also free TV. That's the path to corporate bankruptcy, as a bunch of
> organizations have already discovered.
Or, it could be the path to much larger mainstream exposure and growth.
Dana White realizes this because, as you indicated earlier, he thinks
outside the box on these things rather than your linear-type thinking.
That's why TUF is such a masterstroke by White. It's an incremental step
toward what the OP suggested without the concommitant risks identified by
you.
James L. Hankins
"Marcello" <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:HpoMm.12219$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
> You guys are making it way too complicated. The UFC earns predominantly
> via PPV because it has not yet reached a capacity attractive enough for
> any network to offer it a deal to match those earnings. CBS is paying
> Strikeforce a lot less than they would have to pay the UFC. There will be
> a point where the UFC can generate so big an audience to make it
> worthwhile for a network to offer more money than the UFC is currently
> earning in PPV dollars, but as of yet, that has not happened. If the UFC
> keeps on growing, there is no reason to think it won't, and that will be a
> great day for everyone, fighters, fans, the Network, and the UFC (maybe
> not for invalid though who is clearly too emotionally wrapped up in his
> unfounded hatred towards the UFC.
That's exactly right. But the criticism by Geddis was that such a notion is
ludicrous for the UFC, which I think doesn't give White enough credit. He's
getting there.
Marcello
Geddis lacks an understanding of history. There was a time when boxing was
not PPV and was on free. MMA has all the potential to reach the heights of
boxing's heyday. My feeling is that the UFC can model its events after the
manner in which the PGA is operated. The PGA affords a lot more money to
its athletes than the UFC does to its, so there is a lot of room in-between.
The UFC is able to reach about 1 million in PPV buys, and I bet it would
reach at least 10 times that regularity if it was free, and that is by
today's standards. The sport is growing steadily, who knows how big it will
be in 10 years.
YumYumPandaburger
wrote:
Just be glad you didn't watch this dreadfull UFC live...
Mr.Will
Heya bro, thats what I was saying, you just said it better!
u...@invalid.net
yugffuts <tomca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No problem, though. We'll just sell our ads for more money, right?
> And we'll figure out a way to increase the fighter salary at the same
> time.
Does the "gate" include the pay-per-view earnings, or is that
just from those who attend the event? For example, UFC 66 had a
$5,397,300 gate. UFC 100 had $5.1 million. Throw in T-shirt and
other sales, etc.
u...@invalid.net
Marcello <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "James L. Hankins"<jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:MOjMm.34325$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
>> > The Invalid's point (and I can be corrected on this) is that
>> > advertiser-based television might be an alternative to PPV. I don't think
>> > it's out of the question.
> This was not his point.
Yes it was. I'm not going to pay $35.00 per month to upgrade
cable to get Spike and pay-per-view options, then another $40.00
or $50.00 to watch a PPV. That means I don't get to watch UFC
events, except on video links.
And what are "gate" earnings? Isn't that the amount they make
just from the people who attend the event in person? If so,
they've been making up to $5+ million, just from that alone.
Then there are sponsors, clothing sales, etc.
> Everyone agrees that a network deal for the UFC is ultimately best for
> everyone...
Then what are you arguing about? That is the point.
> and as far as having few events and huge payrolls, it doesn't
> seem to stop the PGA from succeeding in that model.
ibid.
> But hating on the UFC
> because they are not there yet is asinine.
Then how is Strikeforce already there on network TV? I don't
think the problem is that poor little UFC just can't afford to go
on network television. I think the problem is they're greedy
bastards.
yugffuts
> > No problem, though. We'll just sell our ads for more money, right?
> > And we'll figure out a way to increase the fighter salary at the same
> > time.
>
> Does the "gate" include the pay-per-view earnings, or is that
> just from those who attend the event? For example, UFC 66 had a
> $5,397,300 gate. UFC 100 had $5.1 million. Throw in T-shirt and
> other sales, etc.
Of course there is other revenue. Bud pays to be in the center of the
octagon, "this fight is brought to you by...", etc. I acknowledged
that. You have to acknowledge the reverse. Fighter payroll is one
small percentage of the cost. Television production, satellite
rental, production, on-air talent, judges, promotion, setup, etc.
Then split the profits with the cable companies, split the concessions
with the venue, etc, etc...
I don't claim to know everything there is to know about the business.
I'm just not arrogant enough to look in from the outside and tell
people that DO know (in this case, Dana White & the UFC) how to do it
better.
yugffuts
>
> > No problem, though. We'll just sell our ads for more money, right?
> > And we'll figure out a way to increase the fighter salary at the same
> > time.
>
> Does the "gate" include the pay-per-view earnings, or is that
> just from those who attend the event? For example, UFC 66 had a
> $5,397,300 gate. UFC 100 had $5.1 million. Throw in T-shirt and
> other sales, etc.
BTW, I think gate is just ticket sales. I could be wrong, though.
James L. Hankins
> Geddis lacks an understanding of history. There was a time when boxing
> was not PPV and was on free. MMA has all the potential to reach the
> heights of boxing's heyday. My feeling is that the UFC can model its
> events after the manner in which the PGA is operated. The PGA affords a
> lot more money to its athletes than the UFC does to its, so there is a lot
> of room in-between. The UFC is able to reach about 1 million in PPV buys,
> and I bet it would reach at least 10 times that regularity if it was free,
> and that is by today's standards. The sport is growing steadily, who
> knows how big it will be in 10 years.
Boxing is an excellent analogy in this case, and I agree fully. TUF and the
other MMA shows on free television are laying the groundwork even as we
speak.
u...@invalid.net
James L. Hankins <jhan...@cox.net> wrote:
> I don't think The Invalid was advocating it as the best business model, just
> an alternative to what we have now. It probably would not work just because
> the UFC would not draw top-paying advertising like the NFL, but there is
> nothing wrong with the model.
1) Sold out advertising
CBS Sold Out � It appears that corporate America knows a good
promotional opportunity when they see one as they were quick to
jump on the �Strikeforce: Fedor vs. Rogers� bandwagon. CBS has
announced they have sold out all available advertising space for
this Saturday�s highly anticipated broadcast.
(http://www.5thround.com/articles/15108/cbs-sells-out-strikeforce-fedor-vs-rogers/)
2) "blue-chip" sponsors
CBS sold out its advertising inventory well ahead of the event,
with blue-chip sponsors, including Pfizer, Dodge and Burger King,
on board.
(http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/elsewhere/2009/nov/09/fedor-v-rogers-delivers-solid-ratings-cbs/)
3) Ratings victory
The final Nielsen ratings are in and 5.46 million viewers tuned
in Saturday to watch Strikeforce and M-1 Global's main event
between Fedor Emelianenko vs. Brett Rogers from 11PM to 11:15PM
ET on CBS, FanHouse has learned.
The numbers for the entire Saturday Night Fights broadcast, which
included Jake Shields vs. Jason "Mayhem" Miller, Gegard Mousasi
vs. Rameau Thierry Sokoudjou and Fabricio Werdum vs. Antonio
Silva, earned the network a 2.5 rating for 4.042 million viewers
from 9PM to 11:24PM ET.
While CBS still fell short to Fox and ABC, the channel was a big
winner in the 18-34 demographic. Saturday Night Fights was the
top program for both adults and men 18-34, beating out college
football and was an improvement of 283% on CBS' season-to-date
average on Saturday nights.
4) Capacity gate
Emelianenko-Rogers headlined CBS' "Saturday Night Fights" card of
four bouts promoted by Strikeforce/M-1, with a near-capacity
crowd of 11,500 filling the Sears Centre near Chicago.
(http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-fedor10-2009nov10,0,2976507.story)
5) $400,000 purse
Scott Coker, Strikeforce chief executive, said because Saturday's
fights delivered "those 18-34 male [viewership] numbers in a big
way," CBS will televise future cards. Emelianenko earned $400,000
on Saturday night. A CBS spokesman said no decision has been made
on whether the network would telecast another Strikeforce card,
although Saturday's bouts drew new viewers to the network.
(ibid.)
Marcello
<u...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:wP-dnTZYlqo...@giganews.com...
> On Mon, 11/16/09, at 9:10:20PM,
> Marcello <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "James L. Hankins"<jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:MOjMm.34325$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
>>> > The Invalid's point (and I can be corrected on this) is that
>>> > advertiser-based television might be an alternative to PPV. I don't
>>> > think
>>> > it's out of the question.
>> This was not his point.
>
>
> Yes it was. I'm not going to pay $35.00 per month to upgrade cable to get
> Spike and pay-per-view options, then another $40.00 or $50.00 to watch a
> PPV. That means I don't get to watch UFC events, except on video links.
>
> And what are "gate" earnings? Isn't that the amount they make just from
> the people who attend the event in person? If so, they've been making up
> to $5+ million, just from that alone. Then there are sponsors, clothing
> sales, etc.
Well here is the point you missed then. I responded to your comment that
you hope Fedor brings down the UFC, asked about your reasoning for not
liking the UFC and you said it was not enough fighter pay and it not being
free. Well bringing down the UFC is not the answer to your issues, having
the UFC explode even bigger and getting a network deal is the answer. Thus,
your desire to have Fedor "bring them down" is in exact opposition to your
desires.
>> But hating on the UFC
>> because they are not there yet is asinine.
>
>
> Then how is Strikeforce already there on network TV? I don't think the
> problem is that poor little UFC just can't afford to go on network
> television. I think the problem is they're greedy bastards.
Again, lets be clear, it would be asinine for the UFC to accept a network
deal that pays it less than it earns in PPV. It could just as easily be the
Networks that are greedy bastards not willing to pay the UFC nearly what it
would bring the network in revenue.
James L. Hankins
> Again, lets be clear, it would be asinine for the UFC to accept a network
> deal that pays it less than it earns in PPV.
Unless, of course, if such a deal would likely yield long-term large
profits. It's an opportunity for Dana to join the big boys, and if we know
anything about him he's got the stones and the imagination to try it.
yugffuts
>
> > I don't think The Invalid was advocating it as the best business model, just
> > an alternative to what we have now. It probably would not work just because
> > the UFC would not draw top-paying advertising like the NFL, but there is
> > nothing wrong with the model.
>
> 1) Sold out advertising
>
> promotional opportunity when they see one as they were quick to
> announced they have sold out all available advertising space for
> (http://www.5thround.com/articles/15108/cbs-sells-out-strikeforce-fedo...)
>
> 2) "blue-chip" sponsors
>
> CBS sold out its advertising inventory well ahead of the event,
> with blue-chip sponsors, including Pfizer, Dodge and Burger King,
> on board.
But what's your point? Sounds like CBS did well...how did Strikeforce
do? Fedor made $400K...what about the rest of the fighers?
http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-elitexc102008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
"The show was a ratings success, beating both Major League Baseball
playoff games and both major college football games in the target male
18-49 demographic"
"CBS officials were thrilled with the ratings"
For those that didn't bother to click the link, these quotes are in
reference to EliteXC, which went out of business shortly thereafter.
Don Geddis
>> capacity attractive enough for any network to offer it a deal to
>> match those earnings.
Right. That's what I said too.
>> There will be a point where the UFC can generate so big an audience
>> to make it worthwhile for a network to offer more money than the UFC
>> is currently earning in PPV dollars, but as of yet, that has not
>> happened.
Exactly. The audience (today) is too small for network TV, but yet is
passionate enough to make a PPV business model lucrative.
>> If the UFC keeps on growing, there is no reason to think it won't,
>> and that will be a great day for everyone, fighters, fans, the
>> Network, and the UFC (maybe not for invalid though who is clearly too
>> emotionally wrapped up in his unfounded hatred towards the UFC.
Sure. Lots of things might happen in the future.
> That's exactly right. But the criticism by Geddis was that such a notion is
> ludicrous for the UFC, which I think doesn't give White enough credit. He's
> getting there.
You didn't read (or didn't understand) what I wrote.
I was explaining why the UFC switching from PPV to network TV would be a
stupid idea today.
What might happen in the future is a whole different discussion. But
we're not there yet.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...@geddis.org
Most witches don't believe in gods. They know that the gods exist, of
course. They even deal with them occasionally. But they don't believe in
them. They know them too well. It would be like believing in the postman.
-- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad
Fraser Johnston
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You're not. Gate is ticket sales for people attending the event live. I am
not surprised it is that much. 2 tickets 20 rows back from the action cost me
US$1500 for UFC 79.
Fraser
Marcello
> "James L. Hankins" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009:
>> "Marcello" <Marc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:HpoMm.12219$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
>>> The UFC earns predominantly via PPV because it has not yet reached a
>>> capacity attractive enough for any network to offer it a deal to
>>> match those earnings.
>
> Right. That's what I said too.
>
>>> There will be a point where the UFC can generate so big an audience
>>> to make it worthwhile for a network to offer more money than the UFC
>>> is currently earning in PPV dollars, but as of yet, that has not
>>> happened.
>
> Exactly. The audience (today) is too small for network TV, but yet is
> passionate enough to make a PPV business model lucrative.
>
>>> If the UFC keeps on growing, there is no reason to think it won't,
>>> and that will be a great day for everyone, fighters, fans, the
>>> Network, and the UFC (maybe not for invalid though who is clearly too
>>> emotionally wrapped up in his unfounded hatred towards the UFC.
>
> Sure. Lots of things might happen in the future.
>
>> That's exactly right. But the criticism by Geddis was that such a notion
>> is
>> ludicrous for the UFC, which I think doesn't give White enough credit.
>> He's
>> getting there.
>
> You didn't read (or didn't understand) what I wrote.
That is becuase I was not responding to you.
James L. Hankins
> You didn't read (or didn't understand) what I wrote.
Uh, yeah I did. I just didn't give you the feedback that agreed with your
own view.
> I was explaining why the UFC switching from PPV to network TV would be a
> stupid idea today.
Right. And I explained to you why the idea isn't so stupid.
> What might happen in the future is a whole different discussion. But
> we're not there yet.
That's debatable. I think the UFC and MMA are in the gray area. Could go
either way.
Mhoram
I think the easiest explanation is that Dana White wants to be Vince McMahon
no matter how much he denounces wrestling. Free TV shows with a PPV almost
every month. That plus squashing unions, being obnoxious, a reality show,
and having two fighters posture in the ring after a fight for their upcoming
match among others... And you know damn well we're only a few PPV's away
from Yamasaki getting accidentally knocked out so one of the fighters can
cheat for the win.
and tell me there is any difference whatsoever between Goldberg and Cole
announcing.
rollman
"Mhoram" <S...@WGW.NET> wrote in message
news:he2b96$55q$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
OR... almost everything you just said (bar the ref being ko'd) are good
sales tactics for the product.... gee I just can't work it out....
>
>
Mhoram
news:4b050555$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
I don't want to live in a world that considers Goldberg's announcing to be a
good sales tactic.
rollman
heh well I'm ont saying I agree but don't you already?? he's hosted quite a
few now
>