2004 world series of poker

… going down in a Blaze of Glory.

Interesting thoughts. I have a couple of points in response:

First, I think the problem with things like poker and spelling bees is not that they are/are not compelling viewing (that depends on the viewier – I find baseball incredibly boring, but many don’t), but rather that A)they are “borderline” sports and B) they have a limited audience appeal. For a network like ESPN to decide to devote more time to covering something that many don’t even consider a sport, knowing that viewership has likely topped out or will experience only marginal growth, than they do to mixed martial arts, is a decision that makes one question the priorities of ESPN, “the world sports leader”. MMA is growing in popularity and viewership; poker peaked years ago (as a viewing trend; I know more people are playing now than ever, but fewer are watching it on television).

Second, no one is necessarily suggesting that ESPN just support a random, underdog MMA promotion. Rather, the issue is that MMA generally doesn’t warrant much mention – or air time – on ESPN. The UFC doesn’t need ESPN’s coverage to survive, but it would sure help bring the sport to many people who otherwise haven’t seen it, either due to lack of knowledge or lack of opportunity, and it would lend a level of perceived legitimacy. The ability to “give” these things to MMA as a whole, just by covering the sport on par with many other sports that they cover, puts ESPN in a fairly powerful position. When they simply refuse to cover MMA to any significant degree, they look like they are abusing their power by making a decision on what is and what is not a “proper” sport on behalf of millions of people who lack the access to enough coverage to make up their own minds.

Third, and last as this has gotten really long, it seems like the decision to broadcast arena football long after it became clear that it wasn’t going to be hugely popular comes from the idea that North American audiences will watch anything football related over almost anything else. As we’ve seen, though, it’s the NFL that’s really popular (and I say that as a huge fan of the CFL), not football. MMA – AT THE MOMENT (so please, all you fans of competition in the sport, put the weapons down) – is very similar, in that it’s the UFC that is primarily popular. It would be absurd for ESPN to cover a random MMA league but not the UFC, just like it would be absurd for them to cover arena football but not the NFL. The problem is that they hardly cover MMA at all, UFC or otherwise. I really like their internet show, but still, it’s only on the internet. As a LEAGUE (not a sport) the UFC is lightyears ahead of arena football in popularity right now, yet MMA as a whole is on the sidelines (forgive the pun) while arena ball still has a spot on stage. That doesn’t sound like a good business decision for ESPN; it sounds like a bias against MMA.

That’s all I’ve got to say.

my wife and I watch the spelling bee crap and just can’t turn it off. It’s just a matter of how often they run it…etc.