More on the Possible Resurrection of ProElite

Can it finally be agreed upon that the simple fact of competition among MMA organizations does not benefit fighters by definition? These athletes deserve the opportunity to shop their wares if their employer can’t get it’s shit straight enough to hold shows in a timely manner. Every fighter is essentially on borrowed time – it’s a big reason Randy came back (and the reason his contract situation was different is that the UFC never had a problem finding him work, as EXC is for their fighters as we speak) – and to dick them like this should be fucking unforgivable even for the most anti-UFC person on the planet.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 4:00 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

I’m sorry, but I have to agree with you.

by Cannon Jacques on Dec 7, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

It rubs me the wrong way when people do that, but I’ll get over it.

BTW, you’re doing great work since BE elevated you. Keep it up.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think a lot of hardcore fans latch on to and support any organization that looks like competition for a variety of reasons. Thing is the only competition that actually will help the sport is competent quality competition. In the end inept groups like the IFL and ProElite hurt the sport much more than they ever helped. Just because a company is a alternative to the UFC is no reason for fans to not demand competence and quality out of them.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Said perfectly, great insight.

by Gunslinger20 on Dec 7, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think it’s fair at all to say at all that the IFL “hurt the sport much more than they ever helped”. Aside from the public spat with Monte Cox, they overwhelming majority of people I’ve talked to who worked for or with the IFL had very good things to say. Certainly their concept was ludicrous, but they were not the charlatans that ProElite is/was. They gave a lot of good fighters exposure, experience and opportunities and gave fans a ton of unheralded fights. And the IFL did their best to give fans at their events as much bang for their buck as possible.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly! People are quick to oversee all the positives that have come from the IFL and EliteXC.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m talking just about the IFL. EliteXC is a very different matter.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A different matter?

I don’t consider putting the first nationally televised MMA fights on a major network and putting womens MMA in the forefront a different matter. Giving fighters an alternative and gaining more sponsorship money due to those tv contracts a negative, or the fact that it gave us fans FREE MMA and introduced and highlighted to us many fighters that most casuals were not familiar too.

I like how many people focus on the scumbags who ran it rather than the MMA product and the fighters who benefited.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

THEY FUCKING FIXED FIGHTS

I don’t care what the Florida investigation has to say about it. EXC set the sport of MMA back. It’s not even worthy of being in the same sentence of the IFL, a poorly run enterprise as opposed to a criminal one.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Please, if you let the Kimbo fiasco take away from everything else that was positive, than that is your choice, not mine.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do.

And the vast majority of MMA fans agree with me.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That is your choice. Still their positive affects on womens MMA and whether people like it or not, BEING ABLE to change Dana’s opinion about womens MMA is 1 of many positives from EliteXC.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus,

You don’t speak for the vast majority of MMA fans since there are many who disagree with you.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, see, the vast majority of MMA fans fucking hate EXC for Standgate. I do too. Thus, I agree with them and they with me and you are in the minority.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s like saying if you take away the accounting problems from Enron.

by Phildo on Dec 7, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs

Rec'd

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you choose to see rainbows and puppy dogs and ignore the shit falling from the heavens, that is your choice, not ours.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who said ignore?

I completely see the negatives, but I wont discount the positives either.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You must be ignoring the negatives, since you conflated IFL with EliteXC as to helping the sport more than it hurt. IFL did plenty of good for the sport. The shit EliteXC rained down on MMA vastly outweighed the positives.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you adding words to what I am saying now?

Where did I say they helped the sport MORE than it hurt.
I said you can’t completely discount the positives.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think it’s fair at all to say at all that the IFL "hurt the sport much more than they ever helped".

That was the essence of Luke’s original post in favor of IFL. You responded to that by placing EliteXC in the same boat as the IFL. If you didn’t mean to do that, you should have been clearer.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My post focuses on discounting any positives, which was addressing the original comment.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You can find positives in darn near anything if you look hard enough.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps thats what you intended, but thats not what it says. “There were a few good things coming out of EliteXC, such as the legitimization of women’s MMA” is not a controversial statement, not one that would have gotten any disagreements. But Thomas, Phildo, subo, and myself all disagreed with you.

Time to rethink what you say.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I did post that. Tough to reply to people at once n on post.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

multiple people all at once

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also easy to blame others for your own inability to communicate.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Hahaha…I didnt blame anyone.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Spin, spin, spin.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you describing what you do to my posts? :)

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, what you do to your posts.

How about you simply ADMIT that you communicated your point badly, and move on?

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I have explained in more detail to clarify.
Ive moved on.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Its that kind of attitude that makes everyone on here think you’re an EliteXC schill.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Until I report something on Affliction, K-1, or Dream, and then it changes who I get paid by….LOL.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

What is this, the fucking playground? You sound like a complete ass.

by smoogy on Dec 7, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Directed at Michaelthebox

We seem to have reached the right edge of the page here.

by smoogy on Dec 7, 2008 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Spoken by another idiot.

Seriously, why don’t I ever get bashed by people who aren’t obvious haters?

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Relax guys. We don’t need any name calling.

by Cannon Jacques on Dec 7, 2008 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, Cannon Jacques? Well you smell bad!

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're the one calling people "schills" dawg

by smoogy on Dec 7, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, whats your point? Its no secret here that we aren’t all playing on an unbiased field.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ha

I just don’t want this to get out of hand and someone gets banned. I want all you guys to continue contributing. That is all.

by Cannon Jacques on Dec 7, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The childish “NOBODY LIKES YOU HERE” routine ticks me off, is all. At least MMASupremacy is presenting his arguments intelligently.

by smoogy on Dec 7, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Intelligently?

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When roughly 5 or 6 people disagree with you, then you claim nobody understood your premise, I find it difficult to refer to that as intelligence. Just garden variety refusal to admit your errors.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Wow.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you think he is presenting his arguments intelligently, you need to re-read his comments.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard Wade on Dec 7, 2008 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All the hate around here.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All the hate around here, what a joke. This, by far, is the most tame message board around and the conversations are usually pretty good. It’ s fine to have your opinion, but when you always force it and ignore the facts, people take issue with it. Especially when it’s day after day after day of the same thing.

by LiuLang on Dec 7, 2008 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, he suggested some positives have come out of EXC. What an outrage.

by smoogy on Dec 7, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There look, now Richard disagrees with how MMASupremacy is presenting his arguments.

How many people have to pile on, before I’m not just being a hater?

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Alright fellas

This part of the conversation has run its course. Let’s all relax and move on.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's an idea

Why don’t you and supremacy start your own site? It could be called ‘fucktheufc.com’ or something.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You think

maybe you’re overreacting a little.

by tylerdurden1 on Dec 7, 2008 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, everyone going’s crazy. Especially since I think they’re saying the same thing: EliteXC did some good things for the sport, but it was outweighed by the negatives.

by Tonley on Dec 7, 2008 8:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Apparently suggesting there were positives at all means you hate the UFC… or something like that.

by smoogy on Dec 7, 2008 8:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For instance:

The fixing controversy
Negative media image due to focusing on Kimbo
Hiring scum like Mike Kyle
Having strippers and generally treating MMA as a freakshow
Leaving all these fighters flapping in the breeze
Buying out quality minor-league promotions and running them into the ground

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

But, but, what about all the good things they did, Michael?

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard Wade on Dec 7, 2008 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well…I liked some of their ShoXC cards.

by Tonley on Dec 7, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I did take something positive from Elite XC

The fighters, minus Kimbo and KJ Noons, are the positive thing I took out of Elite XC. I got to see Robbie Lawler and Nick Diaz in action again plus I was introduced to the likes of Jake Shields.

Also, I had zero respect for women’s MMA but Gina Carano and Cris Cyborg really forced me to change my mind because they did phenomenal work in the cage.

Outside of what was seen on FSN, I don’t know a whole lot about the IFL so I can’t say anything bad about them.

by Gunslinger20 on Dec 7, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I think the IFL was great. They had a little different approach to the sport and fans didn’t pick it up. Their revamped product was awesome, but unfortunately it was to late to save the promotion. They helped usher mma onto network TV and introduced us to some good young fighters. Plus they gave Dana the furry woodchuck quote or whatever it was that he called them, lol.

EXC turned out to be a bunch of scumbags. They started off so well, but basically sold their soul for CBS deal, imo. Other than strippers around the cage, I can’t think of to much positive they did, lol. hopefully if PE gets resurrected, the new ownership will get back to name fighters and young prospects and building a solid foundation for the promotion. ShoXC was probably the best thing to come of EXC, imo.

Eliot Marshall: Bader won. Like I said in the episode, I'm not going to make any excuses. It's my job to be able to deal with when somebody's doing that. It's not his job to change up his tactics.

http://eliotmarshall.com/

by BJJDenver on Dec 7, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The IFL hurt the sport because of the incredible amount of money they ran through and how public their failure was not because they were bad people. If you were a big money investor looking at MMA as a possible investment and you saw these high dollar spectacular failures would you risk your money on a new organization?

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

huh? Investors may complain, but your response has nothing to do with “hurting the sport”, whatever that is supposed to mean here.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If investors, companies and banks think the sport is a money pit then the chances of new promotions gets limited and that hurts the sport. I’m not talking about investors complaining I’m talking about investors taking their money someplace else.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is not the case since the UFC, Art of War, and now ProElite are able to find sponsors and investors, even in an economy that is not so hot.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Art of War? The UFC finds sponsors because of their successful track record and we are not sure who is investing in trying to buy ProElite and how much they are willing to invest. Investors looked at MMA because of what the UFC was doing but if they look beyond the UFC what do they see? Tens of millions of dollars lost and a laundry list of failed companies.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, didn’t you hear? Art Of War just recently found an invester that gave them 5 mill. That is why they were considering buying ProElite.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No I hadn’t heard that.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup, they got outbid by Ecko and KOTC, so they had to pull out.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can’t agree with you here. Most “investors” are smart enough to realize that any hot item or industry will not necessarily become profit solely off of the buzz around it because competent management is required as well. Anyone who pumped money into the IFL was acutely aware of the UFC’s success. The reason people are still trying to try their hand at this sport is based on the dream of replicating the UFC model and thus far no one has been successful.

The IFL was bad for their investors in the long run because it didn’t pull a profit but, overall, it was good for the sport. What the IFL did was give up and coming prospects a place to earn money, hone their skills, and a place to be seen. This list includes Rothwell, Nelson, Fabiano, the Millers, Schultz, Markham, Radich, Reese Andy, Massenzio, Horodecki and many more.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, but, investors are still around. If they hurt MMA, there is no way anyone can quantify it because there are still people putting money into MMA. Also, the IFL had A LOT of talented fighters that were said to be C level fighters by Dana. We now see that was not necessarily the case with fighters like Feijao, Fabiano, + more.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s opportunity costs…

If the 40m or so was used to create a sustainable organization more fighters would be employed, more options, etc…

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

If the IFL (or any other organization) had been even moderatly successful there would be a lot more people lining up to push money into the sport.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right, but how many would’ve gotten better opportunities without experience and exposure in the IFL? Would Reese Andy have EVER been signed by the UFC? Doubtful.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

spending 40m to give reese andy exposure is bupkus…

spending 40m to create a sustainable platform for fighters, sponsores, camps, fans etc… is ideal.

Did IFL have positives… sure.

Was IFL a net negative for MMA – probable.

Will this effect mom and pop investors… no.

But big money will not be coming into MMA (even if it was available)… whenever investment bankers are involved issues like the “IFL”, “proelite” are center stage, studied and examined carefully.

They both had TV, highly capitalized and if you look at some of the names involved were pretty successful in their fields (deluca, larkin, etc….)

This is all big investors look at initially. You won’t be able to get past “hello”.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

There’s no denying the negative effects the failure the IFL has on investor interest, but I don’t really see it as that significant. No one is denying the org got money during a time when investorship was fair easier to come by than it is now, and this new environment has nothing to do with the failure of IFL, EXC or others. Moreover, the failures of the IFL are instructive to new competitors, irrespective of the lending environment. THe UFC kills everyone else for more reasons than bankroll or proper investing in other orgs. The UFC wins for a huge number of reasons and the fact 100 mill has been dumped into other orgs that compete with the UFC to no avail says the most about the state of competition within the upper end of the market.

I see this far more as an issue of how strong one brand and org is and less about how much more competition would be if a few less national MMA orgs had failed. To blame the IFL for turning away investors from would-be MMA promoters begs the question – which promoters? Excluding investors, who is dumb enough to try to create a business to go head-to-head with the UFC? Blaming the IFL seems harsh and not really the crux of the issue.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They shouldn’t be blamed for scaring away future investors in future promotions but there is a good chance that them along with all the other spectacular changes will have that affect on the future of the sport.

This could also change if one of these promotions could actually succeed at not only lasting more than 2 years but also turning a profit. I agree that competing with the UFC is suicide but these companies aren’t being killed by the UFC they are committing financial suicide due to their own business practices. There is room for more MMA in the marketplace it’s just a business plan of “lets toss money at the wall and see if it sticks” isn’t going to work.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. Would be investors can look at the UFC and look at Strikeforce and other successful models and see that this can be an entertaining business venture yet still be profitable. The IFL and other failed attempts simply gives investors a list of certain things not to do in molding on organization. The $40 million loss does has a trivial negative impact on the sport itself compared to the impact of those whose money it was. The real impact the IFL had on the sport as a whole is what any good feeder league should do – produce new talent. The only people who will feel the effects of the money loss is those who invested whereas the long term impact on the career of some of the former IFL fighters will resonate until they retire as they may have never gotten that break if it wasn’t for the IFL.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The IFL did a lot for a handful of guys in the sport by getting them attention and they did manage to get a product out there that people watched but they also failed in a huge public way and lost silly amounts of money in the process. I believe it was also Jay Larkin that compared the ground game in MMA fights was tedious and compared it to watching gay foreplay. I didn’t mean to point out anything about the IFL specifically or to downplay anything they did in the past but for the future the sport needs new promotions and new money and the IFL hurt that.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What happened to the IFL is symptomatic of what happened to a lot of MMA orgs, large and small. No one org’s failure (excluding EXC) is necessarily worse than the other. All those with huge amibitions who failed to convert on investors money. The one org I did commentating for, MMAC, suffered a similar fate. The difference with the IFL is that, on balance, they did a ton of good for introducing the sport to some new fans, they put on a positive image, they gave a ton of unheard of fighters good experience, a steady paycheck, healthcare and big show experience. And they gave fans a lot of very, very good fights. To the extent that MMA orgs promised more than they could deliver on, the IFL is guilty. But the IFL did a lot more than all of the others that failed. On balance, I don’t see their impact as negative. I see it as unfortunate and instructive.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t disagree with any of that I just worry about what all these failures say to people who look at MMA as a financial investment as opposed to a fan investment. Failures of bad organizations and good organizations will just look like failures to get a return on investment to those people/companies/banks and they will take their money elsewhere.

It also should be noted that for all the good things the IFL did in the past it is bad for the sport that they aren’t still doing them in the present, they have hurt the sport just by not being around to employ fighters and give them exposure in the future. Failure of a company hurts the industry as a whole and failure of a company that was goind good things hurts the industry (and the sport) even more.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll give you this much: they were part of a bubble. They overcommitted, and in their retraction have left some folks in their wake. That much I admit.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It also should be noted that for all the good things the IFL did in the past it is bad for the sport that they aren’t still doing them in the present, they have hurt the sport just by not being around to employ fighters and give them exposure in the future. Failure of a company hurts the industry as a whole and failure of a company that was goind good things hurts the industry (and the sport) even more.

This is something that has really bothered me, and something I think a lot of people ignore. Anytime a company tries to maintain an untenable business, the jobs that are lost afterward are their fault.

Its one reason I don’t understand the “fighters need places to fight” argument. If the market can’t support that many fighters, should there really be that many fighters getting big paychecks?

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

In the IFL’s defense, it wasn’t clear the market couldn’t support them when they first started.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the market could of supported them if they had had a smarter business plan to start with.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed with this. The inappropriateness of their business plan and marketing tactics were obvious right at the start.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Obvious to who? I’ve been doing some research for an article on reception of the IFL when it first launched. There was apprehension about the team format, but there were a ton of folks – fans, fighters, journalists – who were very optimistic about their chances.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. No one predicts an org will fail until it is too late. Just like Bellator, it looks good from the get go. It is very easy to say this stuff now that the org has failed.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have posts from mid-2006 on some sites talking about how badly positioned IFL is. Just because you can’t see a plan is bad, doesn’t mean other people also can’t.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For the record, I was one of the most consistent and early critics of the IFL. I was never in favor of their format. I was curious to see what was going to happen, but never felt comfortable with the format. EVer.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t doubt that for a second. Which again I say, is a lot of the problem. There are some VERY good business minds among the fans, fighters, and journalists. But many of the new organizations aren’t run by good business minds who recognize the many extremely difficult issues behind getting a promotion off the ground. They’re run by idealists and people with dollar signs in their eyes.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For the record, I was not a fan either, yet, in the end, they were turning it around and it was a shame they could not stay in business.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They still had a LONG way to go before being truly successful.

It frustrates me to see all these organizations that keep coming in with wild-eyed plans that have no basis in reality. Then, when the organization cracks like an egg, people blame the evil UFC and turn to the next UFC-killer.

I just want to see smart, well-run organization that can be depended on to pay their fighters and keep putting on cards. But the organizations that actually do that, like Strikeforce, don’t get nearly as much love from the fans and media as they deserve.

Its an ugly circle.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strikeforce has done many things that people bash other orgs for, like hiring Mike Kyle, having freak show fights like Sapp vs Nortje, bad production, etc.

Strikeforce is the only org getting any positive news from the likes of Dana because of Coker and they are making some profit. Strikeforce gets more positive news than any other org outside of the UFC.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They didn’t hire Kyle. Kyle was hired by EliteXC

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And while they get a good amount of positive press, they simply get vastly less attention from fans and media than the likes of EliteXC or Affliction, despite being a much better organization that can be relied upon to keep putting on good shows and pay their fighters.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kyle fought for Strikeforce before fighting in the Co-promotion card, but Kyle never fought for an EliteXC show.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kyle fought for Strikeforce BEFORE his attack on Olsen, at which point he should have been banned.

Kyle fought in the co-promoted show as an EliteXC fighter. They hired him, not Strikeforce.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When he fought Olson, he was already known for being a dirty fighter and troubled.

He already had a troubled past. Strikeforce could have prevented what happened to Olson by not hiring him.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Kyle vs. Wayne Cole – I just wanted to go on the record to say that Kyle is not representing Strikeforce in this fight. He is an EliteXC fighter. A lot of people are really unsure why Kyle is on this card, and I am one of them.

From Caplan’s preview of the show.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Kyle’s mixed martial arts career has been plagued by fouls and questionable in-fight behavior.

During his fight against Wes Sims at UFC 47 in April of 2004, Kyle allegedly bit Sims on the chest. The bite marks were visible on Sims’ chest during the post-fight press conference, which took place a few hours after Kyle’s bout that evening.

When Kyle fought Justin Eilers at UFC 49 in August of 2004, Kyle delivered knees to Eilers’ crotch on a few different occasions before time was called and Eilers was allowed to recover. Eilers came back and won the fight by knockout.

Kyle’s fight against Tsuyoshi Kosaka in the Pancrase organization in October of 2005 had to be stopped prematurely after Kosaka was poked in the eye. The fight was taken to the judges’ scorecards, where Kyle won unanimously.

When Kyle fought Krzysztof Soszynski on the undercard of the StrikeForce promotion’s “Shamrock vs. Gracie” card in March of 2006, the bout was ruled a technical draw after Kyle poked Soszynski in the eye approximately two minutes into the fight.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

None of that addresses the fact that EXC hired him.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 7:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He never fought for them though, other than the co-promoted card with Strikeforce. Strikeforce hired him previously knowing his troubled past which led to the Olson fight. I basically blame both, not just EliteXC.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then you’re a fool. ELITEXC HIRED HIM WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT.

There is simply no way to gloss over that. It wasn’t Strikeforce and EliteXC hiring him afterward. EliteXC looked at the guy, looked at what he did to Olsen, and said “sign on the dotted line.”

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said, I blame both.
Not being able to blame Strikeforce is like saying we shouldn’t blame Affliction for hiring Yvel, or EliteXC for hiring Kyle.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps so. But as you’ve pointed out on another part of this thread, hindsight is 20/20. Strikeforce couldn’t predict that he would go off the deep end like that, and they were playing a tricky game of making money while treating the sport right.

But EliteXC had hindsight in their favor. They KNEW WHAT HE DID. And they hired him anyway. They knew what he did, and had no use for him as a potential star or source of income. They simply didn’t care what he did.

Thats an outright slap in the face of MMA as a sport and legitimate enterprise.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thats an outright slap in the face of MMA as a sport and legitimate enterprise.

As is much of what EXC did during their lifetime. Not everything, but much.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said, I blame both.
Not being able to blame Strikeforce is like saying we shouldn’t blame Affliction for hiring Yvel, or EliteXC for hiring Kyle.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hiring the guys after he did what he did is way worse than hiring before. They guy had a history of eyepokes and questionable knees to the groin when Strikeforce gave him a fight(in 2006), EliteXC hired him after he assaulted a guy and ended his career.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My point is that I also blame Strikeforce. Kyle had a bad reputation that was far worse than just eyepokes and knees to the groin when he signed with Strikeforce. Strikeforce also signed Babalu after he got thrown out of the UFC for holding his choke longer than he should have.

The point I was making is that Strikeforce has done some shitty stuff before as well. I am not excusing EliteXC at all. Just like Dana and the UFC should be blamed for the Junie TUF antics and in case Junie blows up in future TUF cards.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

*In future TUF and UFC cards.*

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a fight sport. This is not tennis. This is not golf. This is not high school girl’s field hockey. This is fighting.

While the actions of certain individuals are in no doubt reprehensible in some instances, people who exhibit that type of behavior is simply the nature of the beast when your dealing with cagefighting. Thankfully, most fighters don’t take part in such antics and the few who do are the minority. With that said, Strikeforce and other organizations are paying these guys to go out and fight and put on a show. They’re not paying them to preach morals to the crowd. They’re giving them money to punch other people in the face. Boo hoo.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I find the whole “Kyle should be blackballed” shit ridiculous. Should Renzo Gracie? He started a riot at an MMA event. His actions after beating Ben Spijkers were borderline illegal. If he’s cleared by the commission, let him fight.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If they didn’t sign guys who had fights with eyepokes or nut shots in their past then a lot of guys would be out of work. Hiring a guy after he brutaly attacks someone and ends their career (on a WEC card after he fought for Strikeforce) is something completly different.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Olsen’s career didn’t end. Why do you keep repeating this lie?

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your right I just took Olsen’s word on it that it ended his career.

BRIAN: That fight is off and after my surgery I will have plates and screws in my face permanently. I have along way to recover and consider my fight career over.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 11:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fans, fighters, journalists

Which is a lot of the issue anyway. Most of these people are not well versed in business, and so they drive the excitement. Same thing happened with Affliction: lots of fans, fighters and journalists spoke with positive terms. Meanwhile, the people who were screaming out “this business plan won’t work!” were ignored or downplayed. Myself and yourself included.

I guess the problems with the IFL weren’t obvious to many people. But if you’re gonna spend 40 million, you don’t want to depend on fans, fighters, and the average journalist.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think a lot of people were wondering about the team format and the way they were positioning themselves but I agree that it wasn’t obvious they would fail from the start.

Still hindsight is 20/20 and it was obvious as they went on that there were some real problems there. Looking backwards you can see where they did themselves in more than the competition did them in.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt investors look at the failure of the IFL as a failure of MMA. I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that. The failures of the IFL are failures they themselves helped to create, not something indicative about the inability of MMA to be successful.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well said

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I really hope your right but I’m afraid that people who are looking to invest money to make money (as opposed to investing in MMA because of a love of the sport) are just going to look at the bottom line financial risk and the huge losses other investors have suffered. True money people look at return on investment and that is something that very few people have ever made investing in MMA.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The IFL...

…was also extremely media friendly. They tried to be very accessible to the fans and were smart in that way. The concept was flawed, but they gave it a go and it didn’t work out.

Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 8, 2008 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They were the best of the bunch but it hasn’t been a very impressive bunch to start with.

by who me on Dec 8, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Could Strikeforce air content on CBS and NBC concurrently?

by Eugene Schelfaut on Dec 7, 2008 4:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nope

The NBC deal can be bought out for a minimal price considering it wasn’t a real beneficial financial deal for Strikeforce anyways, it was merely done to give them a network outlet to showcase their talent….very, very, very late at night.

Considering the MMA Explosion… NBC might sweeten the deal finally for Strikeforce and they’ll finally get a primetime slot.

I’m honestly tired of ProElite’s shit, they are a bunch of scumbugs that need to just call it a day and let these fighters go.

by Gunslinger20 on Dec 7, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

UFC on CBS is a no go and I think the UFC has essentially admitted as such.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 4:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think the UFC would say no to CBS is they could get a deal that makes sense.

Maybe CBS learned from the Elite fiasco that if they want to get involved in MMA, they’re going to have to pay a little more to air a quality product. They would be stupid to sit back and wait for other orgs to come to them and accept the deal that sent Elite into bankruptcy. If CBS wants to show MMA on TV, they’re going to need to figure out a different deal than the one they had with Elite, and that should open the door for other orgs to jump back in.

by Phildo on Dec 7, 2008 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CBS + UFC = NO

Strikeforce + CBS = No
EliteXC New = Yes
Affliction = Yes

Those are the only possibilities!

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why is UFC a no?

by Phildo on Dec 7, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It has been reported MANY times that the UFC and CBS cannot agree on a deal and those circumstances have not changed.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would say the failure of Elite XC is a major change in circumstances.

by Phildo on Dec 7, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not.

It’s all about money, and those circumstances don’t change due to EliteXC failing.
They just need another MMA provider and off they go again. The UFC is very controlling in their demands and headstrong. Just look at the WalMart deal and previous network deals that have failed.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t you think CBS realizes that no one can succeed with the deal the way it was written?

If they’re just looking for someone to come up and take Elite’s deal, as written, they’re just looking for someone else to come in and fail. I think they have to be willing to come to a different deal if they’re going to continue with MMA.

I will never say never when it comes to the UFC, look at Tito and Randy.

by Phildo on Dec 7, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Networks have a lot more power than you think.
I think desperation would have to seek into CBS for them to agree on the UFC terms.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They’re power is meaningless.

Do they have magical powers that are going to print money for the orgs that take the CBS deal?

They need to offer more money for MMA to work on CBS. That means UFC is back in the picture.

by Phildo on Dec 7, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They have the power to say no and we will get someone else to agree to our terms.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, they have that power.

But they also have brains. They can use those brains and the results from Elite, to realize that their deal sucks, and that they have to change it to be successful.

by Phildo on Dec 7, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, they do but not likely from what Dana just mentioned.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What did Dana just mention?

by Phildo on Dec 7, 2008 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Not very close now with this market like this," White said when asked how close they were to closing in on a network TV deal. "The economy is bad. I don’t know if anybody else in this room feels it as bad as some of the other people in this country feel it, but the economy is really bad right now. There’s no money out there. Sponsors aren’t spending as much money as they used to. Some sponsors are going out of business. It’s really scary times right now."

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That said they weren’t close, that didn’t say they weren’t talking or that a deal with CBS was impossible.

According to the article this thread quotes, they are talking. That is my point. To say it’s impossible, is not smart.

by Phildo on Dec 7, 2008 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not impossible, just unlikely.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dana White touted how he had deals coming “any day” for over a year and a half for network TV exposure when in reality, there was nothing there. If he’s saying that he’s “not close”, it means no one is even bothering to return his phone calls.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 9:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Underpants Gnome Logic

Step 1: Say Affliction and EXC are coming back
Step 2: ????
Step 3: SUCCESS!!!

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Step 4: Profit

by Tonley on Dec 7, 2008 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Affliction left?
EliteXC has been reported by many to be coming back I reported this a while ago.
I report on facts and sources and not just on personal wishes and likes and dislikes.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah. You don’t pick what you ‘report’ (read: cut and paste) on based on personal biases. That’s why I’ve read all those great posts of yours on how the UFC is the most wildly successful MMA organization in the history of man.

Snark.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What I choose to post doesn’t negate the fact that they are true.
Plus, why would I report something that MANY people are already reporting.
I try to post something informative that many are not aware of yet.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

MMAsupremecy you are like the Sean Hannity of Forum posters…

You try to fit everything through a myopic point of view… and at the end you do a disservice to yourself, the sport and everyone else.

I am a conservative but i see the ridiculousness of Hannity… he appeals to the lowest common denominator of human intelligence much like what the republican party has been doing instead of debating sound ideas.

If you go to africa and study how the heads of civil war communicate to their sheep followers in order to motivate them to kill their country men it is very close to how the republican party was doing it.

Basically all they do is stroke their fears, pride, griefs, and lust – the lowest common denominator of human intelligence – the reptilian brain… And ignore sound ideas and common sense.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Rec'd

I’m going to show some tolerance (one of us progressive’s best traits) and rec a conservative’s comment.

Beautiful dissection.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your opinion. I will nicely disagree with you.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, let’s leave the warlords propaganda comparisons to the GOP someplace else. Cool?

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

You must smoke really powerful weed.

by smoogy on Dec 7, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because the control and money that UFC wants from a network is totally not available for them, particularly with what they can provide. They talk about wanting a “NBA deal” when they’ve never proved to be a significantly bigger attraction overall than Indycar racing.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Affliction didn’t accept the CBS deal…

That’s how good it was (these are the same guys who paid lindland 350k or something).

The “investors” loretta is talking about has a whopping total of 2m they are “thinking” about putting in.

This is all for Shits and Giggles and at the end fighters get fucked.

In the meantime the big bad old UFC is putting on an event to raise funds for the troops… the nerve.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 5:35 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, where do they get off sharing their profits with wounded soldiers when the economy is so bad? Jerkoffs.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously. $kala is having trouble paying for his self-tanning spray and Lorenzo and Dana are just handing money to these injured soldiers. Those assholes really need to get their priorities straight.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This whole thing is another joke. It’s going to drag this out even further before the same inevitable death happens again.

by Michael Rome on Dec 7, 2008 6:01 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Agreed

I really hope this whole ProElite thing ends soon…

by Gunslinger20 on Dec 7, 2008 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The last word.

by Eugene Schelfaut on Dec 7, 2008 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1. Its ugly and shameful.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s a mental exercise: Affliction, a company on death’s door, turned down a deal to be on CBS.

What in the world could cause this? Clue: They are trying to minimize losses before getting out, and the deal locks them into a number of guaranteed huge money-loser events.

CBS is not offering enough money to make it financially doable for any small company. The only company that could afford such a horrible “deal” is the UFC, and they frankly don’t need it. It looks like some investors might try to keep running on CBS under a new name after bankruptcy clears debt, but it still doesn’t matter. The same structural problems will still kill any non-UFC company under the terms of this deal.

by Michael Rome on Dec 7, 2008 6:05 PM EST reply actions 3 recs

Should also be noted that Loretta was claiming big things are coming for elitexc as everything was crashing down. She has people inside Elite using her as a PR campaign.

by Michael Rome on Dec 7, 2008 6:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I remember her being a UFC mouthpiece back in the day. Am I right about that or remembering incorrectly?

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

She’s banned from covering them by the UFC, so that might have been true once but is not any longer.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you know why she was banned? Was it just part and parcel of the Fight Network ban?

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know Sherdog was booted for releasing the ultimate fighter results early.

by iiowyn on Dec 7, 2008 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That was Gross’ doing on an episode of Beatdown.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Loretta Hunt is good people

by smoogy on Dec 7, 2008 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

She was the one that reported Silva vs Kharitanov which was completely false, but that did no help to EliteXC. I have other sources to confirm EliteXC is coming back in 2009 via KOTC or Ecko as purchasers/investors. The CBS/Showtme deal was part of the deal as well. CBS could be on putting multiple orgs on Fight Nights, perhaps, but I see the new ProElite regime as the ones with the tv deal.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

She was claiming big things were coming because CBS was going to buy EXC. That wasn’t some ridiculous rumor, even Meltzer said as much.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CBS is an excellent platform that’s been attached to a financially untenable deal for any MMA organization. Any promotion that would take the EXC deal probably isn’t worth putting on the air as they’re likely destined to fail. The UFC or maybe Strikeforce wouldn’t, and shouldn’t do it. ProElite was already in desperation mode when they signed on with CBS.

by Cannon Jacques on Dec 7, 2008 6:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What I have always wondered is why CBS can’t even match what SpikeTV pays the UFC for events? I mean it just seems like their offer to the UFC was either way lowball for what anyone not desperate would take or it was overly intrusive into the production of the event. It’s not like the UFC is demanding a unpayable price, Spike happily pays it multiple times a year for events and some of them are significant events.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whos to say what they ask from Spike is what they are asking from CBS.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Even if their starting offer was for more than what Spike pays that doesn’t mean that there is no room for negotiation and CBS could easily sweeten a deal in other ways (sponsorship money would be higher for the UFC to be on CBS than Spike too, for example). The point is that there is no reason for CBS to lowball an offer that the UFC wouldn’t accept based on the money involved when we already know there is a range they are willing to accept that a much lesser cable network pays multiple times a year.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 7:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Because what the UFC would offer CBS is what they offer Spike, and CBS isn’t looking for those ratings (much less matches) on network TV.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CBS has a much larger viewing audience than SpikeTV and ratings would reflect that. Besides Spike has scored ratings numbers with some UFC events that weren’t much behind what CBS was getting out of EliteXC. If UFC 75 averaged 4.7 million viewers for Spike imagine what it would of done on CBS.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No one knows what it would have done. It very well might not have even done any better. Honestly, how many people are out there now who haven’t seen MMA by now? I doubt there are massive pockets of latent MMA fans they haven’t touched yet stateside.

Besides, what CBS would be looking for are UFC 70/75 shows every time out the gate. The likelihood that the UFC’s gonna get that when UFC 85, 90, 93, etc are on PPV seems more like wishful thinking at this point.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 9:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

check the ratings for reruns of CSI on spike against ratings for reruns of CSI on CBS… then you will see the significance of the UFC ratings on spike.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 9:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reruns of a TV drama have little relevance to how a theoretical UFC event on CBS would do. You might as well be telling me that it’ll do a 20 share because the NFL on Fox/CBS does so much better than Arena League on ESPN.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

arena league and NFL are 2 different things…

CSI reruns are the same thing.

Now go compare the ratings the CSI reruns get on spike and the ratings CSI reruns get on CBS then you’ll have some knowledge on what you’re trying to debate.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CSI reruns on different time slots on different networks isn’t the same thing as a live sporting event. Maybe you could, you know, use some actual sporting events for the sake of comparison? Lots of sports run on both cable and network. What are ratings like for ESPN televised basketball games on Saturdays compared to ABC? How about Sunday/Monday Night Football over the last 5 years? NASCAR on FX/TNT/ESPN vs. Fox/NBC/ABC?

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the UFC was on espn then you can make that comparison…

but we are comparing the relative difference of spike versus cbs…

So the only comprable are CSI reruns they have been on saturday nights at the same time slot.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So you’re not willing to make any comparisons with actual sports?

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If UFC was on espn then you can make that comparison…

UFC could have different numbers on espn than it does on spike so those numbers wont tell you anything really.

The reruns of csi will give you more insight.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They give me no insight because I don’t consider them nearly as applicable as how various sports perform on and off networks. Every major sports league can be used for comparison’s sake here, with said comparisons being valid for events happening up to yesterday.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are trying to substitute all of Cable for the second tier cable network SpikeTV and that doesn’t work. Even ESPN is much bigger and more watched than SpikeTV.

Of course sports do better on Network than cable too, when Monday Night Football was on ABC it averaged 4 to 6 million viewers more than it does now on ESPN. NASCAR ratings on Fox are also better than they are on TNT too for that matter.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

And to what degree? Are we talking 10-15? 20? What about fringe sports with smaller audiences? NASCAR’s all star race went to SPEED, a channel with less visibility than Spike. Or NHL on Versus (same story).

by D.Capitated on Dec 8, 2008 7:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your wrong because comparing Spike to ESPN doesn’t apply. Any sports fan out there watches ESPN whereas there isn’t a specific demo that always tunes in to Spike. ESPN has a much larger audience and is run by TV conglomerate ABC, a subsidiary of Disney. The ratings comparing ESPN to ABC would be much different than comparing Spike to CBS.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Your logic is sort of faulty, if UFC 75 was the maximum that could be expected due to saturation then how did EliteXC do any better at all 6 months later and why would CBS be interested in MMA? If that is the maximum that MMA can do and their is no untapped market in the US then they might as well pack it up as far as CBS is concerned as those ratings numbers weren’t that good for network tv to start with.

Spike is in around 90 million households and CBS is in close to 120million (not to mention the jump in attention and advertising that comes from being on CBS), then it’s almost a certainty you are going to see numbers jump if your on network as opposed to a second tier niche cable channel. As far as the quality of shows offered, it’s obvious the UFC could provide the 4 or 5 shows CBS is looking for if need be.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There’s no faulty logic here: Could UFC 75 done better? Perhaps, but its impossible to prove. What we all do know is what EXC was able to do on CBS with tons of hype, and it wasn’t 8.7s.

For CBS, if they can have MMA programming without attempting to cover the revenue from a 300,000 buy PPV each time, they’d love to have it. They are not going to offer the UFC 3-4 million a show (which is what the UFC is gonna want for that kind of event) and hand over all control of the production to them. It will never happen.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It definitely would have done much more based on the simple idea that CBS is in more homes. On top of that, everything on network TV historically trumps cable in the ratings. There is absolutely, positively no doubt that it would have had a bigger audience on CBS. To say otherwise is wrong.

By how much, we can only predict. But it would have done a bigger rating.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“everything” is a bit much. ESPN beats every network in the ratings September-December on Monday nights. Its pretty much guaranteed.

Again, we return to the so many of the same talking points as before, and none of them really mean anything about a future Zuffa/network deal. I don’t know about you, but I’ve not seen a UFC 75 level event on Spike TV this year. I seriously doubt I will, either.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On November 12th ESPN had 11.8 million viewers(one of the highest ratings of the year). That same night Criminal Minds on CBS did 14.8 million. Monday Night Football is the top rated cable show but they don’t beat the networks every week and absolutly nothing else on cable tv even comes close to what Monday Night Football does.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Criminal Minds also isn’t over 3 hours long, which is how ESPN wins those nights. Networks “win” off averages.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Criminal Minds also wasn’t the only show on CBS that equaled or beat MNF that night too, not to mention that was the fourth highest rating for MNF of the season but that was pretty average for what Criminal Minds and CSI New York do every week.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What show at 11pm is doing MNF ratings for CBS, NBC, or ABC? Or for that matter, how much of a drop off is it from the last few seasons of ABC’s televising of MNF? I understand that you want to prove that the UFC would automatically be a success on network TV, but this is not the way to do it.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No I was showing that everything on networks historically trumps cable is actually pretty accurate, even cable’s far and away recordbreaking program is regularly matched or beat in ratings by the networks.

For the record in 2005, the last season on ABC for MNF, averaged 16.4 million viewers a week and 16.8 million a week in 2004. It is down several million viewers a week from where it was on ABC. ABC dropped it because of the huge cost involved(ESPN pays around 1.1 billion a year for it currently).

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cut the shit. Network TV does higher ratings than cable. This is a known fact.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Remember the Saturday Night fights without Kimbo bombed in the ratings, they are going to have to have a actual draw in order to get even the mediocre ratings(at least for network tv) they were getting from the other two EliteXC shows. No one else has fighters that can draw in numbers like the UFC does. As far as what they would/could pay:

“…a typical cost of about $3 million for an hour long scripted network series. Conventional network reality shows are also much more expensive at $1.5 million to $2 million an hour.”

$3 million for a two hour show would be considered very affordable.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The “bomb in the ratings” was still watched by significantly more people than UFC 89 and probably cost them a lot less than what UFC 89 might have.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL the UFC replay that night beat CBS on the target demos….

Elite xc lost over a million viewers for that time slot.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And so CBS should pay significantly more for a program that would perform about as well?

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No… how bout paying for a program you know will be there.

That’s a novel idea.

Sometimes in business deals I have been in positions where I could choke the fuck out of the other party…

Would of been a great deal however once their dead doesnt do me much good so I have to make sure it’s a win/win otherwise it wont last.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 10:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They have plenty of programming they’ve already paid for that could be there, which is where the value of your talk of CSI repeats actually has some traction. Could they sell $4 million dollars worth of UFC advertising? Maybe. Obviously, they don’t think they can, so there are no deals and there won’t be any.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A show on a fringe second tier cable network was watched by about the same amount of people as EliteXC unfinished business on one of the largest and most watched networks in the world. Aside from the difference in household availability there is no comparing average viewership numbers between Spike and CBS. Being on Network is going to get the better ratings almost every time just due to the fact that way more people watch the networks than even know Spike TV exist.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 10:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is common sense. I don’t know why we need to keep reiterating it.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At the end of the day as Rome so aptly touched on if you can’t compete revenue wise you are DONE.

Let me play this out for you…

Let’s say an org can figure out a way to break even or even make some money with the CBS deal…

what happens when the stars you created on CBS contracts are up?

The Math keeps changing…

The leverage of CBS is a double edged sword. It’s a great platform to create stars but not a very good one to monetize those stars and continue to pay for them.

You can’t sell PPV’s with the CBS schedule…

An organization succeeding regularly on CBS is a plus for Zuffa.

The remaining 3 networks will rush to get UFC at a premium.

Imagine in the beginning arena football getting on network first and succeeding…. NFL would have a hell of alot more leverage with the remaining networks.

Or college basketball vs the NBA.

At the end of the day you are creating stars and opening doors for the UFC.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 6:44 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

This is all correct. What baffles me is that people fail to grasp just how sturdy the institutional blockages are to competing with the UFC.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 7, 2008 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A lot of people tend to think since they are both fight businesses, the MMA business should be similar to the boxing business. But the requirements to compete with the UFC are just so much higher, and go way beyond simply having the money to pay the fighters and put on a show.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

when you’re using someone else’s money you can make yourself believe the sky is green.

Look at monte cox….

very successful as a small time promoter – as soon as outside money came in he suspended reality for a bit.

Yeah he was very disciplined in being level headed about his aspirations of just trying to be the :“strikeforce” of the midwest… but then he goes and signs sylvia and rothwell.

When it’s not your money you start thinking you’re playing monopoly .

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Huh? Those are his clients, so it is a bit different.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That makes it more complicated and questionable not less.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh you didnt hear with all your super cool “sources”?

Monte’s investors bailed after the first show… he got less than 1/3rd of what he expected to do and told his investors.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I heard that. But Sylvia and Rothwell have yet to fight for him since he signed them.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Adreniline co-promoted the first Affliction show(notably absent from the second show) but yea he signed both guys to contracts that he can’t afford to pay.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rothwell is scheduled for the Dec 11 Adrenaline card.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, he is scheduled, as in the future but has not competed for him yet.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just pointing it out.

by Michaelthebox on Dec 7, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

P.S.

What is with the sly remarks?

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s going to be hard to take on the UFC but there is room in the marketplace for a company with a a smart plan and solid leadership. Right off the bat a lot of companies run into problems because they go after the UFC instead of just trying to get established in the industry.

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For example let’s look at this Trebilcock situation.

He has investors with 2 million.

They are trying to start up a new entity where they will get pro-elites assets in return for some money up front and an equity stake to some of pro-elites top management.

Now obviously the investors want to make sure the contracts with CBS and/or showtime are still intact.

So assuming CBS or showtime agree to this (and some of the fighters as they will have to get them to re-sign) be prepared to experience “DEJA VU”.

after one show or so back to the drawing board.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The UFC has little incentive right now to take the CBS deal if it’s not financially viable for them. They’re selling those PPV’s at an average of 500k buys a show for $45 a pop. They get half of the revenue and that’s a ton of cash. Whatever CBS is offering simply isn’t worth it to the UFC and they actually are better off if another smaller organization gets the deal.

The “casual” fan – Joe Sixpack – is going to tune in to watch this “ultimate cage fighting” thing he heard about. He becomes a fan of the sport and thus more interested in the UFC then he would have been without the primetime network exposure without any financial risk from the UFC.

Anyone who cares enough about the differences between the organizations is already a fan of the sport and is going to line the UFC pocket books anyway. The network deal is to expand the viewership. In the long run, the incentive the UFC hasto get on net work TV is to insure that there isn’t another fiasco like EliteXC to make the sport look bad. If the UFC is to really go mainstream and grab those sports fans that aren’t yet MMA fans they are going to have to push their MMA product to the masses and take this shit global. Companies like EliteXC, Affliction, and even Strikeforce will pull in some new eyes but it’s going to take the powerhouse of the UFC to grab the attention of people that will become new long term fans.

If instead of the NFL we saw a shittier football product pushed to the masses on Monday Night Football, would football be the sports institution it is today? The UFC is the big dog in this sport and they can afford to take a small hit in order to get this shit global as they are the only ones with the power to do it. CBS and other networks need to learn that the business model of an EliteXC is not something that is going to bring them long term viewers.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 7:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The first part I entirely agree with you on. The UFC has no reason to jump onto network TV because the kind of money network TV provides them at this point in time isn’t going to come close to PPV revenue. The “Joe Sixpack” has already seen MMA by this point; I think those people out there believing otherwise are quite deluded. We’re well past the sport’s network debut and the new ratings highs that came as a result.

However, the idea that CBS is in a position where they need to rethink their MMA programming to accompany the UFC’s business model is, well, flawed. They still don’t need to, particularly at the price of what the the UFC will want and what they can provide at said price. The UFC is not on network TV for the same reason boxing left network TV regular rotation 15 years ago, and that will continue to be the case until we come back in a few years and start to ask as to whether or not being PPV based hurts the UFC’s capability to expand its fanbase beyond the fringe one it currently enjoys.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well that’s a gloomy view of the future of MMA. So I guess your view is that CBS is silly to put any MMA on their network because the best that can hope for is mediocre ratings that are barely acceptable even on a dead night. In a nation of 300 million people MMA is topped out at 5 million or so people watching a free show and there is no room for growth? Seriously?

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Its pretty basic. EXC got 1/10th what the UFC would want for probably similar or equal ratings. The chances then of CBS breaking even on EXC are better than breaking even on ad sales for UFC. Even if they bought the company and decided to use the CBS and Showtime events to provide hype for PPVs, then you have to think about potential PPV revenue (along with liveevent revenue) coming in that they are getting absolutely zero of from the UFC, probably for less per CBS show cost wise.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Its pretty basic… yeah they paid less of elite xc – but where is elite xc right now??? end of story.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And the UFC isn’t going to accept those terms, so, well, they aren’t on network TV. Case closed!

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Zuffa doesnt need network TV. Case Closed.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To make money? Absolutely not. They’ve made tons of it and probably will for a long time into the future. Which, well, was my point. So thanks for re-enforcing it.

by D.Capitated on Dec 7, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Glad we can agree on at least something.

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

1/10th of what the UFC wanted? Really? You got a source to back that up or are you just wildly exaggerating?

by who me on Dec 7, 2008 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s not true. That’s a made up number.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How much money do you think the UFC would want for what are PPV level cards when that’s the kind of money they’re making off a PPV level card?

by D.Capitated on Dec 8, 2008 7:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, you obviously don’t understand how the business works. It’s the razor and blades strategy. The UFC makes less money on certain shows just to have it TV in order to pull in interest for their PPV.

by cyph on Dec 8, 2008 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I fully understand how the business works. I think its really funny though when people pretend that comparisons to CSI are better explanations of why the UFC is/isn’t/should be on network TV than, say, boxing, which was on network TV and left to pay TV/PPV. You know, because there’s just no comparing a pair of combat sports with the same exact chief revenue stream, not while network dramas are around.

by D.Capitated on Dec 8, 2008 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Besides, its not me who’s saying that the UFC deserves NBA money, its Dana White. Right now, the NBA gets $400 million a season.

by D.Capitated on Dec 8, 2008 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The CSI example wasn’t the best but it did speak to the real meat of your argument: the difference between cable ratings and those seen on network TV. If I remember correctly, you started off with the basic premise that there is no way of knowing if UFC 75 would have done better ratings on network TV. The CSI example was one of many that shows the stark contrast in viewers from cable to TV and basically destroyed your nonsensical statement.

Bringing up the boxing example is valid but at the same time there are many factors to be considered in breaking this down. How long ago was it that boxing was on network TV? How has the landscape changed in the television industry since – with the expansion of cable and the introduction of alternative forms of media – ie the internet? Why did boxing leave network TV?

This is all erroneous semantics that are being beat to death. The point is, network TV does higher ratings on a broad scale than cable. Look at the top 10 neilson chart for the week.

The NBA example is moot. I would like to see where Dana said that and how it’s being taken out of context, which I think it probably is. The NBA is a league with 30 teams playing 82 regular season games a year. Each team is a privately held business licensed by the NBA. The UFC, on the other hand, puts on approximately 16-18 events a year, all financed by the same company. The number of events and the business model are completely different. I don’t see the comparison.

by dropkick101 on Dec 8, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

400m for how many shows? please do some math…

by mmalogic on Dec 8, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

$400 million a season? The NBA’s deal with ESPN/ABC is 8 years for 7.4 billion dollars and includes a lot more than just televising the games. It’s not even comparable to what would be asked for 4 or 5 MMA events a year on CBS. When has Dana White ever said he wants this kind of money for a network deal?

by who me on Dec 8, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think your misinterpreting what I meant by CBS needing to learn that a business model like EliteXC doesn’t work. I thought it was clear but I guess not. The folks running network stations have to grasp that, while the main selling point is cage fighting which anybody with a cage and two fighters can put on, it is going to take a legitimate company with a history of success (see: UFC) to really make the sport profitable long term for the network. That doesn’t mean so much that they need to adjust how they do business, just who they do business with.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the IFL or Proelite were smart they would have taken that cash and set up geographical reality shows based solely on Tuf (latino market, european, etc) … from there set up fight nights and start building up stars, getting sponsors, boning up their TV deals, etc…..

At this point they would have had a good chance of being revenue competitive down the road.

Since then and more aggressively now Zuffa is closing up this flank.

Investors are like rats though… they always find the cheese – so as soon as someone can set up something viable the money will come back piece meal.

Franchise local show concepts, regional show concepts, etc…

Lets put it this way if you can figure out a way to set up local shows and pull in 150k to 250k per year in a cookie cutter fashion you can franchise or license that puppy to the tune of millions.

Create territories across the country, sell each one for a lump some upfront and a yearly license fee.

fighters will have more places to fight, the sport will grow, etc…

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 7:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I really want Affliction to get that CBS deal badly.

Brad Ziegler had a scoreless inning streak. Brad Ziegler had not met BJ Upton.

by P Brady on Dec 7, 2008 7:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The UFC getting on network TV would be the best thing for the sport.

If Affliction gets the deal and is able to produce a program that showcases quality fighters, entertaining personalities, and good production values, then more power to them. Those fighter contracts would have to be re-negotiated though as the business model for network television likely wouldn’t be able to break even with such inflated salaries. Fighters would have to take a cut in their flat fighter purse in order to make much, much more in sponsorship revenue.

Basically, we would need a reasonable meeting of the minds from all sides. With the self-interest nature of people in general and the over inflated egos and stubbornness that comes with the different roles of fighter, promoter, and investor, I doubt all the stars would be able to align. Hopefully I’m wrong.

by dropkick101 on Dec 7, 2008 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If

there is a member of Elite’s old guard that is involved in resurrecting the promotion hopefully it’s someone like T.Jay Thompson and not Gary or Jared Shaw and I seriously doubt it the Shaws involved and If the new investors get things worked out with the fighters contracts and still have the TV deals with CBS and Showtime then maybe this could be good for MMA. Elite did put on some good events in spite of leadership that included the likes of Gary Shaw and Skala.

by tylerdurden1 on Dec 7, 2008 9:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It would NOT involve the Shaws.

Terry Trebilcock, KOTC owner, is who the article is referring to.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 7, 2008 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

new owner

I hear elite xc is about to be purchased by MARC ECO clothing line.that is the big company

by ALKATRAZ on Dec 7, 2008 10:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

MMASupremacy I hope you realize Luke can see your IP so posting under different names wont help your cause…

by mmalogic on Dec 7, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Nice.

by subo on Dec 7, 2008 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What

other names is he posting under and why would that help his cause?

by tylerdurden1 on Dec 8, 2008 12:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am not, and it wouldn’t. mmalogic and some other posters around here have their feelings hurt for some reason.

by MMASuPreMaCy on Dec 8, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's more frustration than anything else

But I go ahead and say the prayer of serenity (without the whole God part) and take my leave. The cool thing is, whether or not I respond to your every comment (and trust me, I’m about done responding at all), the UFC is going to keep crushing the skulls of their competitors, ProElite and Affliction are still FUBAR, and anyone who goes against Zuffa is going to lose money.

But my feelings aren’t hurt by people disagreeing with me. You won’t catch me calling any names or making things personal in the course of a debate. I think I’ll just take my leave and watch events in the real world prove you wrong. Again.

by subo on Dec 8, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I’m pretty sure that was humor.

by who me on Dec 8, 2008 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tell him to look.

How much money do you want to fork over to me on a bet that ALKATRAZ is not me?
I could use some extra money for the holiday

Bloody Elbow: An SB Nation Community

Login Bar

Network Bar

Bloody Elbow

Pound-for-Pound the Best in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) Commentary, News and Community