Seems to me that every time the UFC has a main event it is billed as the "biggest fight in MMA history."

Wasn't that Chuck vs. Rampage? And then Rampage vs. Henderson? And then Silva vs. Chuck? And then Silva vs. Henderson?

I'm often amazed at how many "hardcore" fans write the last portion off with a "Tito sucks," statement.  While Ortiz hasn't convincingly beat anyone of note in quite some time, as the article points out he's very much a known quantity (probably even more so after his stint on a network television reality show).  In the end the UFC makes its money on the backs of the casual viewer and the casual viewer probably knows who Tito Ortiz is, so why didn't they (translation: Dana) put their personal issues aside and cash in on his recent reality show television fame?  I'm sure a lot more eyes saw that gigantic bleached dome on Trump's horrible reality show than during the 3rd Shamrock fight on Spike (because Network > Cable).

I think the UFC is making a financial mistake here no mater what.  Not signing Ortiz means that the 10 year anniversary fight of Ortiz/F. Shamrock will most likely happen, and that has the potential to be the biggest non-UFC event ever (again, because it's not about what the hardcore fans want, it's about the casual fan--additionally both of those guys can and will sell the shit out of that fight).  If they do re-sign Tito, they've diminished his stock (regardless of the outcome) in the eyes of the casual fan--which means less money for them.

All that said, I really like the match-up.  Tito needs to fight someone to show whether or not he can still cut it, and Machida has yet to face someone (in the UFC) who will try to put him on his back and keep him there (i.e. a big wrestler).