Will ESPN Ramp Up Its MMA Coverage?
Steve Cofield does some speculating:
It's a good sign to see ESPN writer/personality Franklin McNeil on hand here in Atlanta to cover UFC 88. That's three straight shows that ESPN has allowed McNeil to staff in person. It's part of some increased coverage this week. The fighters and Dana White appeared on ESPN and ESPNNews plus ESPNRadio on Wednesday. Overall, ESPN's coverage of MMA is still sporadic. It's making progress with the new MMALive show. But that is still relegated the net exclusively. It's to hard to imagine that ESPN can't sell the show. So what's the problem?
Better yet, who is blocking MMA from getting real coverage? You can argue that the potential Chuck Liddell-Forrest Griffin and B.J. Penn-Georges St. Pierre fights are as big or bigger than the UFC 91 main event. Is there any shot those fighters are on the set at ESPN during football season for extended conversations? Maybe that'll happen and this is truly a breakthrough for UFC.
The last time ESPN gave serious coverage to the UFC was in the build up to the Chuck Liddell/Rampage Jackson fight in May 2007. Call me a cynic but I am of the opinion that unless the UFC cuts a deal with ESPN/ABC that gives ESPN a financial stake in the organization, they won't be getting serious coverage.
That is until they are routinely getting more than 1 million PPV buys. And who knows, with the murderer's row of events the UFC has in the chamber for the winter of 08/09, maybe we'll get there.
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
UFC Saturday Night Fights
On ESPN would be sweet! I know that the production was an issue with getting a deal done with HBO but I think UFC has to compromise the production and a compromise with ESPN/ABC would be a win/win IMO. Its pretty cool that ESPN is doing all this coverage. I caught Mike and Mike in the Morning and heard them going nuts over Randys ear. It was quite funny.
I think Nate hit it right on the head
bringing up the 1 million PPV buy threshold. Once they can be counted on for a handful of those every year, then you’ve got something that the mainstream can no longer choose to ignore simply for purposes of industrial leverage. ESPN will have no choice but to give significant coverage, otherwise some rival will provide that coverage and gain market share.
Right now, they are just playing for a piece of the pie. And it’s sound business, freezing out the customer in order to maximize your return on the transaction. The only problem is you can hold out for too long, and the customer can figure out how to get the product elsewhere. ESPN is certainly the largest sports news outlet in the world (well, at least in North America, which is what really matters for the purposes of this discussion), so there isn’t much danger of someone providing exactly the same product they’re capable of. But it’s still a risk.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
It'd be even better if ...
they got somebody on staff who knew fuck all about the sport. Franklin McNeil does not fit that description.
by The Ghost of Spike Owen on Sep 5, 2008 12:07 PM EDT reply actions
Well..
It’s competent if not amazing. I seldom roll my eyes at their commentary— more excited that they’re doing it at all. Like Jonez said; one step at a time..
1.0 is the Magic Number
When the UFC achieves that 1.0+ buyrate at 91, my assessment is that ESPN will be on board on a semi-regular basis. The force that such a gesture will generate cannot be understated. ESPN giving semi-regular coverage to the UFC could, in essence, help sustain that 1.0+ trend going forward and it’s very possible, looking at the potential for cards following November’s Couture/Lesnar headlining event, that the UFC could start seeing 1.0’s more often than not. Sure, it may seem unrealistic now, but sometimes I think these buyrates are solely attributed to the popularity of the talent and not enough to the popularity of the sport and the product— and that card could be the perfect storm to extend the reach of the UFC. Yes, the fighters matter, but it’s trending upwards, so when we look at buyrates from 2004 and buyrates today, some inflation should be inferred. The additional ESPN coverage helping the UFC along could go a very long way toward sustaining the product (and sport) as a long term mainstream American sports entity. They’re already providing coverage on-air for Couture and Lesnar. It’s not a stretch to imagine they’ll provide coverage leading up to it that could potentially assist the buyrate in moving up whole tenths of points (no small feat).
It may not be long before we look back on this time and say to ourselves “wow, nobody really watched MMA back then”.
Nicely stated, Blackout.
‘This thing,’ as Dana refers to it, really is trending in the right direction at sort of a ridiculous pace. It might just be optimistic fanboyism on our parts, but it really does seem like we’re at a threshold with 91. It might be staggering just comparing 2008 to 2009 when all is said and done.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by 






















