I'd like to say that I think this sort of thing is a result of setting a precedent that who you face doesn't really matter.
As I pretty poorly expressed in this thread:
They should have had a completely different main event with completely different fighters. Then they could have had Silva vs Serious Opponent (like Weidman) latter in the year. Yes, UFC 153 would have had a much lower buyrate (it managed 410k apparently), probably around the 200k mark. However I think they would have gone over 700k buys if it'd been a serious fight in a later event with full fight camps, making it both more profitable and showing that the belt means something not just to the fans, but to the champ.
Originally Posted by tantryl
In case you're wondering why I think someone with a chance would get ~700k PPV buys, it's based on this graph I did in another thread.
I think Dana's choices weren't great here. It seems to me like what he's gotten and what he'll get out of sticking with three gimme fights (Bones v Vitor, Silva v Bonnar, Bones v Sonnen) for two top champs is those champs worst PPV draws, missed opportunities at getting good PPV draws, the most active UFC champ out of commission for 9 months, and the longest running champ out for 1+ years.
Is it catastrophic? Hardly. I just think match making for champions should be taken seriously, and taking them seriously has greater benefits than not taking them seriously.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.