« WEC 2/13 New Mexico event announced | Home | Fight Network Radio (1/9/08) »
Tuesday news update (1/8/08)
By Zach Arnold | January 8, 2008
Steve Sievert has an update about the proposed Frank Shamrock vs. Ken Shamrock fight. He linked to this web site and wondered if it was real or not. A quick domain search claims that the web site is registered to “Frank Shamrock USA,” using GoDaddy. It was registered on December 21st.
Here is a new interview with Vadim Finkelstein.
Good news for Gina Carano — the ratings were decent Monday night for American Gladiators. (Hat tip: Mikeinformer).
Adam Swift has a breakdown comparison of UFC PPV buyrates between 2006 and 2007. Adam will be a guest on the next edition of Fight Opinion Radio.
Eddie Goldman has details about Larry Hazzard’s lawsuit against the state of New Jersey.
Topics: M-1, Media, MMA, Pro Elite, UFC, Zach Arnold | 59 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Exactly. If the UFC gets on HBO or network TV, you can bet your ass that the network will eventually start casually talking about fighters in a promotion outside the UFC.
Personally I’m one of those that holds the entertainment first, sports second philosophy because it draws money in the current MMA landscape. For eg. Freakshow fights in Japan draw money and casual fans so I see nothing wrong with having them. In America, having a virtual MMA newbie who happens to be a former WWE superstar like Brock Lesnar draws money. So that’s why I don’t see anything wrong with paying Brock great money and pushing him. But if CBS or HBO says, “you gotta be more legit as a sport” and being on CBS and HBO means more money, then you gotta comply with CBS or HBO. The main end goal of a promotion is to make money (or build towards eventually making money in the case of ProElite, IFL, etc).
Exactly. If the UFC gets on HBO or network TV, you can bet your ass that the network will eventually start casually talking about fighters in a promotion outside the UFC.
Forget just doing that. HBO’s televised boxing schedule isn’t about making sure they keep subscribers happy, its a medium to promote their PPV product. Does anyone rationally believe that the network that’s basically made Golden Boy Promotions into the biggest force in the sport might not get into the ear of someone like a Rampage, Liddell, Couture, etc type fighter? Popularity for the UFC is good…to a point. Become too popular and your athletes become bigger than you. Dana thus demands as much control as he can get for himself, not the sport or the fighters.
The national networks don’t use local broadcasters because they are sometimes under somewhat exclusive contracts with media entities that are not under their own corporate umbrella. Meanwhile, it’s traditional for leagues to provide ENG feeds that are used for local news and highlight coverage.
It’s also become increasingly common for media organizations to borrow the televised feed from another company (usually as part of an exchange agreement), and overlay radio audio from an outlet in their own media group when they’re not providing a thumping disco soundtrack and vacuous voiceover themselves.
There’s also a traditional sense that local broadcasters are permitted a degree of partiality in their coverage that would be inappropriate in national coverage. The concept is becoming increasingly ludicrous since the talent level on national broadcasts is getting insanely bad, and to keep people’s attention they end up bringing in people who try to pump up the story by being partial to one team or another.
Look around and you’ll find that the supporters of almost any sports franchise prefer the quality of the broadcast that they get locally to the amateurish looking and sounding pop40 presentation that you get from the guys who see your team once or twice a year and spend their entire time reading off of cue cards. Guys with six weeks experience versus the decades of many local broadcasters.
Network presentations of sports are almost universally bad in comparison to a local broadcast. UFC has real reasons to fear it.
There’s also a traditional sense that local broadcasters are permitted a degree of partiality in their coverage that would be inappropriate in national coverage. The concept is becoming increasingly ludicrous since the talent level on national broadcasts is getting insanely bad, and to keep people’s attention they end up bringing in people who try to pump up the story by being partial to one team or another.
I’ve seen ESPN do this on Sportscenter hyping up a game, but I can’t think of any time when NBC ran 30 minutes beforehand with a couple of pundits who argued amongst themselves, much less during the game itself.
Look around and you’ll find that the supporters of almost any sports franchise prefer the quality of the broadcast that they get locally to the amateurish looking and sounding pop40 presentation that you get from the guys who see your team once or twice a year and spend their entire time reading off of cue cards. Guys with six weeks experience versus the decades of many local broadcasters.
I’m also aware that hardcore sports fans of any given team watch their team play on their local broadcast networks or cable more than they see them on national cable or broadcast. Familiarity plays into that, you know. Its a bit like being surprised that people from Brooklyn prefer NY style pizza to Chicago deep dish, much less what’s sold at Pizza Hut.
Network presentations of sports are almost universally bad in comparison to a local broadcast.
I think the NBA on NBC is presented a multitude of levels more impressively than it is on a Comcast Sportsnet affiliate, to say nothing about how networks handle football, golf, etc. In fact, I can’t think of a single sport in which national broadcast coverage is actually worse than it is from the home station. Give me Fox over YES and NESN any day of the week.
UFC and MMA are intrinsically tied together. The UFC needs people to understand that its a legit sport otherwise, it becomes pro-wrestling. MMA needs UFC because quite frankly, joe public doesn’t really know too much about MMA the sport, but they know they care about the UFC. And contrary to what many fanboys believe, its not because UFC has supressed its competitors and people don’t know about other orgs and such. If MMA was a popular sport, the IFL, Bodog, Pride USA, Strikeforce and Elite XC would all be raking in the dough.
If the UFC disappeared tomorrow, its not like one of its competitors would immediately fill its void and be equally popular. If the UFC went away, MMA as a sport would be set back 10-15 years.
It doesn’t matter if the UFC has the most brand awareness or not. If CBS or HBO compiled an announcing team you’ll likely have at least one guy (color commentary usually) who knows the sport and the industry. And whose to say that this color commentator wouldn’t bring up Randy’s “retirement”, contractual problems with certain fighters (like Arlovski), Fedor, or mention other fighters from another promotion. CBS or HBO isn’t going to kiss the UFC’s ass. The UFC needs CBS and HBO a heck of a lot more than CBS and HBO need them. They will inevitably air dirty laundry and bring up names from other promotions.
I think the NBA on NBC is presented a multitude of levels more impressively than it is on a Comcast Sportsnet affiliate, to say nothing about how networks handle football, golf, etc. In fact, I can’t think of a single sport in which national broadcast coverage is actually worse than it is from the home station. Give me Fox over YES and NESN any day of the week.I can’t disagree about Comcast Sportnet, they’re universally shitty.
However, comparing anything on NESN to the bread and circus abortions that FOX calls sports broadcasts is, to me, ludicrous.
I guess we will again have to disagree on this point.
UFC and MMA are intrinsically tied together.
The bigger it becomes, the more important the individual fighters become and the less important the organization becomes. Its how the sanctioning bodies were able to break away from each other so easily in the 70s in boxing. After all, there was a time when there was no separate WBC and WBA or IBF or WBO. The UFC is doing its best to resist that while growing the sport. Its a terrifically tough thing to balance. I don’t think they’re going to get their cake and eat it too.
If MMA was a popular sport, the IFL, Bodog, Pride USA, Strikeforce and Elite XC would all be raking in the dough.
MMA is a popular sport, PRIDE USA, Elite XC, and Strikeforce has all pulled strong gates, and the UFC is seen as the elite rank. Why do you think that will be perpetually so? The sport is 15 years old in America.
If the UFC went away, MMA as a sport would be set back 10-15 years.
…if it happened today.
I pretty much agree with you, Dcap. But I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up seeing the UFC on network TV in all its canned Goldbergian glory.