Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST

Bellator institutes 'tournament champion replacement clause' for title fights

Print  
Posted By Message

FastKnockout

THE RUTHLESS ONE

FastKnockout Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:15,706
Career:4,976-3,002
Joined:Sep 2010
Chips:
1,889
While officials don't expect it to use it very often, Bellator MMA has instituted a new rule to dictate which fighters get title shots if tournament winners aren't available.

Link

Post #1   8/13/13 1:39:21PM   

traveller77

Standup Guy

traveller77 Avatar
14
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:326
Career:1,467-756
Joined:Dec 2010
Camp: Canadian Power Team
Chips:
123
Unfortunately, Dana White's ego wont allow him to copy the idea but he should. The champion having input on which fighter he faces is cool too. Too bad the UFC is more concerned about which fight is more "sellable" than which matchup is the fair one.

Post #2   8/13/13 2:38:57PM   

FlashyG

Heavyweight Champ

FlashyG Avatar
45
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,444
Career:4,406-2,459
Joined:Feb 2008
Chips:
1,258

Posted by traveler77

Unfortunately, Dana White's ego wont allow him to copy the idea but he should. The champion having input on which fighter he faces is cool too. Too bad the UFC is more concerned about which fight is more "sellable" than which matchup is the fair one.



Why would the UFC copy a tournament champion replacement clause when they don't hold tournaments?

Focusing on what is more sellable is why the UFC is profitable and the rest of MMA is struggling to even break even.

Bellator isn't an organization to be copied, they have some exciting fighters who put on great shows but the organization itself is kind of a mess, and if it weren't for the financial backing of viacom they'd have faded into obscurity long ago.

Post #3   8/13/13 4:00:23PM   

GDPofMPG

FKA3.0

GDPofMPG Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,769
Career:3,269-2,033
Joined:Feb 2008
Chips:
521

Posted by FlashyG
if it weren't for the financial backing of viacom they'd have faded into obscurity long ago.



Really? They seemed to be doing okay before Viacom was interested. In fact, Viacom's interest probably had more then a little to do with BFC doing so okay.

Post #4   8/13/13 4:17:08PM   

FlashyG

Heavyweight Champ

FlashyG Avatar
45
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,444
Career:4,406-2,459
Joined:Feb 2008
Chips:
1,258

Posted by GDPofMPG


Posted by FlashyG
if it weren't for the financial backing of viacom they'd have faded into obscurity long ago.



Really? They seemed to be doing okay before Viacom was interested. In fact, Viacom's interest probably had more then a little to do with BFC doing so okay.



Their TV ratings weren't horrible at that point but their live attendance was.

In season 3 several events had fewer than 1000 paid attendee's.

After Viacom bought them and moved them over to MTV2 then to Spike they have improved their attendance but their TV numbers are still considerably lower than the UFC's were on the same network.

They are approaching their 100th show and on their best nights their ratings are roughly 1/3 of the ratings the UFC got for it's undercards aired on SPIKE.

If Viacom didn't own the organization they would be looking for a new TV deal.

Post #5   8/13/13 5:00:02PM   

GDPofMPG

FKA3.0

GDPofMPG Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,769
Career:3,269-2,033
Joined:Feb 2008
Chips:
521

Posted by FlashyG


Posted by GDPofMPG


Posted by FlashyG
if it weren't for the financial backing of viacom they'd have faded into obscurity long ago.



Really? They seemed to be doing okay before Viacom was interested. In fact, Viacom's interest probably had more then a little to do with BFC doing so okay.



Their TV ratings weren't horrible at that point but their live attendance was.

In season 3 several events had fewer than 1000 paid attendee's.

After Viacom bought them and moved them over to MTV2 then to Spike they have improved their attendance but their TV numbers are still considerably lower than the UFC's were on the same network.

They are approaching their 100th show and on their best nights their ratings are roughly 1/3 of the ratings the UFC got for it's undercards aired on SPIKE.

If Viacom didn't own the organization they would be looking for a new TV deal.



Vicacom sells TV products. Gate is not all that significant to that product. And do you really think UFC is the standard of comparison? They are kind of old and larger and been doing this for a little longer. Or is being equal to or better then the UFC the only measure of worth? Doesn't seem like a realistic standard to me.

Last edited 8/13/13 5:16PM server time by GDPofMPG
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #6   8/13/13 5:16:16PM   

machodog76

MMA Sensei

machodog76 Avatar
17
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,889
Career:5,416-3,592
Joined:Jun 2007
Chips:
380
I love Bellator but I doubt they turn much of a profit and I doubt they ever will. UFC is the Q-tip/kleenex of MMA. The PPV is going to be a huge loser for them as well.

Post #7   8/13/13 5:33:40PM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
46
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:11,519
Career:5,376-2,966
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,729

Posted by traveler77

Unfortunately, Dana White's ego wont allow him to copy the idea but he should. The champion having input on which fighter he faces is cool too. Too bad the UFC is more concerned about which fight is more "sellable" than which matchup is the fair one.



Completely different business model. When a challenger drops out in the UFC, there are a handful of people that put their heads together and make the decision, just as Bellator does. The difference is Bellator needs a more mathematical approach for the solution, as it would otherwise compromise the product they are trying to promote and sell.

Last edited 8/13/13 6:02PM server time by grappler0000
Edit note/reason: n/a

_______________________________________

Post #8   8/13/13 6:00:54PM   

traveller77

Standup Guy

traveller77 Avatar
14
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:326
Career:1,467-756
Joined:Dec 2010
Camp: Canadian Power Team
Chips:
123

Posted by FlashyG


Posted by traveler77

Unfortunately, Dana White's ego wont allow him to copy the idea but he should. The champion having input on which fighter he faces is cool too. Too bad the UFC is more concerned about which fight is more "sellable" than which matchup is the fair one.



Why would the UFC copy a tournament champion replacement clause when they don't hold tournaments?

Focusing on what is more sellable is why the UFC is profitable and the rest of MMA is struggling to even break even.

Bellator isn't an organization to be copied, they have some exciting fighters who put on great shows but the organization itself is kind of a mess, and if it weren't for the financial backing of viacom they'd have faded into obscurity long ago.



I wasnt talking about a tournament, I was talking about a system that gives title shots based on the top 10 rankings. The kind of thing that could have been used in the first attempt at Jones / Sonnen. Giving the title shot to the right fighter is good for the credibility of the UFC and the entire sport. We dont want this to get a professional wrestling feel to it, but thats what happens when you base title shots on twitter wars and trash talking.

Post #9   8/13/13 7:29:16PM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
46
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:11,519
Career:5,376-2,966
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,729
Just thought of why this will be a bad idea...assuming I'm reading it correctly. So, all of their champions own stock in picking a contender. People will vote for who they're friends with more often than who deserves it. And there is a definite opportunity for people to sell their votes. Someone will be bought sooner or later. Take out the fighters and put in the fans for the vote and you have a more customer-engaging product. If you could vote via twitter, facebook, and sms, that's a mini viral campaign every time you have an injured contender. It would be the silver lining.

Last edited 8/13/13 7:55PM server time by grappler0000
Edit note/reason: n/a

_______________________________________

Post #10   8/13/13 7:45:22PM   

Lungsofsteel

Belt Contender

Lungsofsteel Avatar
12
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:935
Career:2,499-1,699
Joined:Jul 2012
Camp: FLBTV All-Stars
Chips:
206
they should stop locking their fighters into contracts

Post #11   8/13/13 8:12:19PM   

FlashyG

Heavyweight Champ

FlashyG Avatar
45
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,444
Career:4,406-2,459
Joined:Feb 2008
Chips:
1,258

Posted by GDPofMPG


Posted by FlashyG


Posted by GDPofMPG


Posted by FlashyG
if it weren't for the financial backing of viacom they'd have faded into obscurity long ago.



Really? They seemed to be doing okay before Viacom was interested. In fact, Viacom's interest probably had more then a little to do with BFC doing so okay.



Their TV ratings weren't horrible at that point but their live attendance was.

In season 3 several events had fewer than 1000 paid attendee's.

After Viacom bought them and moved them over to MTV2 then to Spike they have improved their attendance but their TV numbers are still considerably lower than the UFC's were on the same network.

They are approaching their 100th show and on their best nights their ratings are roughly 1/3 of the ratings the UFC got for it's undercards aired on SPIKE.

If Viacom didn't own the organization they would be looking for a new TV deal.



Vicacom sells TV products. Gate is not all that significant to that product. And do you really think UFC is the standard of comparison? They are kind of old and larger and been doing this for a little longer. Or is being equal to or better then the UFC the only measure of worth? Doesn't seem like a realistic standard to me.



Who else do you compare Bellator to? Viacom bought the company in the hopes of competing with the UFC in response to the UFC leaving their network for Fox.

Since the 2 companies have both aired their events on the same network it seems perfectly fair to compare their numbers and the UFC nearly tripled Bellator's ratings, despite only showing the undercard of their events vs the main card for Bellator. Bellator even has the advantage of free advertising on the network since they are owned by the network's parent company, and the advantage of starting out with fighters their audience was already familiar with thanks to the UFC.

I really like Bellator, but I think their parent companies attempt to compete with the UFC is going to lead to its demise. I think this upcoming PPV will be the beginning of the end at least for Viacom's involvement in the MMA business.

Post #12   8/14/13 1:50:08AM   

GDPofMPG

FKA3.0

GDPofMPG Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,769
Career:3,269-2,033
Joined:Feb 2008
Chips:
521

Posted by FlashyG


Posted by GDPofMPG


Posted by FlashyG


Posted by GDPofMPG


Posted by FlashyG
if it weren't for the financial backing of viacom they'd have faded into obscurity long ago.



Really? They seemed to be doing okay before Viacom was interested. In fact, Viacom's interest probably had more then a little to do with BFC doing so okay.



Their TV ratings weren't horrible at that point but their live attendance was.

In season 3 several events had fewer than 1000 paid attendee's.

After Viacom bought them and moved them over to MTV2 then to Spike they have improved their attendance but their TV numbers are still considerably lower than the UFC's were on the same network.

They are approaching their 100th show and on their best nights their ratings are roughly 1/3 of the ratings the UFC got for it's undercards aired on SPIKE.

If Viacom didn't own the organization they would be looking for a new TV deal.



Vicacom sells TV products. Gate is not all that significant to that product. And do you really think UFC is the standard of comparison? They are kind of old and larger and been doing this for a little longer. Or is being equal to or better then the UFC the only measure of worth? Doesn't seem like a realistic standard to me.



Who else do you compare Bellator to? Viacom bought the company in the hopes of competing with the UFC in response to the UFC leaving their network for Fox.

Since the 2 companies have both aired their events on the same network it seems perfectly fair to compare their numbers and the UFC nearly tripled Bellator's ratings, despite only showing the undercard of their events vs the main card for Bellator. Bellator even has the advantage of free advertising on the network since they are owned by the network's parent company, and the advantage of starting out with fighters their audience was already familiar with thanks to the UFC.

I really like Bellator, but I think their parent companies attempt to compete with the UFC is going to lead to its demise. I think this upcoming PPV will be the beginning of the end at least for Viacom's involvement in the MMA business.



I really think you're underestimating how much bigger the UFC is in popularity compared to BFC. Same channel doesn't mean all things are equal. UFC as a promotion is a 20 year old brand. Viacom's will to establish a brand they back in MMA doesn't instantly designate them equals for comparison for what to Zuffa had long ago established for their brand. It's a skewed comparison.

Last edited 8/14/13 10:53AM server time by GDPofMPG
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #13   8/14/13 10:53:18AM   

FlashyG

Heavyweight Champ

FlashyG Avatar
45
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,444
Career:4,406-2,459
Joined:Feb 2008
Chips:
1,258

Posted by GDPofMPG


Posted by FlashyG


Posted by GDPofMPG


Posted by FlashyG


Posted by GDPofMPG


Posted by FlashyG
if it weren't for the financial backing of viacom they'd have faded into obscurity long ago.



Really? They seemed to be doing okay before Viacom was interested. In fact, Viacom's interest probably had more then a little to do with BFC doing so okay.



Their TV ratings weren't horrible at that point but their live attendance was.

In season 3 several events had fewer than 1000 paid attendee's.

After Viacom bought them and moved them over to MTV2 then to Spike they have improved their attendance but their TV numbers are still considerably lower than the UFC's were on the same network.

They are approaching their 100th show and on their best nights their ratings are roughly 1/3 of the ratings the UFC got for it's undercards aired on SPIKE.

If Viacom didn't own the organization they would be looking for a new TV deal.



Vicacom sells TV products. Gate is not all that significant to that product. And do you really think UFC is the standard of comparison? They are kind of old and larger and been doing this for a little longer. Or is being equal to or better then the UFC the only measure of worth? Doesn't seem like a realistic standard to me.



Who else do you compare Bellator to? Viacom bought the company in the hopes of competing with the UFC in response to the UFC leaving their network for Fox.

Since the 2 companies have both aired their events on the same network it seems perfectly fair to compare their numbers and the UFC nearly tripled Bellator's ratings, despite only showing the undercard of their events vs the main card for Bellator. Bellator even has the advantage of free advertising on the network since they are owned by the network's parent company, and the advantage of starting out with fighters their audience was already familiar with thanks to the UFC.

I really like Bellator, but I think their parent companies attempt to compete with the UFC is going to lead to its demise. I think this upcoming PPV will be the beginning of the end at least for Viacom's involvement in the MMA business.



I really think you're underestimating how much bigger the UFC is in popularity compared to BFC. Same channel doesn't mean all things are equal. UFC as a promotion is a 20 year old brand. Viacom's will to establish a brand they back in MMA doesn't instantly designate them equals for comparison for what to Zuffa had long ago established for their brand. It's a skewed comparison.



I agree that the comparison is incredibly lopsided in the UFC's favor but there's nothing wrong with comparing the 2nd biggest MMA promotion with the industry leader, even if gap between them is enormous.

To me Bellator is operating a lot like the XFL did when trying to compete with the NFL, but with far larger financial backers.

Sure its ridiculous to compare the 2 companies, but that's also why its ridiculous for Bellator to try and compete with the UFC.

They will be crushed just like the XFL was.

Post #14   8/14/13 11:33:40AM