Originally Posted by Goremire
And therein lies the crux of the disagreement. I think that the most deserving contender should be getting the shot, with marketability (and what you really mean is 'profitability') forming a small part of the equation.
For mine, the only time marketability should be the deciding factor in a title fight is if there are two similarly or equally deserving contenders. At that point it's appropriate for the contender who will make the most money to get the shot.
I think this approach is the best overall, and what it may lose occasionally in sales it makes up in preservation of the integrity and credibility of the championships. Lose that and what status do you have as a legitimate sporting organization?
I mean, the alternative is that you can get absurd situations like fighters getting title shots in divisions they don't fight in, or coming off losses or both or...
Well said, sir. I agree with all of this; especially the long-term view where one decreases total value of the promotion by greedily chasing fights that don't make sense.
It'll be interesting to see it play out. But there are clear roads to championships in many (most?) sports. I think the absence of one creates real issues. It's certainly made it harder for me to be an involved fan; I don't like all the drama that the handpicking creates.
And, at the end of the day, profitability may not be quite what folks things. I'd bet the opportunity loss to fighting a less known fighter is often minimal; Silva can easily negotiate for large sums of money as win bonus. Does anyone have solid estimates on fighter profit here?