Quote Originally Posted by SimpleJack View Post
We will have to agree to disagree here.

Competition benefits the consumer and forces each stakeholder to develop from within rather than poach talent before it reaches it's potential. Clearly, the policy of not interfering too much with the wec developed amazing athletes and look at how much better mma was during the pride years. Speculating on dream matches is natural and serves to keep fans more interested as well. Currently, you're fed matchups that are rarely if ever the two best and they're all under one banner as it is and they create fake hype to make it more interesting.

A viable second option would force both parties to up their game and make the sport better all around. The singular vision of the ufc is not and should not be the be-all end-all of mma. The comparison to team sports simply doesn't fit here for a plethora of reasons but I would ask you to look no further than the aba to see just how awesome and innovative sports can be when there is a second option. Another clear example would be the Monday night wars. Also, the afl/nfl merger was probably not what you seem to believe.
While I can see your point of team sports not fitting, I would say something such as the Monday Night Wars do not fit either. You are talking about an entertainment company driven solely by ratings. You never get the best vs the best because it doesn't really exist. You are fed what they want to give you and they modify when things do not work. This is close to what the UFC does today, and what many people complain about and it would only get worse with more Orgs.

What I think we need here is 1 company but driven by a dedicated board who collectively make dec with negotiators who have the skill and understanding to do so within the boards given parameters.