The Doggy Bag: UFC 100 Reflection

I think the UFC is reaching this weird point where its champions may be too dominant. Out of all the weight classes, I don't see any of their reigning champions losing any time soon. We're talking about Georges St. Pierre fighting [the winner of] Martin Kampmann vs. Mike Swick, and rematches for Anderson Silva. B.J. Penn and Brock Lesnar have destroyed their respective weight classes and Lyoto Machida looks like an impressive, ever-maturing enigma of a fighter. In MMA anything is possible, but I don't think it's that likely.

Do you agree that these fighters are on other levels than their UFC contemporaries? Do you believe it’s good or bad to have such dominant champions? I think it takes away from some of the excitement about where the titles stand.
-- Scott Levine

Jordan Breen, columnist and radio host: In terms of skill level and the possibility for healthy reigning, this is probably the most potent quintet of champions the UFC has ever had. However, I must disagree that it is categorically negative for the UFC or MMA.

I think we can all accept the concept that durable, reigning champions are, if nothing else, good for creating prestige and worth in respective divisions. This is how great and objectively accomplished are created. However, when it comes to entertainment value, it seems that people in sports are split as to whether dominant champions -- be they fighters, players or collective teams -- breed excitement through familiarity or contempt through repetition.

I'm not sure it's as simple as just saying some people prefer dominant, long-tenured champions and others prefer the wildness of parity. After all, Fedor Emelianenko is going on seven years as MMA's heavyweight ruler, and people are hardly sick of his presence. Quite the opposite, in fact. Would it be that way if he had been in the UFC since 2003, ruling with an iron fist? It's hard to say. However, the current model for consumption for the UFC is predicated on first and foremost, brand recognition. 80 percent of casual invitations to watch a UFC event go as follows: "Hey, want to check out that UFC tonight?" Which is likely followed by, "Sure, who is fighting?"

Secondly, in the case of MMA, familiarity can be a good thing, as MMA is a sport where people pay to see stars. Even better, the consumer appetite for fighters such as Chuck Liddell, Randy Couture and Matt Hughes has not waned in the twilight of their careers, even after several high-profile losses. Much like Mike Tyson showed us a decade ago, people pay to see the fighters they know, and their long-term memory is much better than their short-term retention.

Parity is often preached in stick-and-ball organizations because at any time, a certain amount of teams will be in the basement, and the revenues of these teams will dwindle during that period. By promoting parity, leagues seek to keep a higher competitive balance and move the watermark for league-wide revenue higher. But in MMA, even if profitable fighters lose, their fans are hardly going to be subjected to the same cruelty as Detroit Lions fans. The dynamics of success and competition are vastly different.

That all adds up to good business for the UFC, and that's assuming that all five champions actually continue to reign -- a scenario which in the grand scheme of things, will be ephemeral. All four non-Lesnar champs have expressed interest at some time or another in moving up in weight, a move that would free up a stalemate in any division. Also, it's not even just the "anything is possible in MMA" angle that gives hope for parity, but also that MMA is a sport where great fighters continue to spring up suddenly. Just think about how many new elite fighters the sport has been introduced to in the last few years -- a point at which Couture was gearing up to defend the UFC heavyweight title against Gabriel Gonzaga, St. Pierre hadn't yet returned from being smashed by Matt Serra, Lesnar was just a 1-0 oddity, and people were crucifying Machida for a timid fight against David Heath. This is a sport where Mark Coleman was once thought to be unbeatable, and we're still evolving.

Finally, let's assume the worst case scenario: Lesnar, Machida, Silva, St. Pierre and Penn reign ad nauseum, casual and hardcore fan interest cools, and UFC revenue slumps. Has there ever been a better scenario to force Zuffa to actively court and sign elite non-UFC fighters -- a moment at which the best business move for Zuffa is actually to sign the best fighters available?

So, let them reign with impunity or let all champs tumble anarchically -- the UFC is going to thrive regardless, and I bet you'll find it quite interesting.