UFC on Fox 3: Diaz versus Miller 5/5/12

The flip side is the UFC programming has absolutely been a bonanza for Fuel TV.

MMA is here to stay bro. Embrace it. Boxing can't even get some interesting championshp fights on TV in the US, but the UFC gets Diaz-Miller on network TV.

:goingmad::goingmad::goingmad::goingmad:

 

Yeah, I won't say the guy isn't entertaining. And he will check anyone's chin that he catches.

He is still a decent gatekeeper.

 

The meteoric rise of the UFC hit a pocket of turbulence Tuesday with the release of the ratings for Saturday’s UFC on Fox 3 card.

The May 5 telecast averaged 2.42 million viewers (for a household rating of 1.5), down from 5.7 million for UFC on Fox 1 and 4.7 million for UFC on Fox 2.

By comparison, the NASCAR Nationwide Series Aaron’s 312, which aired earlier in the day, outdrew it with a 2.0 rating. (And that’s not the highest series of racing in NASCAR). The Kentucky Derby drew a 9.0 overnight rating from 6 and 7 p.m. ET on NBC. It was narrowly beaten by the NHL Eastern Conference semifinal between the New York Rangers and Washington Capitals between 12:15 and 3:15 p.m, which posted a household rating of 1.6.

UFC on Fox did earn a rating of 1.6 among 18-to-34-year-old men, its primary demographic, but that’s also down from the promotion’s first (4.3) and second (3.2) network-televised cards since it signed a seven-year multi-media rights agreement with Fox in August.

The main card of Saturday’s event at the IZOD Center in East Rutherford, N.J., saw lightweight contender Nate Diaz submit Jim Miller. Johny Hendricks, Alan Belcher and Lavar Johnson also prevailed in nationally televised bouts.

UFC on Fox 3 faced competition from both an NBA playoff doubleheader on TNT and the undercard of the super welterweight championship fight between Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto on HBO Pay-Per-View.

UFC on Fox 4 is scheduled for August 4 at Staples Center in Los Angeles (8 p.m. ET, Fox), with Hector Lombard-Brian Stann and Ryan Bader-Lyoto Machida among the headlining bouts.

 

Why are you wasting your time with this? When Fox boots the UFC, then come in here and talk all the shit you want.

 

I am not talking shit. I am posting facts about the ratings UFC has on Fox.

Why are you so butthurt Zhonny?

 

Well UFC is gonna have to do a good number in August or it will probably get booted. That's how shows usually get booted by having declining ratings that end up being terrible. Remember even EliteXC, Strikeforce and the XFL got more viewers than the UFC last Saturday night. Remember at one time boxing was on network tv and it fell off. UFC could go down the same route.

 

I'm not, just wondering why you are wasting your time when we don't care about ratings.

 

The XFL got 3 times as many viewers as the last Friday Night Fights on ESPN and it's still on the air.

The bottom line is that we're not talking about a Mon-Thur prime time slot. Typical programming on Saturday night is re-runs and they do shit ratings. It is was it is. FOX is smart enough to realize that it's all about the quality of the fights on the card. They also know that the UFC draw will basically give them a lock on winning the time slot against standard programming.

But we've got your prediction. According to RJJ, the UFC on Fox 4 card will be the last.

:giggle::giggle:

 

Dude, certainly you realize by now that RJJ only appears when he has some sliver of hope that MMA is failing.

Unfortunately for him, it isn't going anywhere. MMA will continue to have a network, basic cable, premium cable and PPV presence. It sucks for RJJ but he can't fight facts.

By the way, FUEL's weekly show, 'UFC Tonight' is pretty solid. And anyone trying to play catch-up in watching old MMA fights, FUEL has a solid schedule of UFC Unleashed, which is old UFC classics and "The Best of Pride Fighting Championship" which is obviously old Pride classics.

FUEL has basically become the UFC own network.

 

I know what he's doing, I just wonder why he's going through the trouble.

 

Yes it has.

RJJ didn't do anything but report on the shitty viewership. You guys act like it's a personal attack. It's okay that he's right. Just like the fighters, you guys aren't going to make any money whether the UFC does well or poorly.

 

Nobody would say anything if he actually contributed to the forum and he was just poasting this as "news". He ONLY comes in here to talk shit after each and every event.

 

Wrong. I have no issue with reporting the ratings. I do that myself. It's when he makes incorrect, moronic, and false statements like the 'show had the worst rating of any prime time show in TV history." that I take exception.

And here we go again. You don't have the slightest clue which fighters do or do not share in PPV revenue. We know for a fact that many have. But unless you can provide of list of those that do and those that don't, it's just ANOTHER speculative comment.


But your comment wasn't "more money". It was "any money".. I'm pretty sure all the fighter get paid. Don't you think?????::

 

I was exaggerating and it was as obvious as RJJ's post about lowest in history.

We need more info before arguing again. Anthony seemed to think that a nice house demonstrated something that it clearly did not. I'm sure something will come up in the near future, though. Fighter pay in the UFC isn't a topic unique to us.

 

LOL.. Yes, it was obvious. And not really necessary if he was JUST reporting the facts as YOU stated.

Again, that's my problem. He wasn't JUST reporting. He was throwing out bullshit as well. We don't need any more information from Anthony or anyone to know that.

 

Okay he was reporting facts and fucking around with you guys who apparently take it personally when someone cuts on the UFC. And you guys bit on his troll line despite him not even trying to disguise it.

 

Agreed, that's thwe most annoying thing in this site, a troll will spark an uninteresting ''discussion'' every fucking time , instead of just ignoring him

 

The ratings were down for this UFC on Fox for 3 reasons.

1. The first two UFC shows on Fox were disappointments, so they are sure to have lost casual viewers because of that.

2. Neither Jim Miller nor Nate Diaz are big names in MMA. Neither of them have ever held a belt in the UFC or have headlined a PPV. While for the hardcore MMA fan, it was a great matchup, it had very little marquee value.

3. And most importantly, the reason this card suffered in the ratings is, it didn't have the benefit of being advertised nonstop during NFL games every Sunday like the two previous cards. I would bet if this same card took place during football season, and they were showing commercials for it several times a game, the ratings would've been much, much higher.

TFK

 

I think Nate Diaz has a very big name in the sport due to his brother, multiple UFC appearances, and his TUF performance, but I don't think having a big name necessarily means that you are a big draw. It's part of the reason I was guessing Nick Diaz vs Carlos Condit was going to bomb.

I think your #3 is a very good point that I hadn't heard brought up, yet.

 

The Diaz brothers are big names in the MMA crowd, but hardly household names. Nobody who isn't a MMA fan is going to know who they are.

 

I think TFK's point about the NFL lead in was spot on.

That being said, Nick Diaz is a decent draw. Nate is nothing.

 

Unless of course, like the Klitschko's nobody can tell them apart.