Amadi's Take
AMADI: Despite lowest ratings, UFC on Fox 3 may be UFC's most successful network event
May 8, 2012 - 3:10:28 PM AMADI: Despite lowest ratings, UFC on Fox 3 may be UFC's most successful network event

DISCUSS ALL THIS IN OUR NEW MMATORCH FORUM

...OH, ONE MORE THING - PLEASE BOOKMARK US & VISIT DAILY!

By: Jason Amadi, MMATorch Columnist

There is no way to spin the ratings for the UFC's third outing on Fox into a positive. As far as first-run network programming goes, UFC on Fox 3 didn't perform well at all. The overnight ratings for last Saturday night's card were poor, and though the full ratings were a bit higher than the reported 2.25 million average (it came in at 2.4 million), they're still significantly down from the UFC's previous outings on "big Fox."

However, what's most interesting about the ratings for UFC on Fox 3 is that as far as Zuffa is concerned, this is still probably their most successful show on Fox. UFC on Fox 1 and UFC on Fox 2 may have delivered significantly higher ratings, but they were also pay-per-view quality cards that the UFC gave away for free. In terms of tangible benefits, it's hard to say exactly what the UFC walked away with after those events.

While Rashad Evans was victorious on Fox, he was already a major star, and with the right opponent, a considerable pay-per-view draw. Granted, his fight with Jon Jones did an estimated 700,000-800,000 pay-per-view buys after he fought on Fox, but Evans had already proven his ability to put up those kinds of numbers in the past.

Junior dos Santos won the UFC Heavyweight Championship on Fox in front of the largest audience to ever watch a mixed martial arts fight, but it's hard to imagine too many people seeing him compete for the first time last November and then deciding to put down $50 to see him six months later.

UFC on Fox 1 & 2 were designed to draw in as many viewers as possible, but with UFC on Fox 3, Zuffa brass took a completely different approach. Rather than showcasing big name talent, the UFC opted to try to create a new, viable pay-per-view commodity.

Sure, the main event didn't draw in viewers like the last two Fox cards, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot fight fans watched the show; the kind of fight fans that actually put down money to watch UFC pay-per-views. Those fans tuned in and saw Nate Diaz, on a major platform, absolutely destroy a top five lightweight inside two rounds.

Considering the way he hacked apart Donald Cerrone in the co-main event of 2011's biggest pay-per-view, coupled with his dominant performance on Fox, it isn't crazy to imagine a world where a Nate Diaz title fight, with the right undercard, is able to do a draw a healthy amount of pay-per-views. At the very least, the UFC's pay-per-view customers might be more receptive to the idea of paying to see Diaz now than they were before.

If Nate Diaz were actually able to capture the title, with his fighting style and the exposure he's received both last December and then again on Fox, he'd likely avoid any of the early stumbles that champions normally have to overcome en route to becoming a player on pay-per-view.

In the long run, it would certainly be great if the UFC were to put heavy hitters like Georges St-Pierre or Jon Jones on Fox and invest in the future of the sport that way. There's no question that it would help bolster the profile of the sport; consistently high ratings could possibly even pave the road for a better deal down the line and help the UFC to move away from the volatile world of pay-per-view and onto network television.

That being said, it would be pretty crazy for the UFC to just cannibalize their pay-per-view business (which accounts for roughly 75% of their total revenues) and give away four pay-per-view quality cards four times a year for the next seven years. However, if they can actually turn guys into pay-per-view stars through Fox, despite relatively low ratings, it'll be interesting to see whether or not they feel motivated to flex more muscle on network television.

Feel free to follow me on Twitter @JasonAmadi and direct your "Ask the Torch" questions to mmatorch@gmail.com