Dave Meltzer stuff

[Loss]

Random question I know, but I don't really have any recollection of Dave covering Michinoku Pro or BattlARTS, well, ever. Did he? If he didn't, is there a reason he didn't?

[jdw]

Covered them similar to any other indy Japan fed. Results, and what he considered newsworthy went into the Other Japan section.

 

John

[jdw]

So I'm reading Dave's recap of the UFC/Fox deal, and I'm again scratching my head that this is some kind of great deal for UFC.

 

The deal on FX would consist of:

 

* 24 episodes of The Ultimate Fighter

* two Ultimate Fighter finals live cards

* four to six Fight Night shows

 

* taped Unleashed, Ultimate Knockouts, Best of The Pride Fighting Championships

* Countdown & Prime Time promotional vehicles for pay-per-view

* UFC programming on Fuel TV

 

For $100M a year.

 

Granted, that's not a ton of contact.

 

But in contrast as I think some of us have bounced around, the NHL's new deal with Comcast/NBC/Versus/NBC Sports Channel is $180M to $200M a year. The is a lot of content in that deal:

 

* 90 regular season games

* loads of playoff games

* All Star game

* Outdoor Game

* other lightweight things like the Draft and Awards Show, etc

 

At 3 hours a clip, a game does give a lot of "hours of content" to Comcast.

 

But...

 

0.2 regular season ratings.

 

It does do better for the Stanley Cup Finals, but it's not like people are truly busting down the doors to watch hockey.

 

It's worth noting also: this is a Non-Exclusive Deal. Each team is able to enter into their own local deal(s) to pull in some more cash.

 

The NHL has lots of content, but it's also largely worthless content. The valuable hours of content probably aren't much more in terms of hours than what the UFC's new deal has (UF, UF Finals, Fight Nights).

 

There isn't any word on whether the UFC deal is exlusive, or if not exclusive, just how limiting it is. I've tossed out in some of these discussions that one of the smart things that the NFL and NBA have done (as have other sports) is get multiple broadcasters to the table. It's not just to use channels against each other to jack up the fees, but also to have multiple major entertainment companies happy to have a piece of your action. You can get more out of 2 than 1, and you're also less likely to piss everyone off other than just the 1 winner.

 

I think what would concern me the most, at least as far as easy reporting to get your hands on, is that it's a 7 year deal. Sports rights fees are on the way up. It's unclear whether PPV will remain high, or even grow in those 7 years. By locking yourself into $100M a year for 7 years, you're putting yourself on the sidelines during a period of rapid growth in sports fees. It's also a time where all the major entertainment companies are trying to get their piece. Time Warner, which had been fairly sleepy other than the NBA, has started to make more of a play recently. The most obvious one was their massive splash on the Lakers, but there have been a number of other ones that show they're looking to join their other rivals at the major sports table.

 

If it's a 7 year deal with an "out" after say 4 years, that might be interesting. They could have a far sooner window to move the $100M up.

 

If not, you do have to wonder why they didn't stick with Spike under a shorter deal, or go to Fox with a short deal.

 

John

[KrisZ]

The biggest thing of interest to me in this FOX deal is that it's 2 years too late because UFC is on a downspurt for them right now as back then the brand UFC was the draw and just about every show did great numbers but now it depends on who is fighting so it's taking the boxing route of drawing. Plus I'm curious at how FOX will promote it and how far they will push it on NFL telecasts.

[jdw]

I agree with that in concept, but don't know if it's applicable to the current sporting world.

 

Interest in the Dodgers peaked years ago. Yet Fox is ready to toss somewhere between $1.5B and $3B at them. Possibly more if (ii) the Dodgers didn't have rube owners and (ii) we were outside the Exclusive Negotiating Rights window.

 

Interest in NASCAR peaked ages ago. While NASCAR might end up with less than the $562M a year they currently get out of ESPN/Fox/TNT/Speed, it's *possible* that they won't dip at all. Depends on who is paying in.

 

ACC Football peaked... when? 90s when FSU was king? When Miami moved down from the Big East? NCAA Hoops to a degree has peaked as well given the mass of content available, and the increased focus on March Madness. Yet the ACC doubled it's rights fees last year with their new deal with ESPN.

 

Hockey peaked decades ago. Yet they had a massive increase with the new Comcast deal.

 

I think the argument that could reasonably be made for UFC is that it's only peaked in its current form: 3rd tier TV network + PPV. Whether that argument turns out to be true or not is open to debate. But as a sport is really hasn't had the massive network push and focus that other sports have had.

 

It again is one of the reasons that they always should have found a way to get in bed with ESPN. I know ESPN are assholes to deal with. But the reason the NBA, MLB and NFL are in bed with them (and NASCAR so badly wanted to get back there) is because ESPN is the National Hype Machine for sports in this country. On a quite Saturday in July, you really want ESPN to have a vested interest in your sport so that you lead off Sports Center with major coverage of UFC.

 

It's hard to get it to work... they haven't been able to, and may never be able to. But the Really Big Money of UFC is being content on TV, not PPV buys. 500M for freaking NASCAR.

 

John

[FLIK]

So I'm reading Dave's recap of the UFC/Fox deal, and I'm again scratching my head that this is some kind of great deal for UFC.

I forget the exact number Meltzer gave but their new deal is for something like twice as much as they were getting from Spike.

 

Situations like this always remind me of 2 quotes

 

Terry Funk saying something along the lines of "if you make even $1 more then you spent then you're profitable and a success" and Scott Hall saying something along the lines of "you don't gotta pay me the most, just pay me a lot".

 

Yeah you can boo hoo about how such & such is getting more and "only if" they could too but why bother? They're getting significantly more money, gaining the potential to reach a much larger audiance and by any other criteria you can think of doing better then they were before they had this deal so why not jump for joy over it?

[jdw]

I'll give you an example. Not real, but an example.

 

I bought my house for $500K.

 

I sold today for $501K.

 

My next door neighbor has the exact same design, in the same condition, etc.

 

He sold his on Monday for $1000K.

 

The market for sellers and buyers hasn't changed since Monday.

 

I "made" $1K on the deal.

 

"... by any other criteria you can think of doing better then they were before they had this deal so why not jump for joy over it?"

 

I just pissed away $499K because I'm suppose to be jumping for joy at making $1K.

 

That's an extreme example and totally not real (market for house sucks and I don't have a house ).

 

But UFC is a house. The NHL is a house. NASCAR is a house. ACC sports is a house. The NFL is a fucking mansion.

 

$100M a year is a little light for the UFC house compared to the NHL house.

 

I grasp the argument on why Comcast might go that high compared to NHL: more hours of content for NHL, it's been around longer, more reliable that it will be there in 7 years.

 

Which is why I made the other point: 7 years is a long time for UFC to tie themselves down. If the Fox deal (or a deal with another network) turned out to be a big hit, they're kind of stuck with an under valued TV deal.

 

Examples?

 

The SEC's TV contracts are under valued now compared to what other conferences are raking in. They also undervalued the concept of a Conference Network (or series of regional nets) compared to what we now see the value of the Big 10 Network and Pac 12 Network (let along the Longhorn Network). At the time it was signed, it looked like the greatest deal of all time. Now, the SEC looks at it and sees it undervalued.

 

Major reason the SEC would be happy to expand (i.e. A&M and 1 or 3 other teams)? Because it will allow them to renegotiate those deals and get more value out of them.

 

Perhaps college sports is a bit far a field from UFC. So lets go with a closer example:

 

When the WWF/WWE was in it's salad days and it's revenue was going up-up-up, it wasn't locking itself into 7-10 year TV deals on cable. It wanted to be able to come back in several years and shop around.

 

There's risk in that. But there's also reward.

 

No one is saying that UFC is going to be the next NFL, or MLB, or NBA. That's unrealistic.

 

But the next Hockey?

 

We're talking 0.2 ratings for those 90 regular season games. And even the Stanley Cup isn't insane ratings.

 

From a ratings draw standpoint, UFC can move up from where it is now. While I think we'll all agree that it's peaked on some level, I also think we'd all agree that looking at the numbers and what other sports do, it also could pull in higher ratings if the sport kicked it up to the next level of popularity.

 

Again, I'd be interested if the contract has outs, either in 4 or so years, or if UFC tops a certain ratings level. If not, I think the UFC is locking themselves into a deal that might be low if the sport becomes as popular on TV as say... WWE wrestling.

 

John

[kjh]

It's hard to know whether Dana made the right move or not when we don't know the details of the other deals on the table. I think Spike would have been pretty desperate to keep them and would have offered them a huge hike in rights fees too. NBC offered them almost as much as Fox did and you'd have been on the ground floor of their new sports network, which may have paid off big in the long run. ESPN would have been the best channel to hype the PPVs to hardcore sports fans, which may have been worth a small hit in the rights fees too. They were also negotiating with CBS and Turner. The FOX deal was a good one (though not good enough to be locked in for seven years), but I'm sceptical that it was the best one for the future of the company.

 

I get a sense that to some degree that Dana marked out for FOX like Vince McMahon marked out for the USA network in 2005, which may explain the length of the contract. Dana had more suitors, so I'm sure he hasn't taken a significantly worse deal to end up on a more premium platform by playing hardball with their current network. But I'm sure Zuffa are thinking that this is the TV deal that will get them to the next level. Maybe it will, but the timing doesn't seem right with all the business indicators being down from a year ago. They may find out, like WWE did when they last moved networks and with their NBC specials, that they have their loyal core audience, but outside of that core audience there isn't much interest in seeing their TV product.

[Guest kowking]

Does Dave ever actually watch Lucha? Does he, um, know who Negro Navarro and Black Terry are, or Chico Che?

[kjh]

Even though he doesn't write about it much anymore, I'm guessing he still tries to watch the biggest matches from AAA and CMLL. He would know who Navarro and Terry are, but I'm guessing he hasn't seen them work in years.

[kjh]

NBC offered them almost as much as Fox did and you'd have been on the ground floor of their new sports network, which may have paid off big in the long run.

Apparently the NBC deal included plans to help them start their own network, while the FOX deal doesn't. John's noted the value of having your own network many times, so this may turn out to be a long term mistake by Zuffa.

[jdw]

The other thing with NBC is that their Prime Time schedule is a wasteland at the moment. *If* they were able to get UFC to draw, they would probably be more likely than Fox to try to get more UFC Live Shows onto Prime Time on NBC (as opposed to Versus / NBC Sport Channel).

 

Now NBC is a little more conservative / less edgey in their broadcasts than Fox, who despite being owned by Murdoch who is politcally conservative... he's pretty much a pimp of what ever racy shit will draw. Fox might not wimp out over the violence and any backlash, where as NBC has a track record of rolling over even when things draw.

 

Perhaps that's a factor: Fox will give them more freedom / less headache, while NBC is... flakey.

 

The value of a channel is pretty high, though how it gets wrapped up in a joint venture and how well protected UFC is in ownership if UFC moves to another entity in the next contract... that can be a bit tricky. Probably more tricky with someone like UFC that has very little than say the WWE in a similar JV setting where the WWE brings so much existing content and production ability to the table. Vince & Co. are also probably a bit more savy in dealing with media companies as well.

 

I really think the biggest concern here is the length, especially if UFC "takes off". By that I don't man 10+ ratings. But if it does above current Fight Night ratings to a strong degree, has UFC undersold their programing and locked themselves in too long. I know that UFC will see that as being a positive towards increasing their PPV buys/revenues, but I'm not sure that it's the right business model to focus too much long term on PPV as the key revenue stream.

 

John

[Ditch]

Vince & Co. are also probably a bit more savy in dealing with media companies as well.

WWE is so much more professional than UFC, it isn't even close. And it's not like WWE is any sort of paragon of corporate virtue.

[Tawren]

The F4W board may have peaked. That loser 'DC Sniper' started a thread complaining about the lack of pro wrestling coverage in the Observer and Dave responded with:

 

SEPTEMBER 5 ISSUE

 

14 PAGES PRO WRESTLING 78%

4 PAGES MMA 22%

 

 

YOU GET A CHANCE TO READ IT EVERY WEEK AND YOU CAN'T EVEN COMPREHEND SOMETHING AS BASIC AS THIS.

 

AS LONG AS YOU DON'T BREED WE'RE COOL, THO.

(It's in all caps because he is making fun of Sniper, who's "gimmick" is that he is a rude unfunny asshole who always posts in all caps)

 

Greatest Dave'ing of all time.

 

Anyways, Dave seems like a really nice guy but the trolls on the board are really getting to him (personally I think the board is sometimes funny, and the MMA section is alright, but I can definitely see how some people can hate it). It's too bad because it would be awesome to have Dave posting even occasionally on a good board.

[Guest Slickster]

To be fair, DC SNIPER's point was that Dave is so negative on the current pro wrestling product he wonders if he actually likes any pro wrestling or just continues to cover the business to get paid.

 

Dave didn't really read DC SNIPER's post and just assumed it was like every other time someone posts a thread titled 'LOLZ rename it the MMA Observer because it gets so much coverage.'

 

This was the most fantastic Daveing ever but it was wasted in this situation.

 

Besides, I don't think Dave would really answer that question. Dave seems to get really excited about little things (a cool move, a good promo, someone carrying themselves like a star) but when it comes to big picture questions (i.e. 'would you call yourself a fan of the current WWE product?') he tends to defer to the financial numbers and say "Well, they're profitable."

[El-P]

Besides, I don't think Dave would really answer that question. Dave seems to get really excited about little things (a cool move, a good promo, someone carrying themselves like a star) but when it comes to big picture questions (i.e. 'would you call yourself a fan of the current WWE product?') he tends to defer to the financial numbers and say "Well, they're profitable."

I would call that a pretty sane and reasonnable opinion of things. And even then, Dave praises the shit out of some WWE matches, which I couldn't do for instance. There's no reason to be excited about pro-wrestling in 2011.

[EricR]

Even though he doesn't write about it much anymore, I'm guessing he still tries to watch the biggest matches from AAA and CMLL. He would know who Navarro and Terry are, but I'm guessing he hasn't seen them work in years.

As far as I can tell he didn't even watch the Blue Panther vs. Villano V match that ended up ranked 4th in his end of year awards. His quote was "I haven’t seen the entire Panther vs. Villano match, but saw highlights to at least see the heat was off the charts and storyline was great." I'm pretty sure that was the most recent lucha match to place in the WON top 10 (not sure what match ranked prior, possible a Mistico match. Possibly as far back as Atlantis/Villano III winning.), and I'd bet money he didn't actually go back and watch the full match at any point.

 

So if a lucha match finishes #4 in his own poll and he doesn't really watch it, I doubt he goes out of his way to watch much else.

[kjh]

Wasn't Panther vs. Villano V unusual in the sense that it wasn't shown on TV in full, whereas most of the big matches from AAA/CMLL are?

[EricR]

It was very easy to find on youtube, not sure if it still is. So - in thoery - Dave could have watched it while traveling, wherever he had internet access, as opposed to it only being on his Tivo. I also actually e-mailed him a link to the match on youtube, as it was my favorite match that year and he would be doing himself a disservice by not seeing it. I never got a response to that e-mail.

[kjh]

Dave only seems to want to watch things on tape.

[FLIK]

It was very easy to find on youtube, not sure if it still is. So - in thoery - Dave could have watched it while traveling, wherever he had internet access, as opposed to it only being on his Tivo. I also actually e-mailed him a link to the match on youtube, as it was my favorite match that year and he would be doing himself a disservice by not seeing it. I never got a response to that e-mail.

Meltzer's said plenty of times he hates watching stuff on his computer. With the exception of a few of the big I-PPVs unless it comes on TV or he gets sent a DVD there's little to no chance he's going watch it.

[EricR]

That's why I'm saying there's no chance he'll watch a lot of current lucha (guys like Black Terry and Negro Navarro). If he'll watch a random DG iPPV, but won't want a match that finished #4 of the year on his own poll, when a link was sent to his email, there is no chance he's seen current Black Terry. Not sure he could even pick him out of a lucha line-up.

[jdw]

I'm pretty gobsmacked by Dave's "It’s a time bomb of problems and there’s no solution" comment on Angle in this week's newsletter. Dave kind of talks himself in circles because he clearly is uncomfortable with his own "no solution" view, but can't quite bring himself to say that Kurt needs to clean himself up, even if it means getting out of pro wrestling and taking a lower paying gig.

 

My general thought would be to pose this to Dave to think about:

 

Kurt gets boozed up.

 

Kurt gets into his car yet again boozed up and drives impared.

 

Because of his impaired ability, he slams into a car that has Dave's wife and his kids in it.

 

Kurt's okay... he survives with minor injuries.

 

Dave's wife and kids die.

 

Would get get this in the WON the next week:

 

"It was a time bomb of problems with something like this possibly happening, but there was no solution."

 

I don't think so.

 

We need to get out of our narrow Pro Wrestling Fan and Pro Wrestling Writer mindsets after a while and face reality:

 

Kurt's a fucking trainwreck. Most of it is self destructive, and in that sense, fuck Kurt if he turns out dead like Louie or Eddy or the rest of them. There's only so much one can invest in hoping/wanting them to turn it around. But... not all of it is self destructive or free from potentially harming others. Drunk/loaded/high/stoned driving is one of the obvious ones.

 

We should save the "It’s a time bomb of problems and there’s no solution" spot for those times when Kurt passes out back stage or overdoses like Gordy or just plain drops dead like Pillman.

 

But when they're caught drinking and driving, Pro Wrestling Writers can actually stop playing the hand wringing game of not wanting to be too critical of wrestlers they like or the cesspool of a provession we follow by trying to explain away it's worst aspects and for a change get on the soap box and ream the fuck out of someone like Kurt.

 

It's okay to say this in the WON:

 

"Kurt Angle is clearly a fucking mess. I can't justify or defend his actions. The excusses that the business caused this, or that Kurt can't clean up just don't fly anymore. Kurt just doesn't want to do what needs to be done to get sober, and stay sober. Some might see that as a tragedy, but the real tragedy will be if his actions take others down with. No fucking excusses."

 

John

[Slasher]

I'm pretty gobsmacked by Dave's "It’s a time bomb of problems and there’s no solution" comment on Angle in this week's newsletter. Dave kind of talks himself in circles because he clearly is uncomfortable with his own "no solution" view, but can't quite bring himself to say that Kurt needs to clean himself up, even if it means getting out of pro wrestling and taking a lower paying gig.

 

My general thought would be to pose this to Dave to think about:

 

Kurt gets boozed up.

 

Kurt gets into his car yet again boozed up and drives impared.

 

Because of his impaired ability, he slams into a car that has Dave's wife and his kids in it.

 

Kurt's okay... he survives with minor injuries.

 

Dave's wife and kids die.

 

Would get get this in the WON the next week:

 

"It was a time bomb of problems with something like this possibly happening, but there was no solution."

 

I don't think so.

 

We need to get out of our narrow Pro Wrestling Fan and Pro Wrestling Writer mindsets after a while and face reality:

 

Kurt's a fucking trainwreck. Most of it is self destructive, and in that sense, fuck Kurt if he turns out dead like Louie or Eddy or the rest of them. There's only so much one can invest in hoping/wanting them to turn it around. But... not all of it is self destructive or free from potentially harming others. Drunk/loaded/high/stoned driving is one of the obvious ones.

 

We should save the "It’s a time bomb of problems and there’s no solution" spot for those times when Kurt passes out back stage or overdoses like Gordy or just plain drops dead like Pillman.

 

But when they're caught drinking and driving, Pro Wrestling Writers can actually stop playing the hand wringing game of not wanting to be too critical of wrestlers they like or the cesspool of a provession we follow by trying to explain away it's worst aspects and for a change get on the soap box and ream the fuck out of someone like Kurt.

 

It's okay to say this in the WON:

 

"Kurt Angle is clearly a fucking mess. I can't justify or defend his actions. The excusses that the business caused this, or that Kurt can't clean up just don't fly anymore. Kurt just doesn't want to do what needs to be done to get sober, and stay sober. Some might see that as a tragedy, but the real tragedy will be if his actions take others down with. No fucking excusses."

 

John

As crazy as it may sound, I almost see Dave being more torn between his fandom over Kurt and his connection to his family than he should be. Should be interesting to see.

[Sean Liska]

As crazy as it may sound, I almost see Dave being more torn between his fandom over Kurt and his connection to his family than he should be. Should be interesting to see.

That's horrific.

 

I think the truth is just that he's seen so many tragedies and is numb. We've seen this same deal play out time after time. It's not like Dave is defending Kurt. He's being realistic about how this is going to end. By saying there's "no solution", I'm guessing he meant in terms of other people trying to help him out. It's obvious that Kurt needs to take responsibility for his actions and get sober, no one would deny that. Dave has no great affection for Scott Hall, but he hasn't called him out personally either.