The ineffectiveness of ESPN's coverage of UFC 71

One of the benefits of Art and I combining our efforts completely instead of the way we had done so partially in the past is that each devoting less time to posting news because of the work of others allows us to work on other things. One of the things for me that I will be spending my time doing is writing more opinion pieces and this is the first step in that direction.

On the audio show referenced in our last post, Ric Gillespie talked about how ESPN doesn't make trends it follows trends and how the fact ESPN is covering UFC isn't as big a deal as many would make it out to be. It was a great discussion and led us off on to a few others. However, we never addressed the thing that I wanted to address on the show, so I'm going to do it now.

I found the quality of ESPN's coverage of the UFC and UFC 71 to be utterly horrible.

Click the cut to read more...sorry Ric!



Earlier today I was talking to OC Times periodic contributor Marcus Erickson and said that I wasn't happy with how ESPN handled UFC 71. At first he seemed surprised that I would say such a thing even though they spent so much time covering it. Sure, ESPN spent time covering the show, but was the time they spent time well spent?

My problem with ESPN's coverage is that they have too many people weighing in on a product that they're not familiar with. Now, I'm not saying that some of these sports writers who watched UFC for the first time shouldn't be allowed to comment on it. However, they didn't have enough people who were already familiar with the product to counteract ignorant opinion.

On Around the Horn Friday afternoon you had 2 sports writers looking at which was the bigger event of the weekend, UFC 71 or the Indy 500. One of them said it was the UFC while the other said it as the 500 and described the UFC as something to satisfy the blood lust. The writer then went on to explain what you could see in the UFC and specifically mentioned eye gouging and hinted at a few other things. The problem is that the other writer did nothing to point out that those things aren't legal in the UFC either because he didn't know it or couldn't be bothered.

On that same show Tuesday afternoon, the same writer that called it blood lust on Friday suggested that an investigation be launched in to Chuck Liddell because he was out partying the week leading up to the fight. Nobody bothered to point out, likely because they wouldn't have known, that this is hardly uncommon behavior for Liddell and it would've been a bigger news item if he hadn't done that. They then talked about the main event with one writer commenting on it and then admitting she actually didn't even watch and a couple more saying that because it was over in 2 minutes that it hurt the UFC.

Now, you can hold that opinion if you wish and I know several people who supposedly know what they're talking about that feel that very way. However, nobody was there to argue that people used to pay top dollar with the hopes of seeing Mike Tyson knock someone out in the first round. Nobody was there to point out that a UFC show typically provides a solid under-card of action, I don't think the under-card of UFC 71 was even mentioned once in the discussion. I've said this already, because the finish was decisive and clearly the right call it doesn't hurt the UFC in any way. If it had been a questionable ref stoppage then you've got a stronger case.

The thing is that this kind of coverage was all over the ESPN family of networks. The best segment on UFC 71 was the Lou DiBella Vs. Joe Rogan debate that led off Friday evening's SportsCenter. It was the best segment because you had someone in Rogan who actually knew what he was talking about. I'm not saying ESPN has to immediately get its coverage of UFC right from the start. However, that network knew for awhile that it was going to start covering the UFC and that was the best that they could come up with?

Now, in the future I expect that this may change a bit at least I hope so. ESPN has an agreement with Sherdog but I know for sure that won't last. ESPN will want to have its in-house reporters breaking news and writing for its site and being on its programs. This is so that they can have complete editorial control over everything said and printed and it can fit the ESPN format. Theoretically, if ESPN is still covering the UFC in a few years by then they'll probably have talked some fighters out of the Octagon and in to the studio. They'll really devote time to the product if someday they end up with the right to televise it. Notice how when they got the Arena Football League package you started to see many more tie-ins with that particular league? That's no coincidence.

If you were someone who had no idea what the UFC was going in to ESPN's coverage of this event, I shutter to think what your opinion of it would be if you only saw the coverage and didn't actually order the fight. Fact is that they gave it about as much CARE as they would if it were the WWE. ESPN as Ric said is a network that rides trends not create them, however it is also a network that can influence public opinion. When they let talking heads with no experience with the product weigh in without dealing with someone who has been around the product for longer it skews things too far in a negative direction. Perhaps that's what ESPN wants to happen. Maybe they're hoping the negative press will help UFC fade in to oblivion so they don't have to cover it anymore, I don't know you'd have to ask them.

Granted, I didn't see everything that they did and in general didn't have a problem with the naration of highlights of the event itself. I thought Brian Kenny as the moderator of the Rogan and DiBella debate was very well prepared and well informed. I'm not saying this was the worst coverage of a sporting event in the history of the world but I am saying its not a clear cut thumbs up and in fact, I'd give it a thumbs down.

Let me say for full disclosure that I don't watch ESPN very much anymore. I watch their NFL draft coverage every year, I watch certain football or baseball games if I enjoy the teams involved, but rarely ever watch shows like Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption or SportsCenter. Fact is I'm not really a fan of the way they cover a lot of sports anymore. I used to watch ESPN so much you'd think it was the only channel my TV could pick up but that's no longer the case. I get my football news from other sources and that's true to a lesser degree for Baseball, Basketball and hockey.

I'm hoping ESPN will actually find people who know what they're talking about to counterbalance the uninformed analysts on these shows. However, I think you're kidding yourself if you think that ESPN's coverage did UFC any good other than the fact it was novel to see UFC covered on ESPN. The fact is that as Ric said ESPN covering UFC ultimately doesn't mean as much as people are leading you to believe, but the fact they're covering it at all was more effective than the actual coverage itself.
You might find it hard to believe this but I feel its true. Chuck Liddell being on ESPN last week did more for ESPN than it ever will have done for Liddell himself. Liddell was already UFC's biggest star and that loss on Saturday didn't change that in fact, it may have helped cement him as its biggest star. ESPN was looking to capitalize more on the cool factor of Liddell than Liddell will benefit from being on ESPN. Where's the proof that he was on ESPN made him any more popular than he already was? Please, show it to me if you can. I won't expect anything because you can't prove it. The only people who tuned in to ESPN to see Liddell were people that were either those who already watch the network or those who tuned in specifically to see Liddell because they like him and then once he was done they flipped channels.

Helping UFC is not why ESPN is covering the organization. Think about it, the fight night specials, the Ultimate Fighter 5 Finale and UFC Pay Per View events are still competitors with ESPN. Why would ESPN work hard to hype a show like the TUF 5 Finale when they've got a program going head-to-head with Pulver Vs. Penn? Why would ESPN do a lot of features on UFC 75 this fall when they're trying to push a Saturday night college football game which goes head-to-head with the PPV but airs on their own network? They may produce those feature stories but not to help UFC gain viewers but to get UFC viewers to watch ESPN programming. Its really that simple, so don't look at ESPN's coverage as the network doing UFC any sort of favor.