Coker comments on Bellator ratings downturn

Actually even with all those Kimbo numbers Bjorn's averaging more.

37 Bjorn events on Spike did 701k average (This includes PPV prelims)

Coker's 79 events are averaging 668k (This includes NYC PPV Prelims)


So they are close but Bjorn actually did better ratings with less production budget and payroll.


Those numbers aren't comparable since your using nearly double the amount of events Bjorn had....


When I did my comparison I did every event Bjorn did on spike vs an equal amount of shows from cokers takeover and Coker came ahead buddy.

Something more accurate then what you did would be using the last 37 events vs Bjorns 37 events.....but even that is fatally flawed.

The landscape of viewership is completely different so even using the model I suggested is basically assuming Bjorns numbers would have held up which clearly they wouldn't have.But comparing 37 events Bjorn did years ago vs 70+ events spanning the course of a few years and through the declining mma viewership landscape that Coker had endured is far from accurate or fair really.
 
Last edited:
Coker's last 37 events are averaging 595k viewers.

Might want to edit that post and go with the 79 events cause Bellator has hit the shit in the last year so the numbers are way down.

Yes things are different for everyone but facts are the facts, Coker is spending alot more on production and fighter contracts and is delivering less viewers.
 
Coker's last 37 events are averaging 595k viewers.

Might want to edit that post and go with the 79 events cause Bellator has hit the shit in the last year so the numbers are way down.

Yes things are different for everyone but facts are the facts, Coker is spending alot more on production and fighter contracts and is delivering less viewers.

Read again I said using the last 39 would be more accurate then the model you used......but even using the 39 isn't accurate either.

Obviously viewership is down my point is acting like Bjorn running it would be any different is completely flawed logic.

Bjorns numbers were from a different time in MMA and when you compare cokers numbers from the same time period he comes out on top.bjorn isn't in MMA promotion so his numbers during this time period is a whopping ZERO.
 
Read again I said using the last 39 would be more accurate then the model you used......but even using the 39 isn't accurate either.

Obviously viewership is down my point is acting like Bjorn running it would be any different is completely flawed logic.

Bjorns numbers were from a different time in MMA and when you compare cokers numbers from the same time period he comes out on top.bjorn isn't in MMA promotion so his numbers during this time period is a whopping ZERO.

You're right, it is different. in less homes, mma not as hot, network change etc. But this is all you have to go on. And I agree Bjorn's Bellator would probably be pulling in the same numbers Coker does, maybe alittle more or less. Looking at it I do think it actually worked week to week cause fans knew when events were. Todays Bellator doesnt promote the cards much and you can go a month between shows. I thought having more time to promote and putting the effort in would lead to bigger ratings but that hasnt happened.

But ok say they would be doing the same, the difference is Bjorn's production and payroll costs wouldnt be crazy like Cokers. Thats the point, you're doing less while spending a hell of alot more. THats Bellators problem.
 
You're right, it is different. in less homes, mma not as hot, network change etc. But this is all you have to go on. And I agree Bjorn's Bellator would probably be pulling in the same numbers Coker does, maybe alittle more or less. Looking at it I do think it actually worked week to week cause fans knew when events were. Todays Bellator doesnt promote the cards much and you can go a month between shows. I thought having more time to promote and putting the effort in would lead to bigger ratings but that hasnt happened.

But ok say they would be doing the same, the difference is Bjorn's production and payroll costs wouldnt be crazy like Cokers. Thats the point, you're doing less while spending a hell of alot more. THats Bellators problem.


Let's do a what if.....

What if instead of hiring Coker and firing bjorn......bjorn stayed and somehow got ratings to go up and revenue just like Coker did.Bjorn would have gotten a bigger budget just like Coker did.Tourney format worked for a few seasons but completely undermined itself the longer it went on and that's fact

Under Bjorns tourney format he was unable to land big name free agents but Viacom was going to boot the tourneys anyway so Bjorn would have been after the free agents too.He also would have had to deal with the changing landscape and also the onslaught of Dana white constantly bashing Bellators product.One thing with Coker is he is well respected in the industry and gets along well even with the baldfather.

All in all like I said at this point with so many variables it's impossible to compare accurately.
 
Back
Top