I thought you could infer from my stance, but I'll elaborate. Solely? No. . . but closer to an algorithm than to a popularity/$$$ contest for sure. Every sport/art/leisure activity that I can think of that has become monetized/corporate has become less interesting/worse for it. I just don't like seeing a sport I love (or music, or whatever) getting hijacked to the point where its no longer about (semi) objective meritocracy and instead more about what will bring in the dough/more casuals. The subjectivity of modern art, for example, is something I can't stand. In MMA Conrad's various blights on the sport are one example, but a more recent one is all the Izzy vs Jan talk: No, we don't need to potentially hold-up two divisions (AGAIN) so that Izzy, who fairly enough is dominating his division, can go up a weight class and fight a NEWLY CROWNED champ . . . the first in almost a decade. . . *just* as LHW is starting to mix it up. Let the fighter's personality's shine (I think that's an important aspect as well), but don't let that, or the hype/$$$ it brings make you throw out merit-based rules and rankings so that you can try to "jump the shark" again.
But I'm a passionate fan/participant, not a business owner, so of course I'll run it differently than a sterile corporation. . . but what's really better for the real fans? I'd heavily argue my hypothetical style.
P.S.- I'm also not saying the UFC does NOTHING right, just that they're lured away from meritocracy, by financial wet-dreams, too frequently, and it's resulting in hold-ups, people getting skipped over, or the UFC becoming more WWE-style where your gimmick can mean as much or more than your style. No thanks.
