This morning on First Take, Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless were both agreeing that they didn't like the idea of Dana shelving Holly until UFC 200 against the champ's will, when Dana text in that "We couldn't get her a fight until June, so it only delays it about a month" (if that's not the exact wording, the point stands).
This is clearly bull. Holly and Tate both want to fight, soon. Which would leave plenty of time for the winner to fight at UFC 200, barring injury.
If Dana would just say "We'll make the most money off Holly/Rhonda 2", I could respect that, even if I didn't like it. But, shelving the new star everyone wants to see and lying to the fans like we're too stupid to understand it breeds resentment within the fan base.
sevr1 - This morning on First Take, Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless were both agreeing that they didn't like the idea of Dana shelving Holly until UFC 200 against the champ's will, when Dana text in that "We couldn't get her a fight until June, so it only delays it about a month" (if that's not the exact wording, the point stands).VU. Blatant bullshit like this makes me enjoy WSOF/OneFC/Bellator even more. I predict if Rousey doesn't win, female mma is done in the UFC. It's ridiculous to snub Tate when she's waited patiently and gotten jerked around by the UFC brass not once but now twice. Its win win with Holm/Tate. Win, Holm looks more dominant. Lose, they know rousey can kick Tate's ass.
This is clearly bull. Holly and Tate both want to fight, soon. Which would leave plenty of time for the winner to fight at UFC 200, barring injury.
If Dana would just say "We'll make the most money off Holly/Rhonda 2", I could respect that, even if I didn't like it. But, shelving the new star everyone wants to see and lying to the fans like we're too stupid to understand it breeds resentment within the fan base.
OP has just learned that sports are about money. It's always been that way, my friend.
Wtf dana the fans want to see Holm vs tate
Aural_Apocalypse - OP has just learned that sports are about money. It's always been that way, my friend.
Oh I know prize fighting is about the prize. It just sucks when a promoter, who has time, robs a 34 year old fighter out of so much time, when he likes to remind us that fighters "only have a short window to make as much money as you can"
She makes more with a fight vs Rousey than she would with a potential loss to Tate in April. Smart move is to wait 2=3 extra months. Do not see how that is controversial.
ronda is old news let her heal and learn to strike with a pro before getting koed twice and calling it a career
don't be greedy u fucs
if Ronda gets hurt and pulls out of the fight, the UG would implode
rekt - if Ronda gets hurt and pulls out of the fight, the UG would implode
Lol
'white' lies
I think it's clear Dana and the UFC are trying to punish Meisha for being so vocal when she got passed over for her promised title shot 
.
TTT
mada -TexasBadAss - She makes more with a fight vs Rousey than she would with a potential loss to Tate in April. Smart move is to wait 2=3 extra months. Do not see how that is controversial.I disagree with your logic, which I believe is exactly how the UFC is viewing the situation as well. First, I think Holm beats Tate in a relatively easy manner. But even if she loses then you have Ronda beat Tate a 3rd time and that will be huge. Allow Holly to beat someone in the meantime and then rematch Ronda. Ronda wins and third fight is huge, Holly wins and the Tate rematch is a good fight. I just think you kill a lot of fights by giving Ronda an immediate rematch. Second, everybody saying if Holly lost it would wreck a huge fight is wrong imo for the reasons above, but mainly because the rematch is about if Ronda can come back and avenge her loss and Holly being unbeaten is irrelevant as the average fan doesn't care about Holly. It's all about Rousey as far as money and you will kill that money tree with an immediate rematch if Ronda loses.
A few years ago, I thought Manny lost out forever on his 40 million dollar payday against Floyd after Marquez knocked him out. As it turns out, Manny won some after that, and we all know what happened when he finally fought Floyd.
I know it's not a perfect comparison, but I think it supports reasoning like mada's.
TexasBadAss - She makes more with a fight vs Rousey than she would with a potential loss to Tate in April. Smart move is to wait 2=3 extra months. Do not see how that is controversial.So have we completely given up on this being a legitimate sport? It's just whatever makes the most money now?
Why not just have Brock Lesnar come in and fight a gorilla? I mean, whatever sells right?
LBH_RN -But if Tate wins shouldn't she have to beat Holly before getting a shot?sevr1 - This morning on First Take, Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless were both agreeing that they didn't like the idea of Dana shelving Holly until UFC 200 against the champ's will, when Dana text in that "We couldn't get her a fight until June, so it only delays it about a month" (if that's not the exact wording, the point stands).VU. Blatant bullshit like this makes me enjoy WSOF/OneFC/Bellator even more. I predict if Rousey doesn't win, female mma is done in the UFC. It's ridiculous to snub Tate when she's waited patiently and gotten jerked around by the UFC brass not once but now twice. Its win win with Holm/Tate. Win, Holm looks more dominant. Lose, they know rousey can kick Tate's ass.
This is clearly bull. Holly and Tate both want to fight, soon. Which would leave plenty of time for the winner to fight at UFC 200, barring injury.
If Dana would just say "We'll make the most money off Holly/Rhonda 2", I could respect that, even if I didn't like it. But, shelving the new star everyone wants to see and lying to the fans like we're too stupid to understand it breeds resentment within the fan base.
Referring to Ronda^