A Future for Strikeforce? Yes, without Coker.

via www.inewscatcher.com

Now, let's get this straight. I love Strikeforce. I love the presentation, I love to hate on the announcing team, but most of all I love the fact that there are always fun and exciting fights on SF cards.

But with the way that SF CEO Scott Coker has allowed himself to be media bullied by Bjorn Rebney, and the likelihood of the top fighters from the Gracie Camp jumping ship at the first opportunity, I have to seriosuly question the internal stability of the SF Brand as an area for A-level Talent.

There haven't been any signs that Strikeforce's finances are in the toliet, and I'm sure they're profitable, but I don't think that's the number one reason that SF will be unable to compete as the number 2 MMA Org.

It's leadership.

In business it's always leadership. It's the ability to be the asshole and stick up for your product, it's the ability to do good for your employees so that they do good for you. While being a very nice guy (I met him once) Scott Coker is not that guy, not that leader, for Strikeforce.

By having A-list talent and putting on relatively few shows Coker is cutting down his workers shift times. His fighters are underworked and need to fight more often.

By remaining non-vocal in the media the SF Brand continues to be de-valued in the eyes of the casual fan. No one is rushing out to see the "Strikeforce" show.

By using as little promotion as physically possible for his Diaz-Noons 2 fight Coker wasted a huge marketing opportunity for the casual fanbase.

I'll admit that alot of my criticism is just hindsight or that coker isn't directly responsible for most of the blunders that Strikeforce has made. But the buck stops somewhere, and it needs to stop right on the CEO's desk.

Strikeforce could potentially thrive. But there are alot of changes that need to be made.

The most important change would be for Scott Coker to step down as Strikeforce CEO. Then the re-building can begin.