So you want what, 3 or 4 events per year and that's it? And leave the other fights to Strikeforce and Bellator? Give title shots to fighters after only one fight in the UFC?
I really don't see what's the problem with "too many events". You sound like a hockey fan who believe there's too many games. Let's go back to a 6 teams league with a 48 games calendar, right?
The UFC has enough talent to have hold solid PPV events once a month and make a bigger one on NYE.
In 07 you had GSP vs Hughes, Silva vs Liddell, Sokoudjou vs Machida, and then average fighters like Guillard, Clementi and Sanchez (7-1 at the time).
IN 08, Griffin vs Evens (Championship belt), Silva vs Rampage, Nog vs Mir..
But as I said, I was a Pride fan for different reasons, but when they made their big NYE events they had Nog vs Barnett, Gomi vs Ishida, Emalianenko vs Hunt, Aoki vs Hansen, Melendez vs Kawajiri. All this under one event!
The year before, Arona vs Silva, Crocop vs Hunt, Gomi vs Sakurai, Henderson vs Bustamente, Zuluzinho vs Fedor..
I mean, talk about stacked cards. That didn't prevent them from holding up events every other month of the year, and they didn't have close to the talent the UFC now holds.
Not sure how you think putting less events and more stacked PPVs will translate into giving title bouts to fighters after one fight.
Actually, I criticized Dana White for turning some fighters into contenders via marketing more so than merit.
As for your hockey reference, that's ridiculous. There's a reason why they play 82 games today as opposed to 40ish back then. There's more teams, and there's enough talent in the league to warrant such number of teams/games. The parity is undeniable.
In the UFC, a lot of the fighters wouldn't have contracts if White didn't force his expansion. He wants to hold all these events, therefore, more average talent will be signed.