USA Today

UFC 186, the latest in a string of utterly cursed fight cards, took another hit on Tuesday morning when a New Jersey judge granted an injunction to Bellator that will prevent Quinton "Rampage" Jackson from fighting against Fabio Maldonado in the co-main event, as reported by Fox Sports' Damon Martin.

A card that once featured two title fights (neither of which were highly anticipated) now features just one: Demetrious Johnson will defend the flyweight title against Kyoji Horiguchi. Johnson, for all his fighting wizardry, has not resonated with the public as a drawing card and is defending his title against a virtual unknown.

On the surface, it appears that Jackson was the drawing card on the show. Now he's gone, either back to Bellator or into lawsuit purgatory. The point being, he's not fighting on this card, and whatever interest was left in the show either completely evaporated or, at the very least, took a massive hit.

To discuss the UFC's options for this faulty card, lead writers Jeremy Botter and Jonathan Snowden—Bleacher Report's version of Thelma and Louise—team up once again to answer The Question: Should UFC 186 be canceled?

Jeremy: We've only seen two event cancellations in UFC history. Both of them lost their main drawing cards and utterly fell apart, and the only available response was to pull the plug on them.

That's the same thing that happened here. Well, that's assuming you think there was ever a drawing card at all on this event. There was some intrigue back when it had two title fights and Rory MacDonald vs. Hector Lombard. Now? The UFC's worst-drawing champion is in the main event, and the one guy who added any intrigue is gone (Jackson). Sure, there's stil a championship fight on the card. But it's not a drawing card.

I suspect this one will push the limits and show us just how low the UFC's pay-per-view basement can go. I think you're looking at 75,000 buys, tops, and that's if the hardcore fans tune in. If they don't, this could get even uglier. They need to pull the plug on this one.

John Locher/Associated Press

Jonathan: This card, to put it politely, is dung. Drizzling dung.

That may sound harsh to your ears—and maybe it is. Truth be told, UFC 186 is not really so different than the kind of fight cards we see routinely on Fox Sports 1, filled with older fighters trying to earn one final payday and new stars looking desperately to make a name for themselves.

I love those cards. In the right circumstances, I could love this one as well. The distinction here is strictly economic.

Imagine, if you will, a favorite restaurant. Say that restaurant serves nuggets made of chicken. Jeremy, I know, would dig that.

But what if, on one random Saturday night in April, the nuggets you're used to buying for a pittance were suddenly $60? Not forever—just this time, and seemingly without justification.

Clearly, that's not right. As a consumer, you'd be outraged. Sure, you understand that filet mignon costs $60. It should. If cooked just right, it's like nothing you've ever tasted in your life, each bite a delectable delight.

But freaking chicken nuggets?

That's what the UFC is doing here. They are offering nuggets at the same price they charge for a nice medium-rare steak. And they're hoping fans are so hungry and desperate that they'll pay despite knowing full well they're being swindled.

Does that seem like good business, Jeremy?

Jeremy: It does not. Though I'll also note that I am not exactly a businessman. And also? I'm hungry. You know I love chicken nuggets. This was a low blow by you, designed to make me go purchase and eat chicken nuggets. And you know what? It worked. I bought nuggets and consumed them, and now I hate myself.

Look, you're right. This card is awful. And that's unfortunate, because Demetrious Johnson is an awesome fighter and probably deserves respect and money. But he just has not connected with the fans, and maybe he never will.

But the UFC isn't going to cancel this. On Monday afternoon, they issued a statement saying they were "surprised" by the court's decision to side with Bellator and that they were moving forward with UFC 186 as planned. Which means pay-per-view. I'm not sure that's the right decision.

Jonathan: I've said it before. I'll probably say it again. But the UFC simply doesn't have the fighter roster to put on a monthly pay-per-view.

With its responsibilities to Fox and the international fight community, the promotion is spread thin. Kevin Durant thin.

Fighters anyone has ever heard of are at a premium, and fights that used to fill out a pay-per-view nicely are now themselves main events on less prestigious shows. There is no such thing as a stacked card—not anymore. Or at least, not without salvaging parts from broken and abandoned shows like UFC 186.

But despite this changing landscape, hardcore fans continue to purchase the monthly pay-per-view like clockwork. It's little more than a habit at this point, but one the UFC ruthlessly exploits to separate us from our dollars with substandard shows like this one.

Unless fans tell the UFC, clearly and unambiguously, that a monthly pay-per-view doesn't cut it, they will continue to pretend it's 2010 until the end of time. And don't bother trying to tell UFC president Dana White on Twitter. He'll insult you or block you, hands plugging his ears.

No, there's only one language American business understands. And it's spoken in dollars and cents, not vowels and consonants.

Jeremy: I like the idea of going to a pay-per-view once every two months. I disagree that there is no such thing as a stacked card any more; UFC 187 and UFC 189 are perfect examples of the kinds of cards the UFC can put together. By my own personal definition, those cards are stacked.

If you dial back and just do pay-per-view every two months, you have a better chance of putting together more cards like that. Not only that, but you'd also be able to better recover when injuries force fighters to withdraw from cards. And to top it off, you'd have better cards to deliver to Fox, your television partner.

The UFC has put together an extraordinary year in terms of pay-per-view numbers. Ronda Rousey has emerged as a true draw. And the aforementioned UFC 187 and 189 events will make out like gangbusters at the box office. But there's no question that UFC 186 will be a low point on the calendar, and that's unfortunate.

Jonathan: I completely agree that UFC is capable of putting on great pay-per-view cards. That's what made us fall in love with them in the first place. But in 2015, that only happens at the expense of others less fortunate. UFC 187 and UFC 189 shined so brightly, requiring stars meant for shows like this one.

The UFC knows this show is a dud. That's why they've done almost nothing to promote it, focusing instead on all things Conor McGregor and UFC 189. The real victims here are fans from Montreal holding tickets for UFC 186. The rest of us have a choice whether or not to support this fiasco. They're stuck with it.

Your solution, moving to a bimonthly PPV schedule, is the perfect medicine for all that ails UFC. It would go a long way toward making UFC events must-see television again. It would not only bolster each pay-per-view but would free up exciting fighters for some of their shows on Fox Sports 1 as well.

Listen, I want to love the UFC. There's nothing better than a great night of fights. Unfortunately, it's just not able to deliver that monthly. And until it can, it's only right to stop asking the most loyal and steadfast fans to pick up the tab for those nuggets.

Demand steak for our $60, UFC fans. We deserve it!

Follow Jeremy Botter and Jonathan Snowden on Twitter.