In this week’s Trading Shots, reaction to word of an immediate rematch between Nate Diaz and Conor McGregor was none too kind inside the MMA bubble. But is that even the right metric for a fight like this?

* * * *

Downes: Ben, Saturday night’s UFC Fight Night 85 event in Australia had a little bit of everything. A walk-off KO, a couple come-from-behind wins, and incomprehensible judging. That’s why I want to talk about Conor McGregor.

The rumor mill was swirling this week saying McGregor-Diaz II is in the works for UFC 200 (though, as of this writing, there has been no official confirmation). This bit of gossip set social media ablaze, and all your friends in the so-called media weighed in.

The overwhelming response was that this would be a bad thing. It would be bad for the featherweight division. It would kill Diaz’s momentum. But what’s so bad about a rematch? Doesn’t this fight get more attention than any other fight you could make with the two of them? Some are calling it a “cash grab,” but isn’t that code for “fight with mainstream appeal?”

Fowlkes: I don’t buy the explanation that this would be a good fight just because it would be a financially lucrative fight. Pretty much any McGregor fight would have mainstream appeal right now, probably only more so if he actually defends that shiny belt he won.

Especially if it ends up being one piece of a blockbuster lineup at UFC 200, how are you going to tell me that McGregor vs. Diaz would make a sizable difference in pay-per-view sales?

I mean, if we’re looking for a way to get Diaz on the card, why not do so against a champion in one of the two weight classes in which he actually competes? And why not have McGregor defend his title against a featherweight contender on the same card? That way he and Diaz can still trash talk each other in the hotel lobby and whatnot, which can’t hurt their rematch situation somewhere down the line.

That’s not to say I’d be outraged about seeing Diaz and McGregor run it back. It just feels like a missed opportunity. With that win, hasn’t Diaz earned something bigger? Isn’t now the time to capitalize on this surge in popularity (or, if you prefer, needle-moving ability), and give him a chance to become a star in his own right, rather than just McGregor’s dance partner?

I also can’t help but ask what about that fight makes anyone think they need to see it again right away. There was no controversy, no questionable judging or officiating. Coming in on short notice, it was Diaz who had a built-in excuse, but he didn’t need it. And if McGregor had won, you know there’s no way the UFC would even think about giving Diaz a chance to do it again, brother.

That’s what gets me, I suppose. I won’t mind seeing the rematch. The first fight was fun (though, again, utterly meaningless). I’m sure it’ll be fun (and still meaningless) the second time. But it does send a message, does it not? And the message it sends is: We think the wrong guy won, so we’re going to do this until we get it right.

Downes: You make excellent points, including many that I agree with, and you’re still wrong. You shouldn’t characterize fights as “good” because they’re financially lucrative. But aren’t financially lucrative fights the most popular?

No one ever says, “Stupid UFC is just looking for a cash grab. That’s why they make fights that pundits and hardcore fans want to see!” What we always forget to mention when we dismiss something as a “cash grab” is that it’s the fight that gets the most eyeballs on it.

The debate over Diaz-McGregor II highlights how media and hardcore fans are out of touch with MMA’s place in a larger scope. Much like Washington insiders who have no idea how average Americans live or vote, they live inside an echo chamber. Their opinions are reinforced by peers on social media and they start to accept them as truth.

You’ve seen every UFC event for the last how many years? That certainly makes you knowledgeable. One might even call you an authority on the matter, but that only goes so far. You’ve also read a lot of books. You might have valid points as to why Nelson Algren was a great writer, but that doesn’t mean his readership will ever be as large as Stephenie Meyer’s.

Fowlkes: First of all, Stephenie Meyer? Oh wait, I Googled it. She’s the “Twilight” author. Let her write some fight fiction half as good as Algren’s, and I’ll shut up.

Second, I don’t disagree that MMA media and hardcore fans (as in, basically anyone who watched the prelims of UFC Fight Night 85) view the sport through a different lens than the people who only care when they hear names like McGregor or Ronda Rousey. But that doesn’t mean the mainstream fans are too dumb to realize what’s happening here.

The first Diaz vs. McGregor fight was the popular, if somewhat illogical, choice. That worked. But a second one, so soon after the first, feels more like a lazy sequel.

And, as the father to a 3-year-old who loves Disney princess movies, I know a thing or two about lazy sequels, Danny. I’ve sat through “Mulan II,” which features a cut-rate voice actor as an off-brand Eddie Murphy. I’ve also seen “Pocahontas II,” where they got Mel Gibson’s brother to voice the Mel Gibson role. You know what I learned from watching those? If they ever come out with a third film in either series, I will do whatever it takes to keep my daughter from finding out about them, because I am done enduring that knock-off crap.

My point is, an immediate rematch seems shortsighted, like a quick play for easy money, none of which lends itself to a future. If McGregor loses again, this time his drawing power might actually be hurt by defeat. And if he wins, great, he’s now 1-1 against Diaz, who just lost all his momentum.

Again, I’ll watch it. I’ll probably even enjoy it. I just can’t shake the feeling that no one is thinking beyond the next pay day here.

Downes: Did you ever think that maybe the fighters are only thinking about the next pay day? If so, you could accuse them of being short-sighted, but the entire career is short-sighted.

Even if it is a “lazy sequel,” you still haven’t shown that there are viable alternatives. The arguments for Jose Aldo have been, “every other champ got a rematch,” and the arguments for Frankie Edgar are, “Hey, he’s a nice guy.” You just said you’ll watch and probably enjoy it. Isn’t that the point?

We keep trying to ascribe some overreaching logic to an industry that defies reason. Why do we overcomplicate things? Are we that bored? Is it some sense that we’re smarter than those in power? Whatever it is, let’s just remember to enjoy it every once and awhile.

For more on UFC 200, check out the UFC Rumors section of the site.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.