PDA

View Full Version : Ratings going into Mania...


Kane Knight
03-12-2008, 10:43 AM
Last week's Raw drew hours of 3 and 3, for about 5 million viewers apiece. This is the first year in the time I've been following NMR's ratings for Raw that they've seen a decrease instead of an increase going into Wrestlemania. Think this says something new about WWE, or is a portent for some level of disappointment at Wrestlemania? PPV buyrates don't always correlate with the ratings of Raw and Smackdown, and this is the granddaddy of them all, but this is certainly an interesting trend.

Kane Knight
03-12-2008, 02:33 PM
I don't know why this is the case since I don't find the last few years with the exception of '05 as being built any better.

EDIT: Look at this weeks RAW.

Last night’s edition of WWE Raw did a 3.6 cable rating on the USA Network. The first hour did a 2.78, the second a 3.92, and the third did a 4.02. If you calculate the rating in its normal timeslot (leaving out the first hour) the show actually did a 4.0 cable rating.


See, the problem here is that you're using the Dirt sheet numbers. NMR's numbers are constantly lower than those numbers, demonstrating the likelihood of, you know, bullshit. But anyway, if you were to use those numbers, the bullshit numbers, I'm pretty sure the numbers are still down from the claimed numbers prior.

NMR will put up Monday Night's ratings next Tuesday or Wednesday, and I can all but guarantee that they will be lower by a significant degree.

Mr. Nerfect
03-12-2008, 03:46 PM
RAW was actually good this week, but you are probably right, KK. Ratings will be lower. I can suggest several things that are hurting the WWE heading into WrestleMania:

* As much as I dislike Hulk Hogan, he is right. What match is meant to be drawing at WrestleMania? What is their main event? Randy Orton vs. Triple H vs. John Cena? None of those men draw, and the combination is certainly less than thrilling. People booed the concept of another WrestleMania Triple Threat Match for a title. It might be more interesting if it was being contested under elimination rules.

* Jeff Hardy getting suspended probably won't help. A lot of fans have really connected with him, and now he's gone, and I'm sure his heat will also do a, well, Jeff Hardy, and just no-show. A lot of people will feel hurt and betrayed by this, so numbers probably won't climb.

* Edge is the only guy in one of the title matches that I believe has drawn at some point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think The Undertaker is one of the lowest drawing World Champions of all-time? When your challengers are three babyfaces that only extreme marks care about, you're not going to attract many outside viewers.

* Isn't this the same WrestleMania as last year? There doesn't seem to be much growth for the company as a whole with this edition of WrestleMania. John Cena is still in the main event, and The Undertaker is challenging again. Vince McMahon is still an evil bastard that hasn't got his comeuppance. Melina is again in a Lumberjill Match. Small, trivial points, but I don't know if the average fan sees enough "new" on the card to truly believe that they are witnessing a special event unfold.

DaVe
03-12-2008, 04:10 PM
I'm gonna predict this weeks Raw's true ratings will be about 2.4, 3.5, 3.6.

Anyway, Sharky X, if you go by the 'dirt sheet' ratings as KK calls it, this is still the lowest-rated build to Mania so far since 1998 as I've mentioned before. The problem is that the Jan 14 08, Jan 21 08, Feb 4 08, Feb 11 08, Feb 25 08, March 3 08, and March 10 08 shows were all 3.6 or less. There is no real 'build' - it's just flat. And I'd say this weeks 2-hour rating being about 4 is just due to it being a special 3hr Raw. All 3 special Raws in recent time have been rated miles higher than the weeks around it.

Mr. Nerfect
03-12-2008, 06:44 PM
I can't help but smile at the possibility of the WWE spending so much money on WrestleMania, and landing flat-on their face.

Innovator
03-12-2008, 06:50 PM
Also, the ratings spiked during some segments for RAW this week, meaning WWE can't hold onto viewers once they tune in. The 10 o clock quarter was high, then trailed off.

Mr. Nerfect
03-12-2008, 07:00 PM
What was at the beginning of the 10 o'clock quarter, and what caused viewers to tune out?

Innovator
03-12-2008, 07:01 PM
The Show/Mayweather angle, after that segment people tuned out.

Mr. Nerfect
03-12-2008, 07:01 PM
I must say, if I were a potential viewer, and I was watching the Hornswoggle stuff, I would not watch again. Especially with the whole molestation undertones of JBL and Hornswoggle in the hospital.

Stuff like that can genuinely turn audiences off.

Mr. Nerfect
03-12-2008, 07:02 PM
The Show/Mayweather angle, after that segment people tuned out.

Doesn't surprise me. Mayweather does well on PPV, and I think Big Show might be the only guy in the WWE who actually draws.

Afterlife
03-12-2008, 07:03 PM
That could have something to do with Vince changing his focus every 6 months.

Vince's Meetings with Creative:

"Commentators, talk about wrestling--no, stories--no, wrestling! No, stories!! Oh, and I want to get involved with a storyline that has a cowboy, a midget and a guy with a stick -- and let's make sure it doesn't make any sense, could we?"

Kane Knight
03-12-2008, 07:08 PM
I can't help but smile at the possibility of the WWE spending so much money on WrestleMania, and landing flat-on their face.

I doubt they'll fall flat on their faces, but then, also, I would smile if they did worse than last year. Also, I want to see how Vince justifies Mayweather to the shareholders if there isn't a significant enough increase to justify his price tag. Wrestlemania and the Rumble are the last big cash cows, and if they don't pay out, I imagine this will have an effect on stock prices (Though I doubt a HUGE effect) and confidence in WWE's performance.

It also might wake Vince the fuck up, and while I say that a lot, and it never happens, it'd be awesome if they did.

Afterlife
03-12-2008, 07:13 PM
And, with the way the Rumble was turned into a pointless fuck-over, I don't think they helped themselves very much.

NeanderCarl
03-12-2008, 07:18 PM
I actually really enjoyed the Rumble this year... first time I've felt anything other than indifference after a PPV since, well, last years WrestleMania. Didn't mind Cena winning simply because the surprise factor made up for it, and the show on the whole wasn't at all bad in my opinion. Then No Way Out delivered more than expected too.

That's 2 entertaining PPVS out of 2 so far this year, in my book. Could bode well for Mania, but the line up is less than inspiring on paper. Then again, WM22 looked pure shite on paper, and was much better than anticipated.

Innovator
03-12-2008, 07:21 PM
Mania is always entertaining, just cause it's Mania. Backlash we'll see the entertainment go bye bye

Afterlife
03-12-2008, 07:23 PM
I actually really enjoyed the Rumble this year... first time I've felt anything other than indifference after a PPV since, well, last years WrestleMania. Didn't mind Cena winning simply because the surprise factor made up for it, and the show on the whole wasn't at all bad in my opinion. Then No Way Out delivered more than expected too.

That's 2 entertaining PPVS out of 2 so far this year, in my book. Could bode well for Mania, but the line up is less than inspiring on paper. Then again, WM22 looked pure shite on paper, and was much better than anticipated.

I enjoyed the Rumble, too. I'm talking about pissing away the Mania title shot at NWO. It was weak and a total let-down to Rumble fans. Takes away the whole point of the coolest ppv.

NeanderCarl
03-12-2008, 07:29 PM
Hated Cena cashing in the title match at NWO too, and especially when he still ended up in the Mania main event anyway. My one hope is that all three of these guys have had great matches with each other (HHH vs Orton Rumble 04, Cena vs Orton SummerSlam 07, HHH vs Cena WM22) so maybe they can pull a great wrestling match out of their hats, but it's nothing new, and not a draw to me. I'll buy the show because it's WrestleMania but I'm not looking forward to that match particularly, which is just wrong when it's your flagship brand's main event.

As for Backlash, going by past form, they might as well just change the name of that PPV to 'WrestleMania 2: Electric Boogaloo' or some shit because last year was almost a carbon copy of the main WM matches rehashed with slight twists.

Afterlife
03-12-2008, 07:31 PM
In their defense, it's called "Backlash" because it's supposed to be "the backlash of WrestleMania". But I kinda felt the same way last year.

NeanderCarl
03-12-2008, 07:36 PM
But if that's their philosophy, why would anyone pay for the much less spectacular Backlash PPV just a few weeks after the far superior WrestleMania to see more of exactly the same on a much smaller scale? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that WWE needs to rethink it, especially after charging so much for Mania.

If anything, Backlash should really feature a wholly fresh card to signify the arrival of the new "WWE calender year". After all, WrestleMania is supposed to be the culmination of all the major stories and feuds that have built throughout the prior months. The slate should, for the most part, be wiped clean following Mania (save maybe one or two angles that still have legs, but even they should take a new slant too). It's atypical lazy booking.

Afterlife
03-12-2008, 07:52 PM
I can't really offer a counterpoint. I got nothin'.

Mr. Nerfect
03-14-2008, 11:57 AM
I think that WrestleMania's card needs to be tightened. The main event is a Triple Threat where one man doesn't need to be involved in the decision. Now, I can understand the usefulness for matches like that, but not at WrestleMania. It should be the culmination of the story. The Triple Threat Match should be under elimination rules. That way whoever is WWE Champion at the end of the night truly looks better.

Edge vs. The Undertaker should also be No Holds Barred, or something. The feud can be traced back to Edge having a hand in The Undertaker being forced onto the shelf, and has spilled into Hell in a Cell, Triple Threat Matches (where there are no rules), and has become quite personal and seen a few casualties.

My main reasoning for this, though, is that Edge can lose by countout or disqualification to give Taker the 16-0 win, and keep his title. If this is meant to be Title vs. Streak, then they really should play up some kind of stipulation which says that if Taker's streak stays alive, then he's World Heavyweight Champion. It also means that Edge would have to suffer his first pinfall or submission loss at a WrestleMania event. It seems to favor Taker, but then you have the possibility of Zack Ryder & Curt Hawkins being influencing factors.

Innovator
03-14-2008, 12:00 PM
An elimination 3 way would be great, especially if Orton gets eliminated first. Fans would get excited knowing a new champ would come no matter what...then they'd realize that it'd either be HHH or Cena.

MMH
03-14-2008, 12:13 PM
Hated Cena cashing in the title match at NWO too, and especially when he still ended up in the Mania main event anyway. My one hope is that all three of these guys have had great matches with each other (HHH vs Orton Rumble 04, Cena vs Orton SummerSlam 07, HHH vs Cena WM22)

Do you mean HHH vs Orton at Rumble 05? Really? I thought that match was modest at best. It started out pretty good and Orton's concussion selling was fantastic, but the match really went downhill mid-way. That doesn't mean Orton and Trips haven't had a good match together. My choice for them would be the Last Man Standing at No Mercy. Summerslam 07 for Cena/Orton and WrestleMania 22 for HHH/Cena, I agree.

NeanderCarl
03-14-2008, 05:36 PM
Yes I meant that one. It had great psychology and told a good story, more so than being technically a great match, but it was memorable. Now that you mention it, the Last Man Standing match last year was better, though.

Mr. Nerfect
03-14-2008, 07:21 PM
An elimination 3 way would be great, especially if Orton gets eliminated first. Fans would get excited knowing a new champ would come no matter what...then they'd realize that it'd either be HHH or Cena.

That's exactly it. The WWE obviously wants to do John Cena vs. Triple H II, and while I'm sure their current plan is to have John Cena force Randy Orton to submit, and then have Triple H step forward as a one-on-one challenger, they might as well make it an elimination match, and have it come down to John Cena vs. Triple H.

The other option is to have Randy Orton eliminate Triple H, and actually look credible and as a worthwhile WWE Champion before he loses to Cena. I don't think it's necessary, though.

Afterlife
03-15-2008, 12:38 PM
I doubt Trips would be willing to have a storyline for 6 months that leads to him getting his title shot at Mania only to be the first man out in an elimination. I don't think ANYbody would go for that.

Mr. Nerfect
03-15-2008, 12:41 PM
I doubt Trips would be willing to have a storyline for 6 months that leads to him getting his title shot at Mania only to be the first man out in an elimination. I don't think ANYbody would go for that.

I don't know, Randy Orton might be pretty keen on it. :p

Afterlife
03-15-2008, 01:01 PM
YEs, but Orton was the champ. HHH's story is that he's been fighting Vince/Regal at every turn just to get another shot. He had to fuck around to get into the RUmble, and lost that; had to go thru the chamber match; I really don't see him dropping first in a 3-way elimination. Makes the wole trip (if yoo wheel) a moot adventure.

James Steele
03-15-2008, 04:55 PM
I personally want Triple H to become champion again. Johnny, ITS BURYING TIME!!

Mr. Nerfect
03-15-2008, 05:50 PM
YEs, but Orton was the champ. HHH's story is that he's been fighting Vince/Regal at every turn just to get another shot. He had to fuck around to get into the RUmble, and lost that; had to go thru the chamber match; I really don't see him dropping first in a 3-way elimination. Makes the wole trip (if yoo wheel) a moot adventure.

Yes and no. I'd personally go with the John Cena/Triple H ending (which is a moot point, seeing as the WWE are cats and won't make it elimination), but I can see reason for having the WWE Champion outlast Triple H.

Yeah, Triple H has been chasing, but the build has been crappy, for the most part. Randy Orton's story is that he's the WWE Champion, and meant to be the best guy on RAW. Shouldn't that mean a lot, too? Triple H can look good and still go first.

I do see the value in John Cena vs. Triple H being the hypoethetical final fall, though.

Afterlife
03-15-2008, 06:44 PM
True, H's story sucks, but so does Randy Orton.

MMH
03-15-2008, 07:14 PM
I think there's only two outcomes I'd like for the Triple Threat: HHH winning or Cena winning and turning heel ala Austin in '01. Reason being for the former, it's been three years since we've had an HHH title run (No Mercy doesn't count) and Cena well, he's been champ for three years BUT a heel turn would be different and definitely make things interesting. The worst outcomes would be Orton retaining or Cena winning and picking up where he left off.

Mr. Nerfect
03-15-2008, 08:05 PM
I think there's only two outcomes I'd like for the Triple Threat: HHH winning or Cena winning and turning heel ala Austin in '01. Reason being for the former, it's been three years since we've had an HHH title run (No Mercy doesn't count) and Cena well, he's been champ for three years BUT a heel turn would be different and definitely make things interesting. The worst outcomes would be Orton retaining or Cena winning and picking up where he left off.

Yes, Triple H's No Mercy win does count. As we are reminded every time Triple H makes his entrance. Honestly, I never want to see Triple H with a World Championship ever again.

What really annoys me about Triple H's World Championships, is the way the WWE advertises them. When the World Heavyweight Title was on RAW, he was a 10-time World Heavyweight Champion. No, he wasn't. He was a five-time World Heavyweight Champion. Now that the WWE Championship is on RAW, he's apparently an 11-time that. No, he's not. He's a six-time WWE Champion.

If Triple H wins another WWE Championship, that would tie him with The Rock as having the most WWE Championship runs ever. That could be a big thing if the WWE didn't skip over it. Triple H has also won more World Championships in a WWE ring than any man in history. That is where the number 11 is correct. The WWE could really put him over as the greatest in the WWE ever, but instead it seems he's trying to pale in comparison to Ric Flair, who has only won two World Titles in the WWE.

John Cena winning the WWE Championship and turning heel would be great, but unfortunately, it won't happen.

DaVe
03-15-2008, 11:30 PM
The whole main event for Raw is screwy. There are problems with anyone winning. Orton: probably shouldn't have the heel winning... Triple H: many don't want him with so many title reigns. Cena: Cena spoils the results till the next major pay per view.

Afterlife
03-16-2008, 12:05 AM
I'd like H to win and gloat about being the best CHampion in ths biz, as he's got the most World Title runs of any active wrestler. (Obviously, Flair hasretired after Mania.) Then have Jericho point out (again) that he was the first Undisputed CHampion AND is now the most frequent IC title holder. I think those two could make quite an entertaining feud, what with the fuel behind Jericho's return. Couple that with H's WM win momentum, and you've got a heck of a run for Backlash.

MMH
03-16-2008, 12:07 AM
Who knows, Jericho might win MITB so he could use that to challenge HHH. Although it would probably be better to have MVP win it.

Afterlife
03-16-2008, 12:12 AM
It would be better to fire MVP.

Kane Knight
03-16-2008, 10:15 AM
Who knows, Jericho might win MITB so he could use that to challenge HHH. Although it would probably be better to have MVP win it.

Considering Jericho's a perpetual midcarder (Note to the fans who are barking at this like I just said Jericho is worthless; I didn't), it might be better to put it on someone that might go somewhere.

NeanderCarl
03-16-2008, 10:55 AM
Yeah, it's highly unlikely there will ever be a Jericho top title run that is anything but transitional.

As much as he brings to the table, his top line potential is exhausted. People (and Jericho) have to make do with the top end of the midcard and enjoy him for what he is.

The MITB was Jeff's match. Now, it's wide open... I could see Shelton with the upset, but more likely is a second Kennedy win. Certainly the least star studded MITB to date.

Kane Knight
03-16-2008, 12:05 PM
I hate to say this, but I don't want Shelton to take it. I love him, but every time he gets even a marginal push, he seems to cave.

MVP, I don't personally see it, but he's fairly well liked, and seems to be fairly over in his role so it might make sense.

NeanderCarl
03-16-2008, 03:42 PM
Reckon Matt Hardy will be added to this match? To replace Jeff?

Would add an extra angle to the match which is surely going to suffer from losing Jeff as it stands. I had forgotten MVP was in it... it's got to be between MVP and Kennedy for the win this year. Jericho is the long shot but, as KK said, it wouldn't serve much purpose... plus Jericho would probably end up being the first person ever to cash in a MITB contract and lose.

Kane Knight
03-16-2008, 04:49 PM
I could get behind the "Other Hardy" getting Jeff's push. I'd still love Jericho winning as long as he wasn't going to get used as midcard fodder. But since he is....

NeanderCarl
03-16-2008, 06:30 PM
Thinking about it... if Jericho won and headed to SmackDown to cash it in.... Jericho vs Batista, Jericho vs Undertaker and Jericho vs Edge are all fresh feuds... I don't even know if Jericho has even wrestled Bats or the Taker before. He must have wrestled Edge but I don't remember any kind of program between them.

I'm liking it :y: Shame he's Raw's Intercontinental champion, hey?

DAMN iNATOR
03-16-2008, 07:02 PM
I could get behind the "Other Hardy" getting Jeff's push. I'd still love Jericho winning as long as he wasn't going to get used as midcard fodder. But since he is....

Yeah, and then have Matt traded or drafted if there's a post-WM XXIV draft, to RAW and have him win the WWE title, then have Matt and Jeff feud over the belt for a while once Jeff's back, have him claim that Matt won the title vicariously through Jeff or some BS, and kinda see how it pans out...

Kane Knight
03-16-2008, 07:06 PM
Like the brand split means anything.

Kane Knight
03-16-2008, 07:21 PM
Yeah, and then have Matt traded or drafted if there's a post-WM XXIV draft, to RAW and have him win the WWE title, then have Matt and Jeff feud over the belt for a while once Jeff's back, have him claim that Matt won the title vicariously through Jeff or some BS, and kinda see how it pans out...

That'd be cool. Which is why it'll never happen.

Testicle
03-16-2008, 07:42 PM
The ratings are pretty bad. But I would guess that the PPV will actually do good numbers since alot of wrestling fans only buy the wrestlemania PPV because the other PPVs have been lacking in quality. So instead of buying 15, 12, or 6 PPVs a year, they just order Mania.

Kane Knight
03-16-2008, 07:47 PM
The ratings are pretty bad. But I would guess that the PPV will actually do good numbers since alot of wrestling fans only buy the wrestlemania PPV because the other PPVs have been lacking in quality. So instead of buying 15, 12, or 6 PPVs a year, they just order Mania.

That seems like highly faulty reasoning.

NeanderCarl
03-16-2008, 08:27 PM
I don't know. I have a lot of friends who loved wrestling over the years but have grown out of it and stopped watching, yet they will still always watch WrestleMania.

On WrestleMania night, I usually have a house full of people, many of whom won't have watched a moment of wrestling since last years Mania.

Don't underestimate the power of the brand name.

James Steele
03-16-2008, 08:56 PM
This is where Kane Knight uses the "your pathetic example can not correlate to any massive amount of people because that would prove my point wrong" strategy.

Afterlife
03-17-2008, 12:56 AM
Hahahaaaa. *sigh* It's only funny because it's true. :)

Mr. Nerfect
03-17-2008, 01:57 AM
Yeah, a lot of people will just watch WrestleMania, but I don't think that's what KK is arguing against in this circumstance. I think he means that bad numbers being indicative of good PPV buys is faulty. The numbers are bad (as far as WrestleMania lead-in goes), so it would make more sense to assume that the WrestleMania buys will be lower this year than they normally would be.

It all depends on what you define as a "good" number of buys. The WWE have spent so much money on this WrestleMania, and you'd hope TV ratings would reflect that. The amount of PPV buys would also need to corrolate to this. WrestleMania has also grown in buys each year recently. Can they do that again? Is a drop in buys considered "good?" That's what the ratings imply will happen.

Mr. Nerfect
03-17-2008, 02:00 AM
Matt Hardy should be added to the Money in the Bank Ladder Match. I also don't agree with Jericho only being a mid-carder for the rest of his career. The man is main event material, the WWE does know this, they've just done a shit job using him. A MITB win for Jericho would not go to waste.

I'm also willing to bet this will be the best MITB Ladder Match to date.

Afterlife
03-17-2008, 02:17 AM
Meh. I still prefer it as a 6-man event.

Mr. Nerfect
03-17-2008, 02:36 AM
Meh. I still prefer it as a 6-man event.

I can understand why, but I think the eight-man formula is fine. I think they just need to extend the length of the match to accompany the extra limbs.

7 is an odd and awkward number, though, in my opinion.

As it stands, we only have one guy from SmackDown! in the match. Two guys from ECW, and four guys from RAW. There are more guys from RAW than the other two brands combined. It seems quite uneven.

Kane Knight
03-19-2008, 02:52 PM
This is where Kane Knight uses the "your pathetic example can not correlate to any massive amount of people because that would prove my point wrong" strategy.

:lol:

Oh, poor James, born a Texan and thus unable to come up with rational arguments.

DaVe was pretty close on the ratings, with a 3.5, a 3.4, and the bottom hour not charting (But it was less than 2.5) There were some pretty nice viewer increases for both hours listed, almost 700K viewers tuning in for the top hour.

Afterlife
03-19-2008, 04:33 PM
:lol:

Oh, poor James, born a Texan and thus unable to come up with rational arguments.

DaVe was pretty close on the ratings, with a 3.5, a 3.4, and the bottom hour not charting (But it was less than 2.5) There were some pretty nice viewer increases for both hours listed, almost 700K viewers tuning in for the top hour.

I dunno....seems pretty on-the-money to me. :p

Afterlife
03-19-2008, 04:34 PM
I can understand why, but I think the eight-man formula is fine. I think they just need to extend the length of the match to accompany the extra limbs.

7 is an odd and awkward number, though, in my opinion.

As it stands, we only have one guy from SmackDown! in the match. Two guys from ECW, and four guys from RAW. There are more guys from RAW than the other two brands combined. It seems quite uneven.

Of course it seems uneven; it's an odd fucking number. ;)

Mr. JL
03-19-2008, 04:44 PM
Matt Hardy should be added to the Money in the Bank Ladder Match. I also don't agree with Jericho only being a mid-carder for the rest of his career. The man is main event material, the WWE does know this, they've just done a shit job using him. A MITB win for Jericho would not go to waste.

I'm also willing to bet this will be the best MITB Ladder Match to date.

With Triple H running things there is no way Chris Jericho is going to be a main event player. Or if he does become one, it's not going to be on the RAW brand.

Afterlife
03-19-2008, 05:33 PM
Since when does Triple H have a personal problem with Jericho?

James Steele
03-19-2008, 06:22 PM
Kane Knight, I love how you "hate wrestling" and say you hardly watch it, if at all, but you find time to keep up with the ratings and to form opinions (that you present as fact aka The real Stupid Human Trick) about something you admit to hating and not watching due to your displeasure with the current product.

Mr. Nerfect
03-22-2008, 08:42 AM
Since when does Triple H have a personal problem with Jericho?

For a while, apparently. Most recently he was reportedly bitching about Jericho behind his back shortly after his return. That's if you believe reports.

It's not the first I've heard of it, though. I think it goes back a fair way.

Afterlife
03-22-2008, 09:37 AM
For a while, apparently. Most recently he was reportedly bitching about Jericho behind his back shortly after his return. That's if you believe reports.

It's not the first I've heard of it, though. I think it goes back a fair way.

THen why would they hire Jericho back? Not saying you're wrong, just saying it seems detrimental.

Afterlife
03-22-2008, 09:40 AM
Kane Knight, I love how you "hate wrestling" and say you hardly watch it, if at all, but you find time to keep up with the ratings and to form opinions (that you present as fact aka The real Stupid Human Trick) about something you admit to hating and not watching due to your displeasure with the current product.

Really? Because I hate that.

Kane Knight
03-22-2008, 09:48 AM
See, personally, I just love that James makes shit up like that, and that you're stupid enough to accept it as fact. I retract the "You're smarter than that" attitude I've been taking. You're clearly not.

Afterlife
03-22-2008, 09:51 AM
Ha ha. Sorry. Lately, I've been jumping at chances to rake ya.

Mr. Nerfect
03-23-2008, 03:06 AM
THen why would they hire Jericho back? Not saying you're wrong, just saying it seems detrimental.

Because a lot of people within the WWE wanted to see him return? Stephanie McMahon actually being one of those people.

Why bring Jericho back just to make him IC Champion? The WWE's whole handling of the man since his return has been iffy, at best.

Afterlife
03-23-2008, 03:26 AM
But that's my point. Why do it, if you don't do something WITH it?

The Naitch
03-23-2008, 03:39 AM
Kane Knight is a bitch

*runs away into the shadows*

The Naitch
03-23-2008, 03:40 AM
Because a lot of people within the WWE wanted to see him return? Stephanie McMahon actually being one of those people.

Why bring Jericho back just to make him IC Champion? The WWE's whole handling of the man since his return has been iffy, at best.

Jericho knew all that before going in. That's life. And he's accepted it

Kane Knight
03-23-2008, 10:16 AM
Jericho knew all that before going in. That's life. And he's accepted it

Hell, if Jericho has half a brain cell, he saw it happening beforehand. And if he doesn't, he's been hanging around RVD too much.

Kane Knight
03-25-2008, 05:40 PM
Last Week's Ratings, the next to last Raw before Wrestlemania, drew hours of 3.3 and 2.8.

Expected Afterlife and James to make some sort of retarded strawman shortly.

Afterlife
03-26-2008, 02:23 AM
Whatchu mean?

Afterlife
03-26-2008, 03:13 PM
:wtf:...Well?

Afterlife
03-27-2008, 10:06 AM
I'll go ahead and take your lack of response as an apology for your suggestive dig at my name. No hard feelings.

Kane Knight
03-27-2008, 12:34 PM
Funny how I'm the one looking for an argument, yet you're the one who brings this up again and again. :)

Afterlife
03-28-2008, 06:41 AM
I just didn't know what your comment there meant. That's why I asked: outright confusion. I figured, since you'd avoided answering my question, it was one of your enigmatic attempts at insulting my demeanor. Not lookin' for an argument at all; just an explanation.

El Fangel
03-28-2008, 06:51 AM
He means explain the ratings which apparently contradict your statements.

At least I think thats what he means, Im never too sure what that fucker means.

:heart: KK

Kane Knight
03-28-2008, 07:30 AM
You know, I tend not to take people seriously when they ask me to explain a statement I quantified the last time it came up, or that came up in direct response to something said and used as an example. I keep telling myself, "people can't really be this stupid, can they?"

Especially when said example is in the same thread, so even if one lacks the basic attention span of an eight year old, one can be readily reminded without having to, you know, actually do any burdensome things like think or employ the search function.

I am readily let down on that front.

Afterlife
03-28-2008, 09:58 AM
He means explain the ratings which apparently contradict your statements.

At least I think thats what he means, Im never too sure what that fucker means.

:heart: KK

That's what I thought he meant, too. But the only thing I"ve ever said about ratings is that I don't give a shit about them. Therein lies my confusion on why I would have any remarks about the new numbers.

Kane Knight
04-01-2008, 04:30 PM
The final Raw before Mania only drew hours of 3.0 and 2.8. I'm not WWE, but I'd be disappointed if ratings were that low compared to only ONE YEAR AGO going into Mania.

Afterlife
04-01-2008, 05:09 PM
What was it then?