Top 5 Reasons Why You Can't Blame...:Episode I

[Johnny Vegas]

It seems that when we talk about certain topics on TPWW, most of us seem to have the same general idea and/or opinion. Why WCW fell, why does Vince McMahon have some type of negativity towards Christian, etc. If you watch ESPN, they did something just like this topic so i want to start a TPWW Professional Wrestling version. I'll probably do this on a weekly basis or earlier than that, i'm not sure.



*First off, i would like to apologize if i offend anyone if i only come up with topics pertaining to the "Big 3" (WWF/E, WCW, ECW).*




Basic Concept: Come up with 5 DIFFERENT reasons to answer the topic besides the titled reason. I.E. - HHH's reign of terror...:shifty: and elaborate please.





TOPIC: Top 5 Reasons Why You Can't Blame The Brand Split for the WWE "Recession" (02-Present).







:wave:

[Cool King]

Top 3 reasons?

The thread title says 5. :wtf:

[Johnny Vegas]

fix**

[Xero]

1. It establishes three distinct brands with distinct superstars.

2. It opens the doors for "dream matches" similar to the Monday Night Wars in that they're on different brands and have never touched.

3. This is the biggest reason. It keeps a good balance of lower-to-mid-card and main eventers. As it is, WWE must have 10+ wrestlers who can legitimately be called main eventers and they would wind up taking up the majority of TV time if there weren't split brands. It would make it even harder for guys to break through. I've always seen this as the reason the brand split can never truly end without a major purging of the roster.

[Johnny Vegas]

sorry, let me rephrase the instructions srry

[Xero]

I had a hard enough time coming up with three. :foc:

[Johnny Vegas]

lol do you guys see what i'm asking though?

[Xero]

Why would anyone blame the brand split on the WWE recession? That's just stupid.

[Xero]

Oh. I see now. Fuck you for making this confusing.

[Johnny Vegas]

Apparently, some people feel that if the brand split didn't happen, the roster would have more fueds to establish. Instead of it being Orton v Cena, HHH v Cena, etc. it could be like Cena v Rey Mysterio or HHH v Christian without having to "draft" wrestlers.

Sorry Logan :(

[Nark Order]

I can blame Episode I for anything I want. George Lucas is a shithead for letting that all go down the way it did.

[Johnny Vegas]

gay lol

[Xero]

The first episode of RAW was pretty awesome.

:shifty:

[Emperor Smeat]

1) WCW/ECW folded in 2001
Without WCW and ECW (to a lesser extent), no reason for WWF/WWE to push for high quality shows since their direct competition no longer existed and WWE ruled wrestling in U.S./Canada.

2) No Stone Cold or The Rock by 2002/2003 as full-time wrestlers.
Stone Cold vs The Rock was basically the feud of the Attitude Era starting from the Intercontinental title to the heavyweight title. Once they left or began to work on a few shows per year, WWE started to lose a lot of fans that built up from those 2 wrestlers. Its similar to how Hogan leaving WWF took some Hogan fans from WWF to WCW.

3) Post 2001 economy in United States.
Besides the terror attacks of 9/11, the economy itself began to weaken after reaching highs during the 1990s and the Dot Com bust. Its around same time Vince began to lose money and within a few years would end up increasing ppv prices and number of shows per year. This ended up hurting the quality of each PPV and pricing out a good portion of PPV buyers.

The other 2 probably would have been Triple H hurting RAW during his "Reign of Terror" and the eventual neglect of Smackdown once Vince believed RAW must succeed at the other show cost. Also can't forget about Ted Turner loosing interest in wrestling once he was forced out of control by the AOL/Time Warner Merger.

[James Diesel]

1) It allows for more air time.

2) You get to see more of who you wanted to see instead of seeing them only twice a month

3) More events for the fans to go to

4) More storylines creating higher interest

5) Money?

[Johnny Vegas]

1) WCW/ECW folded in 2001
Without WCW and ECW (to a lesser extent), no reason for WWF/WWE to push for high quality shows since their direct competition no longer existed and WWE ruled wrestling in U.S./Canada.

2) No Stone Cold or The Rock by 2002/2003 as full-time wrestlers.
Stone Cold vs The Rock was basically the feud of the Attitude Era starting from the Intercontinental title to the heavyweight title. Once they left or began to work on a few shows per year, WWE started to lose a lot of fans that built up from those 2 wrestlers. Its similar to how Hogan leaving WWF took some Hogan fans from WWF to WCW.

3) Post 2001 economy in United States.
Besides the terror attacks of 9/11, the economy itself began to weaken after reaching highs during the 1990s and the Dot Com bust. Its around same time Vince began to lose money and within a few years would end up increasing ppv prices and number of shows per year. This ended up hurting the quality of each PPV and pricing out a good portion of PPV buyers.

The other 2 probably would have been Triple H hurting RAW during his "Reign of Terror" and the eventual neglect of Smackdown once Vince believed RAW must succeed at the other show cost. Also can't forget about Ted Turner loosing interest in wrestling once he was forced out of control by the AOL/Time Warner Merger.

This is exactly what I wanted

[Emperor Smeat]

I've seen most of the episodes from ESPN's Top 5 Reasons so I understood what you were trying to get with the initial topic.

[Mr. Nerfect]

It made sense to me.

1. The WWE's decline really started in 2001, with the fall of the Attitude era, and top stars like The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin moving on with their lives. A lack of real top stars hurt the WWE a lot more than simply having two (or three) rosters did.

2. In addition to losing top stars, professional wrestling itself just lost a lot of fans. It stopped being "cool," and that itself has taken a lot of wind out of the industry's sails.

3. Brock Lesnar was a huge star who could have really thrived with the brand split, but when he left, John Cena was rushed, as was Randy Orton, and since then we've had, essentially, boring main eventers to deal with a lot.

4. The brands are essentially the same. There is slight difference in the writing, but they're not actual competition. It's merely a process that feeds itself. Guys are introduced and tested in ECW, they grow and develop on SmackDown! and on RAW they become boring and are expected to make money somehow. It's not like SmackDown! is harming RAW in any way.

5. It's all Triple H's fault. :shifty:

[Splaya]

1) The main reason was you had to make up for the loss of Austin and The Rock which is something that you are not going to do. Around 2003-2004, had the WWE played it's cards right, you were supposed to be building Superstars so that when we are around 2007-present, you have superstars that have not been pushed to the moon and will never be able to achieve the level of greatness that they could have. A great example of this was the botched face turn of Randy Orton. Another example of this is John Morrison. WWE is doing something right with him in the fact that, yes he was a heel, and yes they turned him, but they didn't just give him the World title. There is a slow build right now, and when they do pull the trigger on him, the payoff will be great.

2) As Noid referred to, Wrestling is no longer cool. This is why you see the switch from PG14 wrestling to PG. There will be a day when Vince decides to push the envelope again and that will boost the mature rating up again. You have to entertain the young kids again and thats why you have to lower your standards.

3) Some people might disagree with this, but when you were in 2003 and 2004, two of the guys that you were building are now both six feet under. Eddie Guerrero was on top of the world when he suddenly died. Sure, he was not a world champion at the time, but the man was an established veteran and he had charisma. Chris Benoit's death was tragic, sure, but he was an established star. He did not necessarily have charisma, but he had talent. Benoit could tell stories in the ring and it showed by his ring work.

4) UFC. A while ago, Shane McMahon had a meeting with Dana White where White would not say what the meeting was about. The UFC's popularity over the past 2-3 years, and how fast it is growing, forced Shane to do this meeting. Vince may realize that some kind of partnership with the UFC will do wonders for the company.

5) The attitude era will always hold a special place in my heart. During this time, there were so many things that went right. The amazing thing about it is you only had 2 hours of Raw and 1 hour of Superstars to showcase your talent. But everyone had a story to tell. One week Val Venis is sleeping with the Asian guy's wife, the next week they are chopping off his dick AS RAW IS GOING OFF THE AIR. I didn't say that as it wasn't shock value, cause it was. It was the fact that when Raw is going off the air, they are ending it with a mid-card angle. You could end it with Rock or Austin, but you choose to end it with Val Freaking Venis. I might add more to this later. Sorry for the long post.

[The Mackem]

I can blame Episode I for anything I want. George Lucas is a shithead for letting that all go down the way it did.

Nail on the head Narc.

[Kane Knight]

Attitude Adjustment: Yeah, nothing shocking here. Without Austin and Rock and no viable stars ready to take up the slack, one of the big reasons wrestling dropped was the lack of big hitters. New stars would have helped make up for a lot of the other problems with the programming, etc.

It's the economy, stupid! Economy makes it to number 2 simply because WWE would likely have gotten hammered in any scenario with the economy. Maybe not as much if it was better written, but in an actual economic slump, it's not surprising to see them take a hit. Popularity of the concurrent MMA trend might indicate otherwise, but one's entertainment and one's a sport. The other side of this is that it's easier to justify being in your thirties and enjoying MMA as opposed to WWE. Neither is high society, but the established perceptions of "two oiled up guys groping each other" and "legit fighting" make a huge difference in what people will buy. Unless you're in the IWC :shifty:

I doubt UFC was even on WWE's radar when this started, but it's certainly not new in 2009. Less money to spend and a strong "competitor" surely has an effect, especially since WWE is primarily a "working class" deal.

That's so last year: As other people note, wrestling simply isn't the fad now. That probably could have been mitigated or even avoided by new stars, but that's speculation. It remains, however, that one avoids busts by not simply milking boom periods. If you're not preparing for leaner times, you're going to find yourself fucked when the bubble bursts. I'm pretty sure some fans would be lost, period. Being a "sports entertainment" show, there's a lot to contend with. MMA would have likely claimed some fans anyway, though it's not impossible to enjoy both.

Attempting to recapture the Attitude Era fans or spirit by bringing back guest appearances from bygone stars falls under this, as well. Honestly, when the fans have moved on, you don't bring them back with the occasional tease like this. At best, it draws them in and reminds them how lame the new product is, and at worst, it's like trying to get people back into Whitesnake.

Bad money after good: This is worse in recent years, but WWE's been trying everything they can to improve their ratings without really improving their shows. On top of throwing money at the problem, they also started whacking us with higher ticket prices, higher PPV prices, and more intrusive advertisement. The last of the three is the least noticable, because WWE always shilled products, but it's there. There's a few reasons for the brand split, but the fact that it was economical was one of the ones that made sense, and may have been one of the smarter things to do in the economy they were facing.

Tossing large sums of money at guest appearance that didn't boost ratings, promoting people who didn't deserve it (sometimes yet), and trying desperately to recapture the Attitude Era all fall under this category. WWE tried to make up for a lack of ideas and innovation with a large check book.

The fall of competition: Why is this last, instead of, say, first? Simple as. Given most of the above factors, there really wasn't room for multiple major promotions in wrestling. I hate to say it, but the shark had already been jumped on the Attitude Era, the Monday Night wars, and so on. You still had appeal in WCW before it left, but it was kind of tapped without the shock value and "innovation." Heyman couldn't keep a business alive if he had an all-Jew dream team of lawyers and accountants.

When too many animals vie for the food source, it's likely that they will all starve to some degree. Eventually, the "pack" gets thinned out, but everyone suffers in the meanwhile. It's very likely that in this process, WWE would have lost fans and, assuming they were the eventual winners, they would have lost enough of them that they couldn't get back to still cripple them. We can't no for sure, but it remains a distinct possibility as two (or three, if you count ECW) dinosaurs fought over the dwindling population of fans.

All that said, the effect of the loss of competition was twofold: WWE wanted to buy up and "use" everything, and competition was no longer a major motivator. Thing is, it never should have been as big a motivator as they made it. Losing fans should have been enough, being #1 in pro wrestling means nothing if you're getting the ratings that used to be standard for these shows. So while this is clearly an issue, it's only the big issue it is because WWE tossed in their own lack of adaptivity to the mix. It still hurt things, but it shouldn't have hurt it on the scale it did.

[Johnny Vegas]

Awesome replies, guys :y:

I am going to start another "Episode" probably today or tomorrow