Raw rating lowest since July 2012

[BigCrippyZ]

Wish I could have done that for school reports

Citations:
"New York Times"
"Fox News"

:lol:

Wish I could do that now for citing legal authority.

1. Smith v. Jones

2. A Tennessee case

3. A Tennessee statute

It would be so much easier but unfortunately, I don't think I'd be very successful. Smith v. Jones, there's only been about a million of those. :rofl:

[The CyNick]

Pretty sure you made claims like that Cesaro/Big Show feud was "obvious" or whatever. But I'm too lazy to look for it and don't really care.

I did think it was clear they were setting something up for down the line. Does that hurt me because it didn't happen?

[The CyNick]

Because we don't care about their financials


Their main event segment on youtube has a little over a million views, that is not "through the roof"

But you care about their ratings. Okay.


I forget the stat off the top of my head, but I believe they have one of the most popular You Tube channels in the world. That's through the roof success.

[The CyNick]

So you are now citing a report sent from a fan to a site that regularly publishes dirt sheet news? And how do you know the fan was actually there? Was there any confirmation?

If you think Meltzer is some hack why are you citing an even less credible wrestling website known for ripping off the work of others? I thought you only go to the source for facts? Is the main page now a legitimate source?

Dave does the exact same thing on his site. How do you think he geys results from house shows? Do you think he pays someone to go around the country?

When tpww or f4w or any newz site posts Smackdown spoilers, do you believe them to be true? It's done in the same manner. A random person sends in results and the newz site posts it.

So based on that, yes I believe it was a legit report. Now that said, pops can be different in one part of an arena vs another. I've been at shows where someone has written in and said something about a certain reaction and thought that's not what I heard. But remember, I'm also connecting Reigns reported reactions to what I heard with my own ears in TV. For the record, I never saw any fans leaving on TV, but I still believe that the picture that was circulated is accurate in that a handful of people left their seats before the end of the show.

[#1-norm-fan]

It wasn't a priority. You don't want to have Show lose so quickly after they built up a big match with Lesnar.

Again, this whole thing is comical in that it was just an idea I presented as a possibility to give Cesaro something to do. I never once said I heard it would happen. Hell I've never ever claimed I have any inside info on anything. But now that it didn't happen you're using it as some type of slam against me.

Comical really.

Pretty sure you made claims like that Cesaro/Big Show feud was "obvious" or whatever. But I'm too lazy to look for it and don't really care.

I got it...

http://www.tpwwforums.com/showpost.php?p=4707941&postcount=21

Now here's where most of you guys miss the boat. Cesaro is gaining popularity. Big Show needed someone to heat him up to get ready for Brock. Sure, you could pick another guy to heat up Show, but Cesaro is someone the people care about, and in the long run this will help Cesaro. If you actually watch the fights, you will see Cesaro gets put over in commentary for putting up a fight and trying crazy strength moves against Big Show. But he keeps coming up short. Once Show is done putting over Lesnar strong, I would bet you will see the tide magically change in the ongoing Cesaro-Big Show issue. Instead of Cesaro just going over Show in 5 minutes and quickly heading nowhere back weeks ago when this started, you get multiple weeks of telling a story of Cesaro overcoming the odds. Terrible terrible booking, amirite?

Sounded pretty sure to me. Right down to the "You guys just don't get what they're doing" tone from the first sentence. It wouldn't be as funny if it weren't for the smug "Terrible, terrible booking, amirite?" at the end in regards to something that everyone else knew WWE didn't have the foresight to do and, lo and behold, didn't do. lol

[The CyNick]

He still didn't even cite it he just said "www.tpww.net"

I'm not going to look for the story. It was from Monday. If you don't believe it, go to the front page and read yourself.

[Big Vic]

You are bringing up ratings not me.

Their Youtube channel is in the top 100 but their youtube channel plays videos from every wrestling era, not just todays.

[Big Vic]

I'm not going to look for the story. It was from Monday. If you don't believe it, go to the front page and read yourself.
Roman Reigns is already making his way to the ring as we come back from the commercial. Reigns says he’s here for his lesson from Sheamus. A giant ladder is set up in the ring. Reigns says the ladder reminds him of his first day on the job with WWE. His first match in WWE was a TLC match with The Shield. They earned their spot on the bottom of the ladder. Now he’s rising the ladder as he chases the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Reigns starts climbing as the crowd barely responds and gives him the “WHAT” treatment. Reigns says he became the champion, but that lasted 5:15 to put him back at the bottom of the ladder. Reigns says he’s taking back what’s his at WWE TLC. As far as tonight goes, he’s not leaving the ring until Sheamus comes out and he hits him with every toy in the ring. Yes, call weapons that cause a lot of damage to a body “toys” to get it over. Good god.


Sheamus’ music hits, and he comes out to the stage. Sheamus asks if he’s really trying to intimidate him. Sequels are in these days, and TLC will end exactly like Survivor Series did with him still with the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Just like at Survivor Series, Reigns will be on his hands and knees wondering where it all went wrong. Reigns asks if this is really how he’s going to teach him a lesson. Reigns invites him into the ring. Sheamus says he’s the champion, so Reigns doesn’t call the shots. Reigns thought the Irish loved to fight, but he’s not fighting. Sheamus says he’s told the world since day one that he loves a fight. He will fight Reigns, just not tonight. Reigns’ chance will come at TLC, and he better step up. Reigns says he’s just yapping. Reigns thought the Irish had potatoes, but he just has tater tots. Sheamus runs down, but doesn’t get in the ring. Sheamus says he’s smarter than that. He won’t build a fort this Sunday. He’ll build a castle with battered chairs, broken tables, and mangled ladders. He’ll build it right on top of Reigns. Reigns says it sounds tough coming from the guy on the floor. Maybe Sheamus should man up. There’s a ton of stalling, and Reigns is constantly calling him “tater tot” as it’s the one successful joke he’s had in quite some time. Reigns eventually clears the ring of chairs, the table, and the ladder to get Sheamus to agree to come into the ring. Reigns throws the ladder at Sheamus and laughs. Reigns ridicules him for flinching like a little girl at the sight of a ladder coming at him. Reigns asks if he’s a champion or a footnote. Reigns says if he doesn’t get in the ring, he’ll run through him and all that will be left is his dumbass shirt.
Sheamus gets in the ring, and Reigns immediately throws him out of the ring. Reigns throws him into the barricade and they brawl through the crowd to a reaction that is not befitting a main event angle or the supposed face of the company. Reigns goes for a powerbomb off the stage, but Sheamus takes him down. The heat is super low for this. Sheamus cracks him on the back with a chair a few times. Reigns throws a chair at him and follows him to ringside. Sheamus sends him into the barricade and goes to powerbomb him through the commentary table, but Reigns hits him with a Superman Punch. Reigns goes for a Spear, but Sheamus sidesteps him and sends him over the commentary table. Sheamus taunts the fans before Reigns spears him through a table at ringside.
This is the only reaction to raw on the TPWW main page I saw

[The CyNick]

I'm not talking about currently. I'm talking about the impact of declining ratings next time WWE's contract is up.

Regardless of whether or not ratings across the board are down in the future, if WWE's ratings are consistently down compared to where they were when they negotiated the current deal last year, even if they're attracting the same "quality" advertisers in the future that they are today, WWE's rights fees are more likely to decline as well. Sure everyone's rights fees might be down too because the lack of viewers over all and WWE may still be getting top dollar.

When WWE makes 40% of their revenues from television rights though, and those rights fees are due to audience size and ratings, any drop or potential drop in that revenue or audience/ratings size is a huge risk. Not only to their financial bottom line but also to their ability market their other products, i.e., Network subs, merch, live events, etc. For example, according to WWE, RAW DVR viewership has stayed stagnant at only an additional 10-12% of the live audience size.

You're missing the aspect that ad rates are not directly tied to the actual rating year over year. Large audiences are harder to come by now. Used to be you had 4 channels, and everyone with a TV watched whatever wad on one of those channels. Now you have hundreds plus other forms of media. An advertiser may have paid say $100k for 1 million viewers. But if 100 shows used to get 1 million, and now only 20 do, you've made the 1 million person audience more scarce. Therefore even if viewership dips to say 750k, tv rights fees could go up because so few shows draw that number of people, but the same number of advertisers want to reach a large audience. That's why I harp on the number of shows that draw a larger audience than RAW on Mondays. Aside from football, nothing beats it consistently in its timeslot.

On top of that WWE is better positioned in terms of presenting a clean product which gives them a larger base of interested advertisers which will mean USA can be more profitable. On top of that, even since the last TV deal that was struck, cable viewers are declining across the board. So having a property that draws 3 million viewers a week is even harder to come by. Lots of cable outlets would love to have 5 hours of programming per week at anywhere close to 3 million viewers. Again, that means more interest, which will drive up rights fees through a bidding war.

No doubt WWE wants their product exposed to as many eyeballs as possible to sell The Network, merch, and tickets to live events. But more and more those eyeballs are not all on cable.

[The CyNick]

I got it...

http://www.tpwwforums.com/showpost.php?p=4707941&postcount=21



Sounded pretty sure to me. Right down to the "You guys just don't get what they're doing" tone from the first sentence. It wouldn't be as funny if it weren't for the smug "Terrible, terrible booking, amirite?" at the end in regards to something that everyone else knew WWE didn't have the foresight to do and, lo and behold, didn't do. lol

So when both guys are back on TV and they do what I said, should I dredge up this post?

[Damian Rey]

So what makes the reports on Tpww more reliable than what is given and then reported by Meltzer? Do you believe the fan that posted people leaving and being dead for the main event? If not then why do you believe the other account?

[#1-norm-fan]

So when both guys are back on TV and they do what I said, should I dredge up this post?

Dude... They had two months.

You also said this...

My guess is Cesaro gets back in his face either right after MSG or after HIAC leading into Survivor Series.

Do you honestly think after they had ample opportunity to pick the "feud" up after the MSG show they are now gonna say "Hey remember when Show squashed Cesaro on the road to that match where he got squashed by Lesnar? No? Oh. Well, here's Cesaro's revenge!"?

Seriously, what's your plan with that response? To just keep moving the goalpost of when that hot feud is gonna pick up so that you can always use the age old "I can never be proven wrong because technically as long as the two of them are alive, it could still happen." out so that you can save face?

Not gonna work. Sorry. You were wrong. As usual.

[The CyNick]

Dude... They had two months.

You also said this...



Do you honestly think after they had ample opportunity to pick the "feud" up after the MSG show they are now gonna say "Hey remember when Show squashed Cesaro on the road to that match where he got squashed by Lesnar? No? Oh. Well, here's Cesaro's revenge!"?

Seriously, what's your plan with that response? To just keep moving the goalpost of when that hot feud is gonna pick up so that you can always use the age old "I can never be proven wrong because technically as long as the two of them are alive, it could still happen." out so that you can save face?

Not gonna work. Sorry. You were wrong. As usual.

I could easily see them going back to Show vs Cesaro when Cesaro gets back.

So I'm not wrong yet. Well sorry, I was wrong about the timing. In retrospect Survivor Series was probably too early to do it. TLC would have made more sense. But Cesaro is hurt, so we'll never know.

[#1-norm-fan]

So my point about you moving the goalpost so you can never be "proven" wrong but can always someday maybe be "proven" right because it's technically always possible still stands.

If they don't go with a legit Cesaro vs Big Show feud when Cesaro gets back, will you admit you were wrong? Of course not. Because it could happen next month.

If it doesn't happen the next month, will you admit you were wrong? Of course not. Because it could happen the next.

If it finally happens in 3 years will you claim victory and pretend this feud was directly related to the forgettable Cesaro squash from a random episode of Raw years back and WWE had some amazing foresight in booking that squash so that they could continue the story years later and they were just letting that memory simmer as long as possible? Of course. Because... derp.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Show Net Time Viewers (000s) 18-49 rating
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ESPN 8:15 PM 14151 4.8
SPORTSCENTER: L ESPN 11:48 PM 4271 1.8
LOVE & HIP HOP HLLYWD 2 VH1 8:00 PM 2522 1.3
STREET OUTLAWS DISC 9:00 PM 2960 1.3
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 8:00 PM 3270 1.1
FAMILY GUY ADSM 11:30 PM 1916 1.0
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 10:00 PM 2850 1.0
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 9:00 PM 3042 1.0

WWE beat everybody except Football. (SportsCenter=MNF overrun so it's the same show)

The only thing close was 9pm 3042 to 2960.

They are always number two which is why USA isn't sweating it.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

We just have to become more disciplined and more creative with how we do things, and how we operate the shows. We’ve had some unfortunate situations with injuries and everything else. It’s on us to be more creative and come up with a better format; a better show. We hear people’s frustrations and in a lot of ways feel the same way. It’s fixing it. And, trying to fix it. It is what it is. How we fix it, we’re not 100 percent sure yet. But, we will get there. Trust me.

Even Triple H doesn't think they're there.

[The CyNick]

So what makes the reports on Tpww more reliable than what is given and then reported by Meltzer? Do you believe the fan that posted people leaving and being dead for the main event? If not then why do you believe the other account?

I never said I believed one over the other.

[The CyNick]

Show Net Time Viewers (000s) 18-49 rating
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ESPN 8:15 PM 14151 4.8
SPORTSCENTER: L ESPN 11:48 PM 4271 1.8
LOVE & HIP HOP HLLYWD 2 VH1 8:00 PM 2522 1.3
STREET OUTLAWS DISC 9:00 PM 2960 1.3
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 8:00 PM 3270 1.1
FAMILY GUY ADSM 11:30 PM 1916 1.0
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 10:00 PM 2850 1.0
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 9:00 PM 3042 1.0

WWE beat everybody except Football. (SportsCenter=MNF overrun so it's the same show)

The only thing close was 9pm 3042 to 2960.

They are always number two which is why USA isn't sweating it.

Everything other than football on that list is in deep trouble.

[drave]

Including WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA

[The CyNick]

So my point about you moving the goalpost so you can never be "proven" wrong but can always someday maybe be "proven" right because it's technically always possible still stands.

If they don't go with a legit Cesaro vs Big Show feud when Cesaro gets back, will you admit you were wrong? Of course not. Because it could happen next month.

If it doesn't happen the next month, will you admit you were wrong? Of course not. Because it could happen the next.

If it finally happens in 3 years will you claim victory and pretend this feud was directly related to the forgettable Cesaro squash from a random episode of Raw years back and WWE had some amazing foresight in booking that squash so that they could continue the story years later and they were just letting that memory simmer as long as possible? Of course. Because... derp.

But again, let's say it never happens. In your mind, I'm curious what you think this proves? That I suck at predicting future angles? Wow, big accomplishment.

You have a weird obsession with me.

[#1-norm-fan]

It proved that that smug, "Terrible booking, amirite", "You guys just don't get it" shit while everyone was telling you "WWE is shit at developing characters and that's not going to happen" was laughable. You can pretend it was a simple prediction all you want but the quote and context is still there. People were saying "This shit is pointless and helps no one get over" and that explanation of where they were going was your way of "setting everyone straight" about how WWE's booking isn't incompetent and they had some long-term plans.

And I do have a bit of an "obsession". It's with calling out silly shit when someone says it. It just so happens you've been pumping it out WAY more than anyone else these days. So I call it out, you ignore it half the time because you feel backed into a corner with no way to defend your precious beliefs on WWE's high-quality booking and I keep throwing it in your face anyway. Because it's funny to watch Mr. cocksure "I'm spot on 99.9% of the time. You guys have no argument. I win another round." run and hide when he can't defend something for everyone to see.

[KIRA]

I just kinda threw my hands up after his New Day comments.

[The CyNick]

It proved that that smug, "Terrible booking, amirite", "You guys just don't get it" shit while everyone was telling you "WWE is shit at developing characters and that's not going to happen" was laughable. You can pretend it was a simple prediction all you want but the quote and context is still there. People were saying "This shit is pointless and helps no one get over" and that explanation of where they were going was your way of "setting everyone straight" about how WWE's booking isn't incompetent and they had some long-term plans.

And I do have a bit of an "obsession". It's with calling out silly shit when someone says it. It just so happens you've been pumping it out WAY more than anyone else these days. So I call it out, you ignore it half the time because you feel backed into a corner with no way to defend your precious beliefs on WWE's high-quality booking and I keep throwing it in your face anyway. Because it's funny to watch Mr. cocksure "I'm spot on 99.9% of the time. You guys have no argument. I win another round." run and hide when he can't defend something for everyone to see.

So you think because I incorrectly predicted a feud that means WWE cant create stars?

Let's see if I can break things down for you.

WWE can and has created stars for every 50 years. They continue to do it today. The Shield are all big stars, New Day are becoming huge, etc etc.

Cesaro lost to Big Show for the sake of building up a Big Show-Lesnar program, which was logical at the time. My claim was based on how the Cesaro-Show matches were laid out, I felt like they were purposely making Cesaro look strong for the body of the match to tell a longer term story. Cesaro was having trouble beating Big Show, but down the line, he puts everything together and he starts to beat him. I believed that to be the case because normally if WWE was just trying to heat up Big Show, and didnt care about the opponent, Show would have just killed Cesaro. But he didnt.

We'll never know if that was in the cards because both guys are currently off TV. Further, Cesaro was tied up in the title tournament, which wasn't planned for. So again, you dont know what was in the plans before Seth got hurt. But the point I was trying to make was WWE takes a long term approach to many of the talent. How do I know this as fact? Because I heard Triple H say those exact words in a podcast. I also know from watching TV after the Cesaro-Show matches that the commentators were putting him over, they were focusing in on the Cesaro Section signs in the crowd, and Cesaro was winning matches or coming within an eyelash of beating Roman Reigns - the guy being groomed to be the top guy.

So maybe Big Show vs Cesaro didn't take place at Survivor Series like I predicted it would. But I still fail to see how that disproves any of my point about the over arching issue of Cesaro's booking. But hey, if you feel like you just hit a grand slam by holding my feet to the fire on that prediction, cool man, cool.

[#1-norm-fan]

Jeeeesus you really have reading comprehension problems. Read what I said and then read that very first line of your response over and over again til something clicks. Seriously.

This is that "Do you really think Sandow is a main event player!?" response to people saying Sandown should have been more and that "LOL What's wrong with someone losing to the top face of the company?" response to people saying constantly jobbing Rollins to Cena was retarded all over again. I don't know if it's an actual mental issue you have or if this is one of your "tactics" when bullshitting your way through a discussion isn't working.

[Fignuts]

When you stare at the abyss long enough, the abyss stares back at you.

[Fignuts]

Just sayin, you guys.

[Mr. Nerfect]

#1-wwf-fan is absolutely spanking CyNick. This is more humiliating than NormalSmiley's defeat.

[The CyNick]

#1-wwf-fan is absolutely spanking CyNick. This is more humiliating than NormalSmiley's defeat.

LOL

"Hey guys, my Dad is the strongest man in the Universe, he can lift ANYTHING"

Almost as credible as you saying that.

[The CyNick]

Jeeeesus you really have reading comprehension problems. Read what I said and then read that very first line of your response over and over again til something clicks. Seriously.

This is that "Do you really think Sandow is a main event player!?" response to people saying Sandown should have been more and that "LOL What's wrong with someone losing to the top face of the company?" response to people saying constantly jobbing Rollins to Cena was retarded all over again. I don't know if it's an actual mental issue you have or if this is one of your "tactics" when bullshitting your way through a discussion isn't working.

jokes.

You just went back and sifted through old posts and tried to make connections that just aren't there. You take everything I say as though I'm saying this is the word of God and I have claimed to predict the future. I just said I thought the booking was heading in a certain direction. We'll never know if it was or it wasnt. EVEN IF IT WASNT, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not WWE books in the right way or wrong way. You think Ceasro shouldn't have lost to Big Show. I think it made perfect sense given the bigger picture. You think Cesaro is floundering in no man's land, I think he is/was on the verge of a big push. We'll see what happens when he gets back. Unfortunately for you I will have forgotten what you said on the matter because I dont obsess about your posts like you do mine. Maybe Noid will remember it, and give you a big hug to make you feel better.

[The CyNick]

Ratings news. Smackdown was up this week.

What does it all mean? A turnaround?

[#1-norm-fan]

If I were you I would definitely try to forget all my posts as soon as possible and hope no one else remembers them, too.

Try to throw a self-fatisfied "this is what's gonna happen, you guys just don't get it. TERRIBLE BOOKING THAT'S GONNA COME FROM THIS AMIRITE" and then when someone brings it up to call you out on your smug reasoning for how the future will prove all the Meltzer sheep wrong NOT actually happening, you go the "You're just obsessed with me" route.

Beautiful.

This long transition from actually trying to bullshit to strawmanning to just flat out ignoring the more damning things that stand in your way of believing what you want to believe to now playing a stalker victim to try to avoid getting called out on shit has been a pleasure to watch.

[#1-norm-fan]

Ratings news. Smackdown was up this week.

What does it all mean? A turnaround?

"It's been a little colder this year than it was last year.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!"

[#1-norm-fan]

#1-wwf-fan is absolutely spanking CyNick. This is more humiliating than NormalSmiley's defeat.

Well just as long as he doesn't start running down my country, black people or women, we may be able to keep this spanking from getting physical.

[DAMN iNATOR]

LOL

"Hey guys, my Dad is the strongest man in the Universe, he can lift ANYTHING"

Almost as credible as you saying that.

Hey, if Noid told me his father was Mark "Somebody's gon' get dey ass kickt" Henry, I'd believe him. :shifty:

[BigCrippyZ]

I just said I thought the booking was heading in a certain direction. We'll never know if it was or it wasnt. EVEN IF IT WASNT, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not WWE books in the right way or wrong way. You think Ceasro shouldn't have lost to Big Show. I think it made perfect sense given the bigger picture. You think Cesaro is floundering in no man's land, I think he is/was on the verge of a big push.

That sound you're all hearing is everything going right over CyNick's head again and again.

It has everything to do with whether WWE books in the right way. That's the whole point that you clearly aren't getting.

It's not that Cesaro was or wasn't on the verge of a big push or is floundering in no man's land. The point is even if Cesaro is or was in line for a big push, WWE doesn't properly book Cesaro (or anyone else for that matter) even when they're clearly behind/pushing guys.

As a result, almost everyone is floundering in no man's land. Cesaro, Rollins, Reigns, etc. are all perfect examples of WWE's inability to effectively write/book someone and get/keep them over, even the talent they're currently pushing.

Not to mention WWE's inability to notice/care when someone is already over/getting over and continue to keep their momentum going or at least avoid killing their momentum through horrible writing/booking. See Bray Wyatt, Ziggler, Ambrose, Cesaro, etc.

[DAMN iNATOR]

That sound you're all hearing is everything going right over CyNick's head again and again.

I was wondering why it felt so drafty in this thread.

[Savio]

This is the only reaction to raw on the TPWW main page I saw
CONFIRMED: CyNick was lying.

[Savio]

Especially when you look at their numbers on social media and VOD, which are through the roof.
Also we find out later that cynick didnt even look at their numbers

[Corporate CockSnogger]

Wrestling is highly predictable. Would you contimue to watch a TV drama where you could pretty much guarantee what was going to happen each episode?

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Wrestling is highly predictable. Would you contimue to watch a TV drama where you could pretty much guarantee what was going to happen each episode?

If it was well done, yes. The journey can be as fun as the destination.

WWE is just like traveling in dog shit right up the dogs arse right now though.

[Ruien]

Wrestling is highly predictable. Would you contimue to watch a TV drama where you could pretty much guarantee what was going to happen each episode?

I knew the Arrow was going to beat Deathstroke in season 2 but I still watched it.

[BigCrippyZ]

Well look at that. Seems like Meltzer got another thing right. Since it didn't come from HHH or Vince though, it must not be happening. I'm sure CyNick will just claim that Meltzer got lucky and since Meltzer didn't know exactly who the new announcer for SD was going to be, it's not real news.

Smackdown's getting a new commentator as part of the move next year to USA Network. WWE managed to get Showtime's MMA and NJPW on AXS announcer Mauro Ranallo for the job.

https://i.imgur.com/ymJJ80U.jpg

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

is CyNick TNAPrick, the "Legend?"

[The CyNick]

Well look at that. Seems like Meltzer got another thing right. Since it didn't come from HHH or Vince though, it must not be happening. I'm sure CyNick will just claim that Meltzer got lucky and since Meltzer didn't know exactly who the new announcer for SD was going to be, it's not real news.

You clearly missed my point on this.

Dave's report said "there appears to be at least one major change...". He goes on to claim it does not involve bigger talent appearing, so he concludes it is EITHER commentator OR set related. To me that's either horrific reporting because it's so vague (essentially a guess) or it shows his sources are pathetic. If it was a real source in the know (say Michael Cole), he would know that it was a new commentator and would be able to confidently report that (even if he didn't want to release the name).

I predict Wrestlemania will feature several wrestling matches, some of which will be championship matches. I also predict they will use a lot of elaborate entrances for the show.

In 4 months I will have been verified as a legitimate insider. Yay me.

[The CyNick]

CONFIRMED: CyNick was lying.

Its possible I read it somewhere else.

I would say its a moot point as clearly Reigns is over. Didn't see anyone leaving on Monday.

[The CyNick]

That sound you're all hearing is everything going right over CyNick's head again and again.

It has everything to do with whether WWE books in the right way. That's the whole point that you clearly aren't getting.

It's not that Cesaro was or wasn't on the verge of a big push or is floundering in no man's land. The point is even if Cesaro is or was in line for a big push, WWE doesn't properly book Cesaro (or anyone else for that matter) even when they're clearly behind/pushing guys.

As a result, almost everyone is floundering in no man's land. Cesaro, Rollins, Reigns, etc. are all perfect examples of WWE's inability to effectively write/book someone and get/keep them over, even the talent they're currently pushing.

Not to mention WWE's inability to notice/care when someone is already over/getting over and continue to keep their momentum going or at least avoid killing their momentum through horrible writing/booking. See Bray Wyatt, Ziggler, Ambrose, Cesaro, etc.

Cesaro has not yet been pushed to main event level. As proven with Reigns, and Bryan before that, when WWE wants to get a guy to that level they can and will.

[#1-norm-fan]

As proven with Reigns, and Bryan before that, when WWE wants to get a guy to that level they can and will.

... Alright, this does come off as pretty troll-y. lol

[BigCrippyZ]

Cesaro has not yet been pushed to main event level. As proven with Reigns, and Bryan before that, when WWE wants to get a guy to that level they can and will.

There's that sound again.

That's not the point.

Why would you repeatedly try to push Upcoming Superstar A (i.e., Reigns) in the same way, month after month, when it's clearly not working? At least it seems they FINALLY tried a different route with Reigns on Sunday and Monday.

In addition, when Upcoming Superstar B (i.e., Ziggler, Cesaro, Dean. Fucking. Ambrose., etc.) is already over/getting over naturally on their own, why not let them continue to do their own thing and try pushing Upcoming Superstar B instead of killing Upcoming Superstar B's momentum with either intentional or negligent horrible writing/booking?

[BigCrippyZ]

... Alright, this does come off as pretty troll-y. lol

Oh, he's totally a troll. Ordinarily I wouldn't waste my time, but at least CyNick keeps it interesting. Even if he usually lacks logic, evidence, reasoning or consistency.

[BigCrippyZ]

You clearly missed my point on this.

Dave's report said "there appears to be at least one major change...". He goes on to claim it does not involve bigger talent appearing, so he concludes it is EITHER commentator OR set related. To me that's either horrific reporting because it's so vague (essentially a guess) or it shows his sources are pathetic. If it was a real source in the know (say Michael Cole), he would know that it was a new commentator and would be able to confidently report that (even if he didn't want to release the name).

I predict Wrestlemania will feature several wrestling matches, some of which will be championship matches. I also predict they will use a lot of elaborate entrances for the show.

In 4 months I will have been verified as a legitimate insider. Yay me.

Oh so now only Vince, HHH, Steph, Dunn and on-air talent like Michael Cole are legit sources? None of the other 620+ employees are legit. No matter how long they've worked there, what they do/have done or who they've worked with/for?

:roll:

You also missed my point, the news wasn't just that they were bringing in a new commentator or changing the set/production, but also that they weren't going to bring in bigger talent to reboot the show. The conclusion was that they weren't going to bring in bigger talent but were likely to change commentators/production.

Also your comparison doesn't work.

Of course WM will feature several wrestling matches, some of which will be championship matches and they will use a lot of elaborate entrances for the show. WWE does that every year at WM and anyone could guess that.

WWE doesn't move Smackdown to a new network every year. What or even if any changes will or won't be made to Smackdown as a result of that move is harder to predict than the basic annual WM recurrences.

Sure, I and most people could have guessed that WWE MIGHT make some changes for the move. So because he could have simply guessed the same info, he and/or his sources suck?

I can guess what a testifying witness might say too by inferring from other evidence, history, or my own experience. Does that mean my witness might suck and I shouldn't enter their testimony as evidence? Using your logic, no witness is credible if their testimony can also simply be guessed with a modicum of accuracy.

[The CyNick]

There's that sound again.

That's not the point.

Why would you repeatedly try to push Upcoming Superstar A (i.e., Reigns) in the same way, month after month, when it's clearly not working? At least it seems they FINALLY tried a different route with Reigns on Sunday and Monday.

In addition, when Upcoming Superstar B (i.e., Ziggler, Cesaro, Dean. Fucking. Ambrose., etc.) is already over/getting over naturally on their own, why not let them continue to do their own thing and try pushing Upcoming Superstar B instead of killing Upcoming Superstar B's momentum with either intentional or negligent horrible writing/booking?

Why are you pretending like they have been trying to get Roman over as THE GUY for months and months? He took a backseat to Rollins, who was feuding with guys like Ambrose, Lesnar, Sting, Kane, and Cena. Roman was in secondary programs. They really started pushing him as THE GUY coming out of Survivor Series. They told a story over 6 weeks or so with Reigns getting screwed time after time. Finally he reached a breaking point, and he stepped up his agression and developed an i don't give a fuck attitude while still cutting cheesy 2015 babyface promos. To me that's just great storytelling and excellent character progression.

Funny how the sheep on here quickly change their stance on Roman. Maybe next time you will have faith that WWE know what they are doing. Actually you guys never learn, so you will look foolish next time too.

[ron the dial]

who has changed their stance on roman? show me a post.

[The CyNick]

Oh so now only Vince, HHH, Steph, Dunn and on-air talent like Michael Cole are legit sources? None of the other 620+ employees are legit. No matter how long they've worked there, what they do/have done or who they've worked with/for?

:roll:

You also missed my point, the news wasn't just that they were bringing in a new commentator or changing the set/production, but also that they weren't going to bring in bigger talent to reboot the show. The conclusion was that they weren't going to bring in bigger talent but were likely to change commentators/production.

Also your comparison doesn't work.

Of course WM will feature several wrestling matches, some of which will be championship matches and they will use a lot of elaborate entrances for the show. WWE does that every year at WM and anyone could guess that.

WWE doesn't move Smackdown to a new network every year. What or even if any changes will or won't be made to Smackdown as a result of that move is harder to predict than the basic annual WM recurrences.

Sure, I and most people could have guessed that WWE MIGHT make some changes for the move. So because he could have simply guessed the same info, he and/or his sources suck?

I can guess what a testifying witness might say too by inferring from other evidence, history, or my own experience. Does that mean my witness might suck and I shouldn't enter their testimony as evidence? Using your logic, no witness is credible if their testimony can also simply be guessed with a modicum of accuracy.

I would guess that the vast majority of network moves resulted in some type of visual change. So that prefiction is a little like predicting it will be cold on a winter day in Edmonton. Cold is subjective and it's a pretty safe bet it will be cold.

Like I said it shows he either has worthless sources or he's a terrible journalist because he didn't ask for specifics

[BigCrippyZ]

who has changed their stance on roman? show me a post.

No one that I've noticed. He's still just as talented AND has the same flaws he had before. He can't cut a long promo or a scripted promo and make it interesting or compelling to save his life.

The difference is apparently on Sunday and Monday night WWE booked and produced him in a way that was more compelling and worked to his advantage, doing their best to hide Roman's weaknesses and showcase his strengths.

They apparently didn't do what they had been doing, i.e., having him come out and try to memorize and cut an awkward, long winded, horribly written promo that made him come across as a bubble gum, baby face, Cena 2.0. Instead, WWE apparently had him be a bad ass, take no prisoners, wrecking machine who was going to get his point across with violence and destruction.

No one has said Roman isn't a strong hand or doesn't belong in the main event scene at all. The problem is he's not yet proven he's earned that spot necessarily, both in story line and in talent. What had he accomplished as a singles guy in the midcard both in and out of the ring before winning the Rumble? The answer is nothing.

What had HHH, Austin, Rock, HBK, Jericho and others done before winning or getting their first world title shots? Won multiple singles and tag team titles, had great mid card feuds, cut good to great promos and put on great matches and gotten over as heels and/or faces.

[BigCrippyZ]

Why are you pretending like they have been trying to get Roman over as THE GUY for months and months? He took a backseat to Rollins, who was feuding with guys like Ambrose, Lesnar, Sting, Kane, and Cena. Roman was in secondary programs. They really started pushing him as THE GUY coming out of Survivor Series. They told a story over 6 weeks or so with Reigns getting screwed time after time. Finally he reached a breaking point, and he stepped up his agression and developed an i don't give a fuck attitude while still cutting cheesy 2015 babyface promos. To me that's just great storytelling and excellent character progression.

Funny how the sheep on here quickly change their stance on Roman. Maybe next time you will have faith that WWE know what they are doing. Actually you guys never learn, so you will look foolish next time too.

You can't be serious or this stupid. They've been pushing him as the next guy since Royal Rumble this year. Just because the fans shit on the idea of him winning at Mania against Lesnar did they pull back a little and hold off.

If Vince & co. could've gotten away with putting the title on him at WM, they would've. If Vince & co. could've kept presenting him as a bubble gum, Cena 2.0 baby face, who kept cutting long, horribly written promos they would've. Hell, they could still fall back into that pattern at anytime.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

12/14/2015

Rating: 3,885,000

Hour 1: 4,043,000
Hour 2: 3,786,000
Hour 3: 3,825,000

They did a PPV ending that was well received, hyped up Vince coming back and SHOCKINGLY, the rating jumped. Let's see how that holds.

[The CyNick]

Interesting that RAW was up. How did football do week over week?

[The CyNick]

You can't be serious or this stupid. They've been pushing him as the next guy since Royal Rumble this year. Just because the fans shit on the idea of him winning at Mania against Lesnar did they pull back a little and hold off.

If Vince & co. could've gotten away with putting the title on him at WM, they would've. If Vince & co. could've kept presenting him as a bubble gum, Cena 2.0 baby face, who kept cutting long, horribly written promos they would've. Hell, they could still fall back into that pattern at anytime.

That's just not accurate.

No doubt he was being pushed as the NEXT top guy at the 15 Rumble, but he wasn't THE GUY yet. They made a mistake IMO by putting him next to Daniel Bryan. The crowd was still hot for Bryan after the effective job that was done building him and his subsequent injury.

They decided to pump the breaks on his meteoric rise at Mania and start telling a story where he has to struggle to get to the top. Rollins was clearly always going to get the belt at some point in the first half of 15 because he had the briefcase. Likely Reigns would have been screwed and they would have done a chase story for him to get the belt back.

In pumping the breaks on the push, he became the 2nd or 3rd from the top guy on most shows. Cena and Lesnar and others worked with Rollins at the top of the card. That's not positioning Reigns as the top guy for that time period. Even as recently as Hell in a Cell he was at best 2nd from the top.

Post HIAC they started to position him as the focal point, but Rollins got hurt and derailed those plans. WWE to their credit came up with this 6 week arc that saw Reigns go from looking like the hand picked champion to an underdog that tough towns like Boston and Philly were screaming like little girls to see him win. I would say it's been a successful 6 weeks on top for Reigns, and some epic booking along the way even when faced with difficult circumstances.

[#1-norm-fan]

Crippy just said they were pushing him to be the guy but they failed and had to pull back and hold off a bit.

You replied by telling him he was wrong and then explaining how they were pushing him to be the guy but they failed and had to pull back and hold off a bit.

Gonna give a point to the "He's a troll" side.

[screech]

who has changed their stance on roman? show me a post.

Don't want this important question to get lost on the last page.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Don't want this important question to get lost on the last page.

I did, but only VERY slightly for the positive, and only temporarily pending where they go with this new devil-may-care badass persona. By and large,
at least as of now it still seems he's the same old Roman. I'm willing to give it a chance.

[The CyNick]

... Alright, this does come off as pretty troll-y. lol

You only perceive it that way because you don't believe WWE planned to push Bryan. I happen to believe his push was well orchestrated and executed.

It's like telling Columbus he's a troll for saying the Earth is round. You may have a bunch of people who agree with you, but history will prove you wrong.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

who'd have thought that having a compelling show would entice viewers to watch, especially after weeks of drivel.

[Simple Fan]

You only perceive it that way because you don't believe WWE planned to push Bryan. I happen to believe his push was well orchestrated and executed.

It's like telling Columbus he's a troll for saying the Earth is round. You may have a bunch of people who agree with you, but history will prove you wrong.

Columbus wasn't saying the Earth was round, that was already proven before he traveled across the Atlantic. So history proves you wrong.

[#1-norm-fan]

You only perceive it that way because you don't believe WWE planned to push Bryan. I happen to believe his push was well orchestrated and executed.

It's like telling Columbus he's a troll for saying the Earth is round. You may have a bunch of people who agree with you, but history will prove you wrong.

I would compare you more to a guy who is telling everyone the earth is sitting on the back of a giant turtle and that history will prove him right.

[#1-norm-fan]

Or in the most recent case that I referenced at the top of the page, a guy who tells people "You're wrong! The earth is not round! Now let me SCHOOL YOU by explaining how the earth is ACTUALLY round..."

[ron the dial]

columbus set out for an entirely different location and stumbled across america. so i'd say the cynick's point is apt, just not the way he thinks it is.

[The CyNick]

Columbus wasn't saying the Earth was round, that was already proven before he traveled across the Atlantic. So history proves you wrong.

Sometimes the myth of the story is more valuable than the facts.

[BigCrippyZ]

Sometimes the myth of the story is more valuable than the facts.

Yes, if you're an idiot than I suppose you likely would value the myth over the facts. Only the utterly stupid, naive or uninformed would value the myth over the facts.

[drave]

Also weird coming from someone who constantly asks about verified sources.

[screech]

I always have a response.

who has changed their stance on roman? show me a post.

Haven't seen a response to this one yet.

[Simple Fan]

Sometimes the myth of the story is more valuable than the facts.

YOU SOUND STUPID
YOU SOUND STUPID
YOU SOUND STUPID

[The CyNick]

Haven't seen a response to this one yet.

Just in general. People seem more positive about the guy compared to a few weeks ago. The majority on here were suggesting he will never get over as a top face. All it took was for WWE to use their magic for two shows, and boom, the guy is hot as hell.

What are you looking for here, a quote from someone? People often underestimate how little time I want to put into these posts.

I appreciate people who sift through old posts, but geez, it's a message board. Reeeeelax boys.

[The CyNick]

Yes, if you're an idiot than I suppose you likely would value the myth over the facts. Only the utterly stupid, naive or uninformed would value the myth over the facts.

That's funny coming from a lot of people who believe that Daniel Bryan was magically pushed by the fans. The myth is better than the facts, so you believe it.

[screech]

Just in general. People seem more positive about the guy compared to a few weeks ago. The majority on here were suggesting he will never get over as a top face. All it took was for WWE to use their magic for two shows, and boom, the guy is hot as hell.

What are you looking for here, a quote from someone? People often underestimate how little time I want to put into these posts.

I appreciate people who sift through old posts, but geez, it's a message board. Reeeeelax boys.

I wasn't looking for anything. I just wanted to make sure you didn't gloss over ron the dial's request for proof of people changing their stances on a guy after two good outings.

For a guy who wants legit sources from everyone, you sure take some liberties yourself.

[BigCrippyZ]

That's funny coming from a lot of people who believe that Daniel Bryan was magically pushed by the fans. The myth is better than the facts, so you believe it.

Um, what?

It's just as much of a myth (if not more so) that Bryan's WM main event match was some elaborate original plan. You have no evidence that was the plan.

We on the other hand have evidence of Daniel Bryan himself saying that he wasn't originally planned to main event WM.

Sure, maybe it was the plan and they just didn't tell Bryan that was the case.

Meanwhile, your proof that it was the plan is that some superstars aren't always told what the plans for their particular match outcomes are until the day of the match or they're not told the specifics of their story lines in advance. You have no evidence that superstars are or are not told in advance that they will or won't be main eventing WM or any other PPV. All of this is what is called a presumption.

I know were not in court here but in case you don't know, presumptions are not facts and so they are also not admissible as evidence.

[Ultra Mantis]

You have CM Punk who "claims" he was booked to face (and go over) Hunter at Mania, which they had begun to evidently build on TV if you go back and watch the title unification ceremony.

Batista has also stated in interviews he was supposed to be going over at Mania as a babyface and that he had told Vince he didn't think it was going to work because he feels he's better as a heel and that he (correctly) figured the fans would resent him coming back into that spot.

Bryan had practically no interaction with the authority following the HBK screwjob, instead feuding with Bray Wyatt for three months while Big Show was randomly pushed into the role of "People's champion" to take on the Authority. Suddenly Bryan's feud with the Wyatt's closes with a clean loss and he's in the spot Punk was in, fending off the authority.

Chris Jericho has corroborated the "story" that Bryan was scheduled to face Sheamus, stating that he wanted to wrestle Bryan at Mania 30 but Vince had already got him locked in for Sheamus so Jericho did not appear at Mania 30 because he didn't want a "Fandango" deal again (Note how I am even including this even though I disagree with Jericho and his views on Fandango).

Bryan getting that main event was course correction after their planned main event bombed hard and Punk quit leaving HHH with nothing to do, it was not an ingenious master plan built over six months. If you would rather believe talking heads of HHH and Vince on a WWE network special, who have every reason to make you believe they didn't shit the bed, then I guess that's just what you'd happily lie on.

How can you hate dirt sheets but love shitty bed sheets?

[#1-norm-fan]

CM Punk, Batista, Daniel Bryan and Chris Jericho are Meltzer sheep.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Lol CyNick. Spanked and spanked again.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

you do realize he's just going to come back with something else right? lol and then call you all Meltzer sheep.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

sorry, US all meltzer sheep

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Noid, i give you the job of predicting CyNick's retort, because you are funny.

[#1-norm-fan]

Noid's gimmick when he was posting like CyNick in Raw threads and stuff was pretty great.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

it was some of his finest work. The dirtsheets are predicting a massive push for him, but he may get overlooked due to politics.

However the dirtsheets are full of it. TPWW is giving Noid ALL of the tools to succeed, he's just a spoilt millenial.

[DAMN iNATOR]

you do realize he's just going to come back with something else right? lol and then call you all Meltzer sheep.

Now if he went into TheDarkness214's forum and called him a Russo Sheep he'd have something. Not much, granted, but certainly more than his claims in here.

[The CyNick]

I wasn't looking for anything. I just wanted to make sure you didn't gloss over ron the dial's request for proof of people changing their stances on a guy after two good outings.

For a guy who wants legit sources from everyone, you sure take some liberties yourself.

When i start claiming to be a journalist you can hold me to those standards

[The CyNick]

Um, what?

It's just as much of a myth (if not more so) that Bryan's WM main event match was some elaborate original plan. You have no evidence that was the plan.

We on the other hand have evidence of Daniel Bryan himself saying that he wasn't originally planned to main event WM.

Sure, maybe it was the plan and they just didn't tell Bryan that was the case.

Meanwhile, your proof that it was the plan is that some superstars aren't always told what the plans for their particular match outcomes are until the day of the match or they're not told the specifics of their story lines in advance. You have no evidence that superstars are or are not told in advance that they will or won't be main eventing WM or any other PPV. All of this is what is called a presumption.

I know were not in court here but in case you don't know, presumptions are not facts and so they are also not admissible as evidence.

So we're supposed to listen to Daniel Bryan but not Roman Reigns.

My proof is the months of booking Bryan to get screwed, to be kept as the focal point of the shows, to show the interaction of the crowd, to focus on the crowd to teach future crowds to repeat the behaviour, to create a bunch of merchandise. Yeah all those things indicate the Bryan push was planned months in advance.

You guys like to claim things get missed by me, but explain why WWE can bury guys when they want to, but with Bryan they kept focusing on him without burying him. Why wouldn't they just bury him if they didn't plan for him to get to the top.

This one debate is why people who are actually on the inside in high positions think this segment of the fans base are morons. Loyal. But morons.

[The CyNick]

You have CM Punk who "claims" he was booked to face (and go over) Hunter at Mania, which they had begun to evidently build on TV if you go back and watch the title unification ceremony.

Batista has also stated in interviews he was supposed to be going over at Mania as a babyface and that he had told Vince he didn't think it was going to work because he feels he's better as a heel and that he (correctly) figured the fans would resent him coming back into that spot.

Bryan had practically no interaction with the authority following the HBK screwjob, instead feuding with Bray Wyatt for three months while Big Show was randomly pushed into the role of "People's champion" to take on the Authority. Suddenly Bryan's feud with the Wyatt's closes with a clean loss and he's in the spot Punk was in, fending off the authority.

Chris Jericho has corroborated the "story" that Bryan was scheduled to face Sheamus, stating that he wanted to wrestle Bryan at Mania 30 but Vince had already got him locked in for Sheamus so Jericho did not appear at Mania 30 because he didn't want a "Fandango" deal again (Note how I am even including this even though I disagree with Jericho and his views on Fandango).

Bryan getting that main event was course correction after their planned main event bombed hard and Punk quit leaving HHH with nothing to do, it was not an ingenious master plan built over six months. If you would rather believe talking heads of HHH and Vince on a WWE network special, who have every reason to make you believe they didn't shit the bed, then I guess that's just what you'd happily lie on.

How can you hate dirt sheets but love shitty bed sheets?

Punk v Hunter was going to get Bryan into the main event

Bryan v Sheamus would act as a match to wear down Bryan. Angle was going to be Sheamus killed Bryan in 10 seconds, he's the perfect guy to ensure Bryan can't make it to the main event, just in case Punk were to beat Hunter.

Bats wouldn't have been told about the plans until closer to the event. Jericho had nothing to do with anything so he wouldn't know.

Punk would beat Hunter. Bryan would beat Sheamus. Bryan would win the strap in the main event. Punk would be there to celebrate with him. Plant the seeds for a program down the line between the two.

But no, it probably just happened by accident.

[Simple Fan]

Really you can't be that dumb CyNick, c'mon man.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Your argument is irrelevant CyNick. Just stop and talk about real things.

[Simple Fan]

The HHH/Punk match to set up Bryan is just hilarious. Can you imagine that playing out on TV.

HHH: Hey Punk I'm going to beat you and Bryan won't be in the main event.

Punk: Fuck that, if I beat you I'm in the main event.

HHH: No our match is all about Bryan but Shamus is going to beat Bryan in 10 seconds anyway so it won't matter.

Punk: WTF?

HHH: Its best for business

Punk: Scew that I quit

[screech]

When i start claiming to be a journalist you can hold me to those standards

So what's your excuse for holding everyone else to those standards? I'm fairly certain no one on here has claimed to be a wrestling journalist.

[KIRA]

Punk v Hunter was going to get Bryan into the main event

Bryan v Sheamus would act as a match to wear down Bryan. Angle was going to be Sheamus killed Bryan in 10 seconds, he's the perfect guy to ensure Bryan can't make it to the main event, just in case Punk were to beat Hunter.

Bats wouldn't have been told about the plans until closer to the event. Jericho had nothing to do with anything so he wouldn't know.

Punk would beat Hunter. Bryan would beat Sheamus. Bryan would win the strap in the main event. Punk would be there to celebrate with him. Plant the seeds for a program down the line between the two.

But no, it probably just happened by accident.

......I...I got nothing this just stands on its own.

[#1-norm-fan]

Wait... so we can just project our own rationalizations in order to pretend something wasn't really stupid??? Sweet!

The Bellas suddenly just started pretending to be friends with each other for a brilliant storyline that's being planned where they are in line to get millions from a dying relative but they have to get along first.

But no, WWE is just historically bad at writing stories that make sense.

Brawl for All was all planned to bury a bunch of guys on the roster at the expense of Bart Gunn who would go on to get destroyed by Butterbean, setting off an ingenious storyline where, on the 20th anniversary of that defeat, he will return as a monster who has been locked away from society for 2 decades and is back to take WWE by storm.

But no, a multi-millionaire businessman did something mind-numbingly dumb that destroyed the credibility of a ton of guys on his roster for nothing.

Chris Jericho returning to WWE after weeks of cryptic videos, only to not speak a work on his first night and then break down in tears the next week and then just... never explain any of it was all an elaborate plan to explain why, in kayfabe, he'd be leaving and returning constantly over the years. Because he has mental issues and is severely depressed and fickle.

But no, WWE's writers are just incredibly bad at putting in the effort to hash out storylines and follow through with angles.

Wade Barrett's badass bareknuckle fighter vignettes before his return last year that preceded him returning and instantly running away from fights, completely ruining the gimmick and making him the same paint-by-numbers heel everyone else was is actually going to be referenced soon when Barrett returns to his roots and comes back BETTER AND STRONGER FOR REALZ THIS TIME!

But no, WWE's writers just don't know the definition of the term "character development".

Damn. This is way easier than actually being logical! I like it!

[#1-norm-fan]

Oh yeah. And Cesaro was definitely gonna get revenge on Big Show for squashing him. I know Cesaro getting squashed by guys who are getting pushed for a storyline that month is pretty common but THIS time he was CLEARLY gonna get revenge after just brushing it off for a couple months first so that no one would ever suspect it. You Meltzer sheep just don't get how it all works.

[The CyNick]

Wait... so we can just project our own rationalizations in order to pretend something wasn't really stupid??? Sweet!

The Bellas suddenly just started pretending to be friends with each other for a brilliant storyline that's being planned where they are in line to get millions from a dying relative but they have to get along first.

But no, WWE is just historically bad at writing stories that make sense.

Brawl for All was all planned to bury a bunch of guys on the roster at the expense of Bart Gunn who would go on to get destroyed by Butterbean, setting off an ingenious storyline where, on the 20th anniversary of that defeat, he will return as a monster who has been locked away from society for 2 decades and is back to take WWE by storm.

But no, a multi-millionaire businessman did something mind-numbingly dumb that destroyed the credibility of a ton of guys on his roster for nothing.

Chris Jericho returning to WWE after weeks of cryptic videos, only to not speak a work on his first night and then break down in tears the next week and then just... never explain any of it was all an elaborate plan to explain why, in kayfabe, he'd be leaving and returning constantly over the years. Because he has mental issues and is severely depressed and fickle.

But no, WWE's writers are just incredibly bad at putting in the effort to hash out storylines and follow through with angles.

Wade Barrett's badass bareknuckle fighter vignettes before his return last year that preceded him returning and instantly running away from fights, completely ruining the gimmick and making him the same paint-by-numbers heel everyone else was is actually going to be referenced soon when Barrett returns to his roots and comes back BETTER AND STRONGER FOR REALZ THIS TIME!

But no, WWE's writers just don't know the definition of the term "character development".

Damn. This is way easier than actually being logical! I like it!

With so many bad storylines, and such terrible writing, makes you wonder why someone with your level of intelligence would bother watching in such close detail.

[The CyNick]

Oh yeah. And Cesaro was definitely gonna get revenge on Big Show for squashing him. I know Cesaro getting squashed by guys who are getting pushed for a storyline that month is pretty common but THIS time he was CLEARLY gonna get revenge after just brushing it off for a couple months first so that no one would ever suspect it. You Meltzer sheep just don't get how it all works.

Seth Rollins vs Roman Reigns was planned for Survivor Series. Do you recall why it got changed?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

With so many bad storylines, and such terrible writing, makes you wonder why someone with your level of intelligence would bother watching in such close detail.

I believe this line of argument has been answered ad nauseum. This is another logical fallacy (one of many which you like to use) and you are using it to distract from having to make any sense.

Aka you're being a big wank

[Ultra Mantis]

Punk v Hunter was going to get Bryan into the main event

Bryan v Sheamus would act as a match to wear down Bryan. Angle was going to be Sheamus killed Bryan in 10 seconds, he's the perfect guy to ensure Bryan can't make it to the main event, just in case Punk were to beat Hunter.

Bats wouldn't have been told about the plans until closer to the event. Jericho had nothing to do with anything so he wouldn't know.

Punk would beat Hunter. Bryan would beat Sheamus. Bryan would win the strap in the main event. Punk would be there to celebrate with him. Plant the seeds for a program down the line between the two.

But no, it probably just happened by accident.

I see you've gone with the insanity plea. No further questions.

[Shadrick]

Punk v Hunter was going to get Bryan into the main event

Bryan v Sheamus would act as a match to wear down Bryan. Angle was going to be Sheamus killed Bryan in 10 seconds, he's the perfect guy to ensure Bryan can't make it to the main event, just in case Punk were to beat Hunter.

Bats wouldn't have been told about the plans until closer to the event. Jericho had nothing to do with anything so he wouldn't know.

Punk would beat Hunter. Bryan would beat Sheamus. Bryan would win the strap in the main event. Punk would be there to celebrate with him. Plant the seeds for a program down the line between the two.

But no, it probably just happened by accident.

bruh lmaoooooo

[#1-norm-fan]

Seth Rollins vs Roman Reigns was planned for Survivor Series. Do you recall why it got changed?

Actually, Cesaro was obviously about to be inserted into that match to make it a triple threat for the world title. Him jobbing to Big Show was the first step to that. He would have gone on and beaten Sheamus for the title instead of Reigns but he got injured.

Of course these Meltzer sheep will have you believe WWE had no plans for Cesaro just as they had for all those months prior to the injury and him jobbing to Big Show was a simple squash to put Show over for his Lesnar feeding. But the planned storyline that I just pulled out of my ass can't be proven wrong, so... CHECKMATE, MELTZER SHEEP!

[#1-norm-fan]

In all seriousness, that Daniel Bryan rationalization might be wrestling forum post of the year for all the wrong reasons. lol

Right up there with STD's "My ancestors didn't die to become John Cena t-shirts." or whatever it was.

[drave]

Re-posting for greatness

http://i.imgur.com/i54CFOG.jpg

[The CyNick]

The HHH/Punk match to set up Bryan is just hilarious. Can you imagine that playing out on TV.

HHH: Hey Punk I'm going to beat you and Bryan won't be in the main event.

Punk: Fuck that, if I beat you I'm in the main event.

HHH: No our match is all about Bryan but Shamus is going to beat Bryan in 10 seconds anyway so it won't matter.

Punk: WTF?

HHH: Its best for business

Punk: Scew that I quit

First, Im just presenting that as a possible scenario. Punk and Bryan were paired together. It would have actually played out perfectly because The Authority was trying to screw Bryan. Punk would have been able to defy The Authority's plan to screw Bryan. At the same time you plant the seeds for a future program between Bryan and Punk where Punk says you only won the title because of me. Sheamus' role is just that of Authority henchman.

But that's just me playing fantasy booker.

I've said multiple times I don't know what the plans were. Just like nobody knows. I've said many times that it was possible Brysn WASNT going to win the title at Mania, but rather shortly thereafter. I also don't think Batista was ever going to be the champ coming out of Mania because they went right into the Evolution-Shield thing. And that served to establish Evolution and launched the Rollins heel turn, which was a focal point of storylines for the next 18 months. That seemed planned out, and wouldn't fit it Batista was the champ.

To me the larger issue isn't whether Bryan was going to get the title at 30 or not (I do believe that was planned before Rumble). The issue is was WWE grooming him for the top spot. Who knows maybe they had an idea to do Batista v Bryan after Mania, and have Bryan win at that point. Regardless of what show it happened at, the company was behind it. It wasn't some grassroots campaign that got him pushed like they tell you it was on TV.

[The CyNick]

So what's your excuse for holding everyone else to those standards? I'm fairly certain no one on here has claimed to be a wrestling journalist.

It depends what is being said.

When people state things as absolute fact - like just take this Bryan discussion. The real answer is nobody knows. I don't know the whole story, you don't know it, Meltzer doesn't know it, the janitor who stands by the toilet while the writing assistant is on the phone and stooges stuff off to the Sheetz doesn't know it. Likely only 4 or 5 people know it and they don't talk. But people on here will take fifth hand information and present it as fact. Or will take a guy saying something in kayfabe and pass it as reality.

If you are being that cocksure about it, sure you should provide evidence. I have never stated my position as being a known fact. I just went by what I saw on TV. Bryan was pushed harder than anyone other than Cena week after week. And this was well before The Rumble.

[The CyNick]

I believe this line of argument has been answered ad nauseum. This is another logical fallacy (one of many which you like to use) and you are using it to distract from having to make any sense.

Aka you're being a big wank

Its actually the one that cuts at the heart of the issue with you people.

I challenge you to notice something with these debates. The people on here who CLAIM to be against my position that WWE is for the most part really great have the most detailed knowledge of storylines. #1fan or whatever that gimmick is, is probably the worst offender. He'll try to use these obscure details of storylines to "prove" WWE is terrible at writing. I'll open myself up here, but I don't watch every hour of WWE TV. I barely get the chance to watch all of RAW. I rarely watch Smackdown in its entirety and I don't watch anything else.

But when I watch, 9 times out of 10 I say that was a good laugh and I let my fellow fans here know I enjoyed the show. The odd thing is the people who CLAIM to hate every aspect of the show, seem to watch in the most detail. So you're left with two options to explain this behaviour. Either they are lying, which I believe to be most likely, at the very least exaggerating their dislike of the show to align with the groupthink mentality of the IWC. Or they wish to punish themselves and watch something they don't enjoy week after week. I could see doing this for a month, maybe a year. But some people will reference terrible stuff from 15 years ago. Meaning they have been not enjoying the show longer than they enjoyed it. Weird behaviour if you ask me. I guess there is a third option, where people claim they hated the product, stopped watching, now just read about the product and then spend hours in their life posting in great detail about something they don't enjoy and don't watch and therefore can't formulate a worthwhile opinion on the product. Of course that would be utterly pathetic, so I don't think many fall into that category.

[The CyNick]

Re-posting for greatness

http://i.imgur.com/i54CFOG.jpg

"We listrn to our fans"

Says the guy who paid money for a ticket, spent time to create at least one sign to express his "anger".

The IWC ladies and gentlement.

[drave]

I was going more for the wank pheasant thing. Also, generally speaking, LOL = something being funny. Not sure where you think the fella is expressing his anger.


Lastly, Sheetz is a place that some gay guys go to when they wanna bang each other at 3AM on any given morning. No one, except Afterlife, gets his wrestling news from Sheetz.

[Damian Rey]

I don't get what that has to with anything.

[The CyNick]

I was going more for the wank pheasant thing. Also, generally speaking, LOL = something being funny. Not sure where you think the fella is expressing his anger.


Lastly, Sheetz is a place that some gay guys go to when they wanna bang each other at 3AM on any given morning. No one, except Afterlife, gets his wrestling news from Sheetz.

I took the LOL to make the statement above sarcastic. Could be wrong though.

I'm fully supportive of your lifestyle choices. Don't need to know what you do at 3AM.

[Big Vic]

So we're supposed to listen to Daniel Bryan but not Roman Reigns.

My proof is the months of booking Bryan to get screwed, to be kept as the focal point of the shows...The focal point of the shows was Cena vs Orton, uniting the belts, not Daniel Bryan.

[The CyNick]

The focal point of the shows was Cena vs Orton, uniting the belts, not Daniel Bryan.

I mentioned Bryan was pushed harder than anyone other than Cena.

But Bryan was interacting with the authority week after week calling him a B+ player. But then behind the scenes he's going over Cena clean, winning the title, only to get screwed by The Authority. If they didn't plan for him to headline he would be booked like someone like Ryback is today.

[Big Vic]

He wasn't interacting with the authority at that time, he was 100% focused on Bray Wyatt.

[The CyNick]

He wasn't interacting with the authority at that time, he was 100% focused on Bray Wyatt.

How long did that program last

Why do people like you pretend that he wasn't pushed in the summer and fall?

[Damian Rey]

Because he wasn't. His feud with Wyatt started in October 27 and ran through that year's Rumble, which took place on January 26th. 4 months away from the main event in an unrelated feud while Cena and Big Show were working the main event picture.

So he received a quick push near the end of the summer, got a couple of rematches out of it, and was moved back down to feud with Wyatt.

[The CyNick]

Because he wasn't. His feud with Wyatt started in October 27 and ran through that year's Rumble, which took place on January 26th. 4 months away from the main event in an unrelated feud while Cena and Big Show were working the main event picture.

So he received a quick push near the end of the summer, got a couple of rematches out of it, and was moved back down to feud with Wyatt.

Lol

So he beats Cena clean for the title. Beats Orton. Main events several PPVs in a row. Is the main adversary of The Authority and that's "just a quick push".

Those kool aid parties where you guys get your material must be a riot.

[The CyNick]

He wasn't interacting with the authority at that time, he was 100% focused on Bray Wyatt.

He was being groomed to headline Mania. It was important to keep him out of the title mix for a period of time to build anticipation.

Steve Austin wasnt fighting for the title in late 98 early 99. He was doing random stuff. Then they set the table for him at Mania.

[Big Vic]

I mentioned Bryan was pushed harder than anyone other than Cena.

Losing to Bray Wyatt is not being push harder than anyone but Cena

During that time span the following following wrestlers were being pushed harder than Daniel Bryan

John Cena
Randy Orton
CM Punk
Roman Reigns
Bray Wyatt

[Damian Rey]

He won the title at one ppv were he lost it immediately after. That was started in August 18. He was out of the main event in October. You call that long term? Which feud lasted longer? The three matches in two months or the story line that played out through the end of January?

Per usual you make some false claim you failed to verify and now you're dancing around in circles.

"Daniel Bryan v was pushed in the summer and fall"

"He spent the fall and winter feuding with Wyatt"

"Lol dispute factual evidence and avoid my initial claim"

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Its actually the one that cuts at the heart of the issue with you people.

I challenge you to notice something with these debates. The people on here who CLAIM to be against my position that WWE is for the most part really great have the most detailed knowledge of storylines. #1fan or whatever that gimmick is, is probably the worst offender. He'll try to use these obscure details of storylines to "prove" WWE is terrible at writing. I'll open myself up here, but I don't watch every hour of WWE TV. I barely get the chance to watch all of RAW. I rarely watch Smackdown in its entirety and I don't watch anything else.

But when I watch, 9 times out of 10 I say that was a good laugh and I let my fellow fans here know I enjoyed the show. The odd thing is the people who CLAIM to hate every aspect of the show, seem to watch in the most detail. So you're left with two options to explain this behaviour. Either they are lying, which I believe to be most likely, at the very least exaggerating their dislike of the show to align with the groupthink mentality of the IWC. Or they wish to punish themselves and watch something they don't enjoy week after week. I could see doing this for a month, maybe a year. But some people will reference terrible stuff from 15 years ago. Meaning they have been not enjoying the show longer than they enjoyed it. Weird behaviour if you ask me. I guess there is a third option, where people claim they hated the product, stopped watching, now just read about the product and then spend hours in their life posting in great detail about something they don't enjoy and don't watch and therefore can't formulate a worthwhile opinion on the product. Of course that would be utterly pathetic, so I don't think many fall into that category.

Being a big bombastic butthole will do you no favours.

[Big Vic]

Also after he lost to Orton in HIAC Orton once again beat him on Smackdown.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Also considering you are posting on a wrestling discussion forum and your critique is that someone highly critical of the product shouldn't be watching so much of it is pretty baseless, considering people like fan habe a passion and interest in wrestling.

And someone like me who doesn't watch much anymore isn't allowed an opinion because I don't watch enough. I can tell you that what I do watch and the results I see are not up to my set of standards. It

So pretty much there is a finite amount you are allowed to watch to be able to have an opinion. And even then that opinion has to be your opinion or else we are Meltzer sheep. It can't be too much it can't be too little. Only the amount that the cynick watches.

Step up your game, anus boy. Stop allowing weird personal bias get in the way of real discourse.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Like I dont understand essentially criticizing people for watching too much wrestling when you yourself are posting on a forum dedicated to wrestling nerds.

You yourself are enough of a fan to defend the product til the death. How does that make you any less ridiculous than you are trying to make others out to be you Fucking weirdo lol

[#1-norm-fan]

The whole "You can't hate it if you follow it!" thing is the apologist way of defending the product against people who think it's shit when there is no other defense.

Dale hit the nail on the head. I have a love and passion for the wrestling business. When things are really bad, I'm gonna mention it. I tend to just look up results and watch clips of anything that seems watchable nowadays. I'm not gonna completely abandon it because I like the business and want to keep following it and hoping that it picks back up at some point.

If you wanna do a point-counterpoint, we can do that all day. When you fail at that and fall back on "Well if it's so bad, why do you care!?" you're pretty much showing everyone how little of an actual defense you have to hold on to. It's a reach.

[Big Vic]

Some people really like wrestling, so they watch when its on.

Some people really like Star Wars, so they watch the prequels.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

The whole "You can't hate it if you follow it!" thing is the apologist way of defending the product against people who think it's shit when there is no other defense.

Dale hit the nail on the head. I have a love and passion for the wrestling business. When things are really bad, I'm gonna mention it. I tend to just look up results and watch clips of anything that seems watchable nowadays. I'm not gonna completely abandon it because I like the business and want to keep following it and hoping that it picks back up at some point.

If you wanna do a point-counterpoint, we can do that all day. When you fail at that and fall back on "Well if it's so bad, why do you care!?" you're pretty much showing everyone how little of an actual defense you have to hold on to. It's a reach.

To be honest, if he actually really wanted to focus on the product without resorting to diversion tactics in his argument, there would be great discussions about his feelings on the product.

But instead we're stuck with him feeding his own weird agenda.

You want to see some great convos? Check out most arguments with Gertner when he wanted to talk wrestling. He hated most of the internet heroes and yet there were some great threads talking about the product with him. Sure he can be bombastic with the rest of them, but he clearly knew more about what he was talking about than Nick.

[Damian Rey]

Gertner has the greatest heel trait in that what he speaks is true whether you like it or not. He spoke factually.

[The CyNick]

I can appreciate that. Sounds like I have a lot in common with this Gertner fellow.

I see ratings are back up now that football is over. The most watched show on cable on Monday by a large margin.

[Savio]

Yes by 1%

[Savio]

Down 10% from last year

[The CyNick]

TV is down across the board.

Can only really compare to what's on today. I believe RAW had around 20% more viewers than the second most watched show on Monday. That's solid. And this is with a decimated roster.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

You don't hold a candle to gertner

[The CyNick]

You don't hold a candle to gertner

That's cool

[Savio]

TV is down across the board.

Can only really compare to what's on today. I believe RAW had around 20% more viewers than the second most watched show on Monday. That's solid. And this is with a decimated roster.
Yeah but they advertised a title match with a special guest ref, it should have went up more than 1% imo

[The CyNick]

Yeah but they advertised a title match with a special guest ref, it should have went up more than 1% imo

Thats a pretty arbitrary statement. What "should" the number have been?

I would say having the most watched thing on cable on Monday is a success.

They also have the most watched thing on cable on Thursday.

Likely lots of champagne popping going on at USA. More evidence of WWE's power to draw in viewers on a regular basis. Really unmatched in the TV industry.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Likely lots of champagne popping going on at USA. More evidence of WWE's power to draw in viewers on a regular basis. Really unmatched in the TV industry.

lmfao Yeah I'm sure they really give a shit

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I was talking to the COO of the company I work for as he is a friend of the family. And he was telling me that our company had a really MEH year when it came to making money.

He said "Yeah we always make money and we do okay, but we want to reach our goals and do really well"

Just because you're barely doing okay is no reason to celebrate. They're literally the ONLY wrestling show that is known to the main stream and their results are MEH at best. No champagne is being popped you big doofus.

[The CyNick]

When you didnt have shows on multiple days of the week that are drawing the largest audience on cable, and now you do, thats a reason to celebrate.

But I'm sure your CEO friend has never had a year where he was #1 at something in his industry, so probably not the right person to get an opinion from.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Mm hmmm

[The CyNick]

I love when Dale loses a debate

[Savio]

So if the percentage difference was -1% would that be ok? How about 0% ?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

When you didnt have shows on multiple days of the week that are drawing the largest audience on cable, and now you do, thats a reason to celebrate.

But I'm sure your CEO friend has never had a year where he was #1 at something in his industry, so probably not the right person to get an opinion from.

sweet assumptions dude. You're a knobhead.

They've had shows on multiple days of the week for 2 decades now.

You're making up rules to success as you go to suit your arguments. Thus my "mm hmmm" because what can you even say to someone who isn't really bothering trying to have a discussion.

[The CyNick]

sweet assumptions dude. You're a knobhead.

They've had shows on multiple days of the week for 2 decades now.

You're making up rules to success as you go to suit your arguments. Thus my "mm hmmm" because what can you even say to someone who isn't really bothering trying to have a discussion.

Wasnt Smackdown on other channels? My point was USA now has the top weekly show on Monday and the top weekly show on Thursday. That's something to celebrate. If you are not in the TV business, it may be difficult to appreciate how huge that is.

Your big contribution to the conversation was an unnamed "CEO friend" who apparently doesn't get excited about having massive success. You're used to your hero bloggers who never talk about facts, just make random statements about speculation that fits their agenda and pass off as fact.

[The Rogerer]

When I watched it over there it was just 50 adverts for Arbys

[#1-norm-fan]

Some show named "Cavuto Coast to Coast" beat Smackdown quite handily. If you're counting total viewers, of course. If you're just counting the 18-49 demo that advertisers actually care about, it barely cracked the top 10 for the night. I'm sure WWE would like that to improve.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

How do they get correct demos like that? Does the Neilsen box ask how old the person is before starting to watch?

[Emperor Smeat]

They ask for your age and anyone else in the house who is participating.

Got picked to do one of those about two years ago although it wasn't for the tv box but their book version.

[Ruien]

Why the fuck is this thread still going on? When your ratings drop it is never a good sign. It's simple math. Less is not good when looking at the number of viewers. It does not matter the reason. It is a fact it is happening.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

:roll: Meltzer sheep

[CSL]

"fits their agenda"

[DAMN iNATOR]

They ask for your age and anyone else in the house who is participating.

Got picked to do one of those about two years ago although it wasn't for the tv box but their book version.

I, too have done this. Not as interesting as I'd thought.

[Shisen Kopf]

:roll: Meltzer sheep,,,,,,,,,

[Damian Rey]

Is CyNick in the television business?

[Mr. Nerfect]

No, and it's clear he hasn't done much debating either.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I think it's funny that people have debates on a forum to win or lose or to own people. It is just really weird to me. I love to argue with the rest of them but my goal begins and ends at making my point and that is all.

[Savio]

What was the rating this week?

[#BROKEN Hasney]

What was the rating this week?

Started pretty good comparatively, but shit the bed by the third hour


Average 3,496,000
Hour 1 3,775,000
Hour 2 3,591,000
Hour 3 3,123,000

On this night was clear what did the show in was the show itself, with major pattern of declines from start to finish, including a third hour that did 3.12 million viewers, a number that would have been considered poor even going against a huge NFL game.

[Big Vic]

Wow a drop of 600,000 viewers, but this is expected right CyNick?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think it's funny that people have debates on a forum to win or lose or to own people. It is just really weird to me. I love to argue with the rest of them but my goal begins and ends at making my point and that is all.

Well, that's sort of what I meant. CyNick's not very good at making a coherent point that doesn't betray itself as a fallacy.

[BigCrippyZ]

CyNick's also been conspicuously absent lately. So have I, but I don't watch the product anymore so...

[DAMN iNATOR]

CyNick's also been conspicuously absent lately. So have I, but I don't watch the product anymore so...

I don't find myself agreeing with much if anything he said, but dude does have the fine art of making an entrance and exit...show up unexpectedly, leave "mysteriously" kinda...

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Raw broke 4 million for the first time since June.

hour 1: 4.140
hour 2: 4.183
hour 3: 3.972

That AJ Styles.effect... Oh and I guess that actor that showed up too.

http://i.imgur.com/8PgIplw.gif

[The CyNick]

Nice rating. #1 in viewership by a lot.

[The CyNick]

Some show named "Cavuto Coast to Coast" beat Smackdown quite handily. If you're counting total viewers, of course. If you're just counting the 18-49 demo that advertisers actually care about, it barely cracked the top 10 for the night. I'm sure WWE would like that to improve.

Nobody in the TV business ONLY considers the 18-49 number. No doubt it's the #1 demo (in reality its 18-35 but why split hairs), but total viewers matter as well.

The fact that WWE regularly draws a top 5 audience now for multiple days of the week is huge for USA. Go ahead and ask a TV exec if you don't believe me.

[The CyNick]

Wow a drop of 600,000 viewers, but this is expected right CyNick?

Ratings fluctuate from week to week. When you draw as many viewers as WWE does, you are bound to get weekly increases or decreases of hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Monday Night Football has swings of millions of viewers from week to week because their audience is so massive. Nobody gets stressed out at one week's number in the ESPN front office.

[The CyNick]

Is CyNick in the television business?

No comment

[Emperor Smeat]

Ratings ended up being a 2.93 which managed to be the lowest rated post-Rumble show since 1997.

Last year had around 320k more people watching while the yearly trend since 2011 is around the same drop range.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Post Rumble Raw viewership: 2016 4.09M, 2015 4.41M, 2014 4.70M, 2013 5.01M, 2012 5.21M, 2011 5.29M, 2010 5.29M. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DoomWatch?src=hash">#DoomWatch</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/prowrestling">@prowrestling</a></p>&mdash; Keith Harris (@glasgowkjh) <a href="https://twitter.com/glasgowkjh/status/692109923501621248">January 26, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[The CyNick]

Ratings ended up being a 2.93 which managed to be the lowest rated post-Rumble show since 1997.

Last year had around 320k more people watching while the yearly trend since 2011 is around the same drop range.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Post Rumble Raw viewership: 2016 4.09M, 2015 4.41M, 2014 4.70M, 2013 5.01M, 2012 5.21M, 2011 5.29M, 2010 5.29M. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DoomWatch?src=hash">#DoomWatch</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/prowrestling">@prowrestling</a></p>&mdash; Keith Harris (@glasgowkjh) <a href="https://twitter.com/glasgowkjh/status/692109923501621248">January 26, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

More from the people thinking the tv landscape is the same as 2010. It's cute.

[BigCrippyZ]

More from the people thinking the tv landscape is the same as 2010. It's cute.

Says the guy who's never sat in, been involved with or been responsible for a business affairs, sales or ratings meeting at a major media or entertainment company, let alone negotiated or been involved with agreements for the rights to public performances or broadcast of intellectual property.

It's annoying and full of shit.

[The CyNick]

Says the guy who's never sat in, been involved with or been responsible for a business affairs, sales or ratings meeting at a major media or entertainment company, let alone negotiated or been involved with agreements for the rights to public performances or broadcast of intellectual property.

It's annoying and full of shit.

Wad there a point in that rant? Or are you trying to change the subject?

Btw lol

[BigCrippyZ]

Wad there a point in that rant? Or are you trying to change the subject?

Btw lol

No. My point was I think you're full of shit and your opinions and arguments are worthless. Especially since you won't name your supposedly credible and trustworthy "sources".

That being said, you're mildly entertaining from the perspective that it's like arguing with an immature teenager who actually has no idea what they're talking about but thinks they know everything and more than anyone else.

[BigCrippyZ]

Wad there a point in that rant? Or are you trying to change the subject?

Btw lol

You completely ignored the part where I basically said you don't know what you're talking about re: tv/media ratings because you 1. don't have any actual experience with anything you claim to know so much about and 2. you won't name any of your "sources" because it's "not worth getting into".

[The CyNick]

No. My point was I think you're full of shit and your opinions and arguments are worthless. Especially since you won't name your supposedly credible and trustworthy "sources".

That being said, you're mildly entertaining from the perspective that it's like arguing with an immature teenager who actually has no idea what they're talking about but thinks they know everything and more than anyone else.

Amongst this group, I guarantee I know more than any of you. Guarantee.

But I'm not sure what you think I'm full of shit in relation to ratings. Do you think TV ratings in general are up? Do you not believe in the impact of other media taking away from TV ratings? Do you think WWE didnt have the most viewed show on cable by a lot?

You should mellow out man. Maybe do more drugs or better ones anyway.

[BigCrippyZ]

I basically questioned you and your source's expertise and credibility and all you've responded with is it's not worth getting into.

I wish I could do that when citing a legal principle or source to justify my argument and reasoning. "Your honor, I didn't cite any actual sources here or provide for their credibility because it's not worth getting into." :lol:

I'm legitimately interested in learning from you and having a detailed discussion, IF you can show why yourself and your "sources" are credible and experts in the field in which you claim to know so very much.

[#1-norm-fan]

One day I'm gonna take all the quotes of CyNick changing the subject, strawmanning or blatantly ignoring damning points and put them all in one big post. And I'm just gonna post that as a response every time he does it again.

I figure if he's a troll then be won't be getting the passionate response he's looking for and he'll just get tired of it and quit. On the other hand, if he's serious then eventually having all of that shoved in his face repeatedly will make something click... eventually... one would think. Either way, it's probably the only thing left to do at this point.

[BigCrippyZ]

Amongst this group, I guarantee I know more than any of you. Guarantee.

Maybe you do, I just doubt that to be the case because of your refusal to state why and how you know so much "more than any of" us.

I'll be the first to admit, I don't everything and I don't know the particulars between WWE and USA and their deals.

That being said, I do know exactly how television/media companies and entertainment/media producers work, what they want, see and look for in deals, ratings, etc.

I've negotiated and drafted deals for and with NBC-Universal, ABC/Disney, CBS, HBO, Netflix and many others. I've also worked in and been involved in the business affairs departments, planning, meetings, etc. at major media, music and entertainment companies, including Universal Music, Cox Communications, Viacom, Cablevision.

[The CyNick]

I basically questioned you and your source's expertise and credibility and all you've responded with is it's not worth getting into.

I wish I could do that when citing a legal principle or source to justify my argument and reasoning. "Your honor, I didn't cite any actual sources here or provide for their credibility because it's not worth getting into." :lol:

I'm legitimately interested in learning from you and having a detailed discussion, IF you can show why yourself and your "sources" are credible and experts in the field in which you claim to know so very much.

Were all a bunch of dudes expressing opinions on a message board that maybe 30 people read. There's no standard to live up to. No matter what I say on here, I will be painted as being offbase because I dont fall into the narrative that you guys believe to be gospel.

But that aside, the VAST majority of what I say can all be backed up with ratings data. I dont have the desire to do research for you people. If you think cable TV ratings are as high as they've ever been, go ahead, believe that. If you dont think USA is doing high fives because they now have shows on multiple days of the week that are at or near the top in viewership, well I dont know what proof you need to buy into that? Do I need to show receipts for champagne bottles sent to USA's head office?

Here's some real numbers from January 18th. NBA had literally the biggest game they can put on (Cavs vs Warriors), and it only beat RAW 200K 18-49 viewers. Overall RAW BEAT IT by 150K viewers. So if you guys feel WWE drawing more viewers than the biggest NBA regular season game possible, I really dont know how to help you. By that standard, everything on cable outside maybe Walking Dead and MNF is doing terribly and they should all be worried about being cancelled.

Then this week WWE draws well over 1 million more viewers than every regular program on cable that night. It beat the NBA game that day by OVER 2.5 million viewers. Let me repeat that. WWE RAW drew MORE THAN 2.5 million additional viewers than the national NBA game. Do you think NBA ratings were higher in 2010? I bet they were. Do you think NBA is dying?

You guys who try to debate me on ratings are really sad in that you so want to believe a narrative to be true, but you dont understand what is going on in the industry. But there's enough of you who believe the same thing, so you pat each other on the back and say "CyNick is full of shit". Like I said, its cute.

[The CyNick]

Maybe you do, I just doubt that to be the case because of your refusal to state why and how you know so much "more than any of" us.

I'll be the first to admit, I don't everything and I don't know the particulars between WWE and USA and their deals.

That being said, I do know exactly how television/media companies and entertainment/media producers work, what they want, see and look for in deals, ratings, etc.

I've negotiated and drafted deals for and with NBC-Universal, ABC/Disney, CBS, HBO, Netflix and many others. I've also worked in and been involved in the business affairs departments, planning, meetings, etc. at major media, music and entertainment companies, including Universal Music, Cox Communications, Viacom, Cablevision.

If you think WWE is unsuccessful on cable, then you clearly dont know as much as you are claiming in that post.

[The CyNick]

One day I'm gonna take all the quotes of CyNick changing the subject, strawmanning or blatantly ignoring damning points and put them all in one big post. And I'm just gonna post that as a response every time he does it again.

I figure if he's a troll then be won't be getting the passionate response he's looking for and he'll just get tired of it and quit. On the other hand, if he's serious then eventually having all of that shoved in his face repeatedly will make something click... eventually... one would think. Either way, it's probably the only thing left to do at this point.

I feel like this is your calling. We all need a purpose in life, this should be yours.

[BigCrippyZ]

But I'm not sure what you think I'm full of shit in relation to ratings. Do you think TV ratings in general are up? Do you not believe in the impact of other media taking away from TV ratings? Do you think WWE didnt have the most viewed show on cable by a lot?

No. I don't think TV ratings in general are up. I do think that those content providers that are focusing on putting out HIGH quality, well written television/media are doing consistently better than those that aren't.

I do believe in the impact of other media taking away from TV ratings. I also believe that those who put out compelling, MUST see content, especially live event content, don't use that as an excuse or a crutch for their poor ratings or a reason to put out a horrible, piss poor product.

You're right, WWE had the most viewed show on cable this Monday. No one's denying that. So what?

Is that an excuse or reason for WWE to let the writing and booking quality nose dive to shit, all the while alienating their most intense and loyal consumers? Is that a reason not to try to improve their writing/booking, thus improving their ratings and ultimately, improve their revenues?

[#1-norm-fan]

I feel like this is your calling. We all need a purpose in life, this should be yours.

You do those things quite a lot. It might take weeks to wrangle up all the posts of you being borderline retarded. I'm up for the challenge though.

[BigCrippyZ]

If you think WWE is unsuccessful on cable, then you clearly dont know as much as you are claiming in that post.

That's not what I'm claiming.

I'm claiming they're unsuccessful at what they should be most successful at, and that is, creating compelling wrestling based televised entertainment and entertainers.

I'm claiming that because they're unsuccessful at creating compelling wrestling based televised entertainment and entertainers, EVENTUALLY, they may be unsuccessful on cable. Unless they turn it around and maintain it consistently, which in theory, could happen anytime.

[#1-norm-fan]

Seriously though, what is Raw's competition on Monday nights?

I know there are 15 year old re-runs of Family Guy on Adult Swim that usually give it a run for it's money in the key demo. And I know that Love and Hip Hop show was beating it a while back in overall viewers but I don't think it's on anymore. Pretty sure that's it. lol

[#1-norm-fan]

That's not what I'm claiming.

I'm claiming they're unsuccessful at what they should be most successful at, and that is, creating compelling wrestling based televised entertainment and entertainers.

I'm claiming that because they're unsuccessful at creating compelling wrestling based televised entertainment and entertainers, EVENTUALLY, they may be unsuccessful on cable. Unless they turn it around and maintain it consistently, which in theory, could happen anytime.

They'll be okay because kids will watch anything with violence, bright lights and explosions. You don't need to actually write anything with substance. So as long as they keep it PG, they'll get by fine. The thing is, they don't just target kids. They want to appeal to a larger demographic. They want to be "accepted" by the mainstream as a legit form of entertainment. Unfortunately if you want to attract a lot of people with more than a 6th grade education to your TV show, you need to actually write something compelling. And the writing has been an ADD-riddled mess over the years.

[BigCrippyZ]

You should mellow out man. Maybe do more drugs or better ones anyway.

I don't do drugs, man, but thanks for the advice. I don't have time or any desire to do any drugs, plus it's not worth the risk of me losing my law license and not be able to do what I love for a living.

[BigCrippyZ]

They'll be okay because kids will watch anything with violence, bright lights and explosions. You don't need to actually write anything with substance. So as long as they keep it PG, they'll get by fine. The thing is, they don't just target kids. They want to appeal to a larger demographic. They want to be "accepted" by the mainstream as a legit form of entertainment. Unfortunately if you want to attract a lot of people with more than a 6th grade education to your TV show, you need to actually write something compelling. And the writing has been an ADD-riddled mess over the years.

Absolutely. This is what CyNick either doesn't get or just ignores it.

[Big Vic]

Ratings fluctuate from week to week. When you draw as many viewers as WWE does, you are bound to get weekly increases or decreases of hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Monday Night Football has swings of millions of viewers from week to week because their audience is so massive. Nobody gets stressed out at one week's number in the ESPN front office.
Drop of 600,000 viewers from hour 1 to hour 3.

[Evil Vito]

They'll be okay because kids will watch anything with violence, bright lights and explosions. You don't need to actually write anything with substance. So as long as they keep it PG, they'll get by fine. The thing is, they don't just target kids. They want to appeal to a larger demographic. They want to be "accepted" by the mainstream as a legit form of entertainment. Unfortunately if you want to attract a lot of people with more than a 6th grade education to your TV show, you need to actually write something compelling. And the writing has been an ADD-riddled mess over the years.

<font color=goldenrod>So much this.

The roster now is the best it's ever been. There are so many talented guys on the main roster and even more down in NXT who will eventually be called up over the coming months/years. But with the writing as it is now they'll be wrestling loads of great matches that end up not amounting to anything because they can't put together a coherent storyline for anybody not in the main event (and even the main event storylines make close to no sense anymore).</font>

[The CyNick]

They'll be okay because kids will watch anything with violence, bright lights and explosions. You don't need to actually write anything with substance. So as long as they keep it PG, they'll get by fine. The thing is, they don't just target kids. They want to appeal to a larger demographic. They want to be "accepted" by the mainstream as a legit form of entertainment. Unfortunately if you want to attract a lot of people with more than a 6th grade education to your TV show, you need to actually write something compelling. And the writing has been an ADD-riddled mess over the years.

I guess they didn't teach you the concept of irony in the 6th grade. Should have hung in there longer, might have come in handy.

[The CyNick]

Drop of 600,000 viewers from hour 1 to hour 3.

Its a long show. Not everyone wants to sit through 3 hours of sports entertsinment. A bunch of people do though, and USA keeps bringing fat cheques to WWE to pump out more content, so everyone is happy. Except the IWC. But they're never happy. But they still watch. No matter what.

[The CyNick]

<font color=goldenrod>So much this.

The roster now is the best it's ever been. There are so many talented guys on the main roster and even more down in NXT who will eventually be called up over the coming months/years. But with the writing as it is now they'll be wrestling loads of great matches that end up not amounting to anything because they can't put together a coherent storyline for anybody not in the main event (and even the main event storylines make close to no sense anymore).</font>

Is Ambrose-Owens compelling enough?

[Big Vic]

I don't watch. More people say that each year.

[#1-norm-fan]

Pretty sure all the compliments I've seen about Ambrose-Owens has been about the matches and not the brilliant story behind them.

Also pretty sure that was kinda Vito's point.

[Evil Vito]

Is Ambrose-Owens compelling enough?

<font color=goldenrod>The blow off match was fun, but the feud itself felt fairly empty. Just look at a couple of weeks ago. Owens attacks Ambrose, okay cool. A pissed off Ambrose immediately says in a promo he's going to get Kevin Owens, great.

That same night Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose's "brother", is forced to wrestle just about every heel on the roster in the main event. And who does he spend 15 minutes wrestling to start off with? Kevin Owens.

The match never gets resolved as the heels all intervene and beat the piss out of Reigns. Owens then gets suplexed to hell by Brock Lesnar. Dean Ambrose is never seen.

Even if you argue that the face Ambrose was going to play fair and not interfere in Reigns/Owens (even though he's meant to be a lunatic)...couldn't he have run out when his best friend was significantly outmanned and at least went off brawling separately with Owens?

Their Rumble match was great but could have been even better had the storyline not felt disjointed.</font>

[drave]

Outside of Owens losing the title, I had no idea why the hell they were fighting and didn't really care.

They had a helluva match (match of the night, easily, by far) which is unquestionably what viewers are complimenting.


On a side note, I wonder how many fellas in the back are high-fiving and congratulating them both on their "amazing plot advancement".

[drave]

Let us not also forget how The Authority was "watching closely" to put people in the Fastlane main event only to give it to one person who wasn't even featured on the show.

[drave]

Let us not also forget how The Authority was "watching closely" to put people in the Fastlane main event only to give it to one person who wasn't even featured on the show.


Sorry, I meant to say "GREAT PLOT ADVANCEMENT! LET ME GO SUB TO THE NETWORK NAO!"

[#1-norm-fan]

I'm seriously curious now about whether CyNick is actually deep enough in his WWE apologist role that he thinks Ambrose-Owens is about the writing. lol

The fact that THAT was his example to respond to Vito's post is pretty sad.

[drave]

Its ALWAYS about the writing because clearly the story lines = ratings and ratings = USA Exec's high-fiving each other in the hallway.

[The CyNick]

No. I don't think TV ratings in general are up. I do think that those content providers that are focusing on putting out HIGH quality, well written television/media are doing consistently better than those that aren't.

I do believe in the impact of other media taking away from TV ratings. I also believe that those who put out compelling, MUST see content, especially live event content, don't use that as an excuse or a crutch for their poor ratings or a reason to put out a horrible, piss poor product.

You're right, WWE had the most viewed show on cable this Monday. No one's denying that. So what?

Is that an excuse or reason for WWE to let the writing and booking quality nose dive to shit, all the while alienating their most intense and loyal consumers? Is that a reason not to try to improve their writing/booking, thus improving their ratings and ultimately, improve their revenues?

What defines high quality programming? For years American Idol was the #1 rated show on TV, I personally felt that show was horrible. Quality is a matter of opinion, I dont think everything that gets high ratings on cable is critically acclaimed.

The so what is thats what the goal is. USA wants RAW to bring their overall ratings up. By having more viewers than anyone else on a given night, puts USA in a favourable position for advertisers. This was proven out by the recent report that suggested USA was able to gain several key advertisers for RAW. Its also evident by the ever increasing TV rights fees that WWE collects. Whether or not you or I enjoy the product is really irrelevant.

The thing is we haven't really seen an erosion of the hardcore base. I would say the hardcore base in the people who buy the network, those numbers have increased Year over Year. Overall WWE is bringing in more revenues. Their revenues are closely tied to their hardcore base, as they actually pay for the product. So if those numbers are up, then where are the indicators that WWE is alienating anyone? Aside from 10 or 20 people on a site like this saying the product is shit? In the grand scheme of things, we are irrelevant. Its important to understand that.

Going back to the change in media. Why does WWE such massive numbers on You Tube, Facebook, etc? If the product was so stagnant or so horrible, why are those numbers so massive? isnt it more likely they fans they are apparently losing on TV are just consuming the product through other avenues?

[The CyNick]

I'm seriously curious now about whether CyNick is actually deep enough in his WWE apologist role that he thinks Ambrose-Owens is about the writing. lol

The fact that THAT was his example to respond to Vito's post is pretty sad.

Would you have enjoyed it more if Ambrose drove into the ring apron on a Beer Truck?

Sports Entertainment isnt always a verbal battle, its letting two guys tell a story in the ring. WWE has given Ambrose and Owens the TV time to tell that story over the IC title.

What about HHH-Roman? Thats not good writing?

[drave]

In the grand scheme of things, we are irrelevant. Its important to understand that.



Feel like we just got Neil Degrasse CyNick'd

:|

[The CyNick]

Let us not also forget how The Authority was "watching closely" to put people in the Fastlane main event only to give it to one person who wasn't even featured on the show.

I didnt care for that either. Doesnt mean the product is terrible.

[drave]

What about HHH-Roman? Thats not good writing?

Not really. It is almost a mirror of early SCSA and VKM only this one feels more forced.

[The CyNick]

Outside of Owens losing the title, I had no idea why the hell they were fighting and didn't really care.

They had a helluva match (match of the night, easily, by far) which is unquestionably what viewers are complimenting.


On a side note, I wonder how many fellas in the back are high-fiving and congratulating them both on their "amazing plot advancement".

They are killing themselves over the IC title. Not hard to understand that.

[drave]

I didnt care for that either. Doesnt mean the product is terrible.


No, but if they are betting on the network and cannot even book a match for a network-featured event based on their own words, that sucks.

Again though, kids will forget and not care about that anyway.

[drave]

They are killing themselves over the IC title. Not hard to understand that.


Right, but where is the STORY that is being heralded?

[#1-norm-fan]

Two guys telling a story in the ring is appealing to hardcore fans. If the characters and story aren't hashed out and there's no heat or drama behind it, why would a casual fan give a shit?

And I like that you brought up HHH-Roman. Didn't you hype Roman's title win as a huge personal victory. "I told you guys WWE knows how to build a star! Proved it tonight!" How's that momentum going?

[#1-norm-fan]

I didnt care for that either. Doesnt mean the product is terrible.

No. The other thousand examples of the same dumb, scatterbrained shit over recent years does.

[Evil Vito]

In the grand scheme of things, we are irrelevant. Its important to understand that.

<font color=goldenrod>LOL</font>

[The CyNick]

No, but if they are betting on the network and cannot even book a match for a network-featured event based on their own words, that sucks.

Again though, kids will forget and not care about that anyway.

When it happened I thought it was odd for two reasons:

1. Why did they include Lesnar? I'm sure there will be some Paul Heyman explanation to this, but they didnt cover it on TV yet.

2. Why give Hunter so many possible tough opponents? Again, could be explained. Maybe Hunter wants to prove a point to the rest of the roster.

That said, I dont think any of it hurt my interest in seeing who wins. I mean I'm pretty sure I know who will win, but how they tell the story.

[The CyNick]

No. The other thousand examples of the same dumb, scatterbrained shit over recent years does.

We get it bud, you're not a #1 fan anymore. We get it.

[The CyNick]

Two guys telling a story in the ring is appealing to hardcore fans. If the characters and story aren't hashed out and there's no heat or drama behind it, why would a casual fan give a shit?

And I like that you brought up HHH-Roman. Didn't you hype Roman's title win as a huge personal victory. "I told you guys WWE knows how to build a star! Proved it tonight!" How's that momentum going?

Well it is building to a match on the WWE Network, which is purchased by more hardcore leaning fans. So it makes perfect sense to let the story tell itself in the ring.

For the casual viewer its about caring about the two characters - which I think WWE has effectively made fans care about both. And second they would care about the IC title. Many "hardcore" fans have complained when the IC title is an afterthought. I would say this is as close to the Savage-Steamboat/Razor-HBK/HHH-Rock days where you had guys on the cusp of main event status, who in the right match could main event, and are battling over the title. So I would say the title in itself has appeal.

[Simple Fan]

What about HHH-Roman? Thats not good writing?

Doesnt matter if the writing is good(which its not), Roman would find a way to make it all suck. Really dont see how anyone could be a fan of Roman Reigns in his current state. Honestly hope HHH beats some respect in to him at WM, that would be the only good to come of the whole thing.

[The CyNick]

Doesnt matter if the writing is good(which its not), Roman would find a way to make it all suck. Really dont see how anyone could be a fan of Roman Reigns in his current state. Honestly hope HHH beats some respect in to him at WM, that would be the only good to come of the whole thing.

Reigns isnt my favourite guy on the roster, but I think he's a solid choice to try to take Cena's spot. Whether or not he can do that is up to him.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Raw set another all-time record low for the era for a non-football season broadcast last night averaging 3.37 million viewers.

8 p.m. 3.59 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.46 million viewers
10 p.m. 3.09 million viewers

Damn, that 3rd hour drop. No one gives a shit about the main event at all.

[slik]

Dropped 700,000 viewers from last week, damn.

[slik]

Should I change the name of this thread to something like "RAW Ratings Thread" or just leave it as is?

[Emperor Smeat]

Raw set another all-time record low for the era for a non-football season broadcast last night averaging 3.37 million viewers.

8 p.m. 3.59 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.46 million viewers
10 p.m. 3.09 million viewers

Damn, that 3rd hour drop. No one gives a shit about the main event at all.

Compared to last week, the show itself was pretty skippable this week since only the Divas stuff had any real advancement.

Also been a growing trend recently of main events involving Reigns having crowds leaving early and generating more poor than good 3rd hours.

[Mr. Nerfect]

LOL, CyNick is getting SPANKED!

[Mr. Nerfect]

Triple H is going to get cheered at WrestleMania and Roman Reigns is going to get booed, even if The Rock helps him. Hell, maybe ESPECIALLY if The Rock helps him.

[Mr. Nerfect]

But the WWE will force it because reasons.

[Mr. Nerfect]

It doesn't even make sense. The Authority hate Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose. What do they do? They put Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose in a situation where they can earn a title match. Smrt!

[Mr. Nerfect]

"But Brock Lesnar is in there too!"

Why are The Authority on Brock Lesnar's side? The least of three evils? Do you really think The Authority want Triple H vs. Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania? Triple H could explain it with a promo talking about how he wants to prove he can beat a healthy Brock, but he hasn't done that.

Plus Ambrose & Reigns can team-up to take out Brock first.

This is so fucking stupid.

[Emperor Smeat]

Stuff like that is why the WWE needs some sort of continuity manager in Creative. Way too many times they do stuff that makes no sense story wise or contradicts stuff already established.

[Mr. Nerfect]

There is this line of thinking that smarks are overly critical and such, but the current WWE product is bad television in that it doesn't make sense. I think stuff like that scares off more people than Vince McMahon and Kevin Dunn realize.

[The CyNick]

Two guys telling a story in the ring is appealing to hardcore fans. If the characters and story aren't hashed out and there's no heat or drama behind it, why would a casual fan give a shit?

And I like that you brought up HHH-Roman. Didn't you hype Roman's title win as a huge personal victory. "I told you guys WWE knows how to build a star! Proved it tonight!" How's that momentum going?

What is your question? How is Reigns momentum going? Read house show reports online, he's the most over guy on the show. RAW is the highest rated regularly scheduled program on cable every week. So yeah its going well.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I believe that has all been addressed.

[The CyNick]

Raw set another all-time record low for the era for a non-football season broadcast last night averaging 3.37 million viewers.

8 p.m. 3.59 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.46 million viewers
10 p.m. 3.09 million viewers

Damn, that 3rd hour drop. No one gives a shit about the main event at all.

Still the most watched show for the night on cable outside of the voting stuff.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Still the most watched show for the night on cable outside of the voting stuff.

God you are pathetic lol

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Still the most watched show for the night on cable outside of the voting stuff.

And what is it going up against that makes that at all something to be happy with?

What if they had to compete with their flagship show on an actual prime time television night? Where would they rank.

God you're a fucking idiot.

[BigCrippyZ]

And what is it going up against that makes that at all something to be happy with?

What if they had to compete with their flagship show on an actual prime time television night? Where would they rank.


It doesn't matter according to CyNick. As that's not currently the situation WWE is in, they're doing great.

Of course, they're doing great by default and not because the product is actually good, consistent, compelling television. If WWE had any real competition, they'd be screwed if they were continually putting out the crap they have been.

Of course, WWE is only one great competitor's show away from finding themselves in a scenario where they'll have to really fight to compete, and not necessarily a wrestling competitor's show either.

[#1-norm-fan]

They get beaten every week by Love and Hip Hop when it comes to the 18-49 demo.

Kinda just backs up my point that they'll be alright writing nonsensical, horrifically bad television because children will just watch for the pretty lights, explosions and violence. CyNick being so proud of it on WWE's behalf is hilarious.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

The production of the show isn't too bad. It's super tight for the most part. There are just too many flat segments where I could see your average fan tuning out for something better aka a Seinfeld rerun. I just don't get why it's so hard to grasp that maybe Vince and Kevin stepping back would be a good thing to put new life into the product.

As Cynick pointed out, staying on top for decades makes it impossible to keep up real hype and quality. Just because you CAN exist in this landscape doesn't mean you should. At 70 years old, Vince should be looking to retire and enjoy the fruits of his Labour.

[The CyNick]

And what is it going up against that makes that at all something to be happy with?

What if they had to compete with their flagship show on an actual prime time television night? Where would they rank.

God you're a fucking idiot.

I'm not sure your point here. I dont even think you know your own point, you're so out of your element in this discussion. Every night has prime time. Are you trying to say Monday isn't the largest night for TV viewing?

They compete against everything on TV. Specific to RAW, its against whatever is on. TNT will often have basketball on, College Basketball this time of year on ESPN, NBC Sports has hockey, and then the other random shows on the rest of cable (Discovery, FX, etc). The point is RAW beats everything they compete against (except MNF when its in season) and special programming. This past week for example, the cable news channels saw a massive bump in ratings (CNN was 3X their normal numbers) because of the election coverage. May be shocking to learn, but possibly some of RAW's viewers were more concerned about who is going to potentially lead their country vs. the Dolph Ziggler-Kevin Owens match.

This past Monday RAW was the most watched show among men 18-49 and men 12-34. Thats a massive success. Its a WIN for the night in the TV business. I dont know what else you expect of them.

USA has virtually no other programming in prime time that does big numbers. I remember doing some work related to this, and I believe the analysis showed USA only had one other show Monday-Friday that reached the top 100 shows in terms of ratings - which was Suits. Everything else is all WWE - either RAW or Smackdown. But I know, I dont know what I'm talking about. And I know, RAW "should be doing a 7.0". I sometimes wish it was 1999 too, but its not.

[The CyNick]

It doesn't matter according to CyNick. As that's not currently the situation WWE is in, they're doing great.

Of course, they're doing great by default and not because the product is actually good, consistent, compelling television. If WWE had any real competition, they'd be screwed if they were continually putting out the crap they have been.

Of course, WWE is only one great competitor's show away from finding themselves in a scenario where they'll have to really fight to compete, and not necessarily a wrestling competitor's show either.

Why is it a guarantee that people will watch WWE? I watch WWE, but its not because Mark Henry shows up to my house and threatens to break my neck if I dont watch. Its funny watching you guys chase your tails about this issue. More people watch WWE every week, than just about any other form of entertainment. More people watch WWE than NBA on a regular basis, more than MLB, more than NCAA, NHL, not to mention most of the random shows on cable. But somehow those shows are successful and WWE isnt, because for some reason WWE fans only watch because they have to. Makes no sense.

[The CyNick]

They get beaten every week by Love and Hip Hop when it comes to the 18-49 demo.

Kinda just backs up my point that they'll be alright writing nonsensical, horrifically bad television because children will just watch for the pretty lights, explosions and violence. CyNick being so proud of it on WWE's behalf is hilarious.

Women.

Men are the more coveted demo. WWE wins there, and its not even close. And in terms of overall viewers, RAW again wins.

[The CyNick]

The production of the show isn't too bad. It's super tight for the most part. There are just too many flat segments where I could see your average fan tuning out for something better aka a Seinfeld rerun. I just don't get why it's so hard to grasp that maybe Vince and Kevin stepping back would be a good thing to put new life into the product.

As Cynick pointed out, staying on top for decades makes it impossible to keep up real hype and quality. Just because you CAN exist in this landscape doesn't mean you should. At 70 years old, Vince should be looking to retire and enjoy the fruits of his Labour.

But who says you have to watch all 190 minutes of the show. There are very few shows I sit through for 3 hours straight. I primarily watch sports, and its rare I watch a game from start to finish, I'm all over the dial. So to me when I see a decline in the 3rd hour of RAW, I dont see it as a big deal, its just that people have had their fill of sports entertainment. And also kids going to sleep. But it still shows interest in the product. Its just USA wants the extra hour of prime time programming, and are willing to pay a premium for it. So who is WWE to pass up the cash?

[BigCrippyZ]

Why is it a guarantee that people will watch WWE? I watch WWE, but its not because Mark Henry shows up to my house and threatens to break my neck if I dont watch. Its funny watching you guys chase your tails about this issue. More people watch WWE every week, than just about any other form of entertainment. More people watch WWE than NBA on a regular basis, more than MLB, more than NCAA, NHL, not to mention most of the random shows on cable. But somehow those shows are successful and WWE isnt, because for some reason WWE fans only watch because they have to. Makes no sense.

Because there's no competition for them on Monday nights. This is evidenced by the fact that they get beat by a show on VH1.

Who/what are they competing with exactly during those three hours that has any significant mainstream buzz/appeal?

In addition to college football and the NFL, I can think of numerous other shows that I hear people talk about more often and that have more mainstream appeal and buzz. Walking Dead, Better Call Saul, Gotham, American Horror Story, Fargo, Louie, Grey's Anatomy, How To Get Away With Murder, American Crime.

Granted only some of those are on in direct competition with Raw or SD, but none of them are regularly on for the full length of Raw or SD or have new episodes every week.

Some of these I've never even seen and have no desire to watch but I've heard great things. I've never had anyone in the last 10+ years tell me I missed a great episode of Raw or SD. A segment maybe, but not an episode. I've also never had anyone in the last 10+ years tell me or anyone else I need to start watching Raw or SD and that I or others were missing out. I work with and regularly hang out with tons of current and/or former WWE/pro wrestling fans too.

The point is, despite what you and the WWE would like to be true, all the shows I've listed are likely consistently better written, more compelling, interesting and definitely have more of a mainstream buzz/popularity than Raw or SD.

[BigCrippyZ]

But who says you have to watch all 190 minutes of the show. There are very few shows I sit through for 3 hours straight. I primarily watch sports, and its rare I watch a game from start to finish, I'm all over the dial. So to me when I see a decline in the 3rd hour of RAW, I dont see it as a big deal, its just that people have had their fill of sports entertainment. And also kids going to sleep. But it still shows interest in the product. Its just USA wants the extra hour of prime time programming, and are willing to pay a premium for it. So who is WWE to pass up the cash?

No one's saying you have to. The point is, if it was compelling enough, why would you change the channel? If I'm watching something that's truly compelling and entertaining me, like a great drama or action or sporting event, I'm highly unlikely to change the channel.

Raw and SD used to be so incredibly well written and compelling, to the point where I wouldn't miss it. When I rarely did have to miss it, it was a big deal that I didn't get to experience it live when it first aired. I either knew that something good was going to happen or that something unexpected/shocking was going to happen that either way, I'd regret not seeing live. That's no longer the case.

It actually became an inconvenience to watch it in its current state and I realized I have other things I'd rather do with my time. What's sad is, it doesn't have to be this way. As a fan for some 20 years, I want to watch it and enjoy it, all they have to do is write and book better.

[#1-norm-fan]

Women.

Men are the more coveted demo. WWE wins there, and its not even close. And in terms of overall viewers, RAW again wins.

Are you gonna blame women for Smackdown losing and Raw often running neck-and-neck in the same demographic to 15-year-old reruns of Family Guy, too?

Also, love that last sentence. You literally quoted me to blatantly ignore the entire last paragraph of my post. Usually you just awkwardly try to avoid drawing attention to things you wanna ignore. Amazing.

[The CyNick]

Are you gonna blame women for Smackdown losing and Raw often running neck-and-neck in the same demographic to 15-year-old reruns of Family Guy, too?

Also, love that last sentence. You literally quoted me to blatantly ignore the entire last paragraph of my post. Usually you just awkwardly try to avoid drawing attention to things you wanna ignore. Amazing.

I don't even know what you're talking about with family guy. I haven't seen FG draw more viewers than RAW. I'm not saying its impossible, just havent seen it.

I quoted you because your statement was a combination of not true and ignorant. RAW draws more viewers than the hip hop show end of story. You're right that the rating is sometimes a decimal point higher than RAW. But if you look deeper into the numbers (which I do on a regular basis) you see RAW trounces them in the key demo. RAW also kills them in total viewers. You're hung up on the rating point thing. But if you're an advertiser you just want eyeballs. A show on VH1 might do a slightly higher rating but if fewer people are watching than the show on USA, you will pay more for the show on USA. Provided the demo splits are favorable, and as I've explained, they are for RAW.

And even if it wasnt, were essentially debating whether RAW is #1, #2, or #3 show week in week out. Considering the show is three hours plus the fact that they do better or on par ratings with other shows that are only 30 or 60 minutes, that's a massive massive win for WWE. Essentially USA's entire prime time lineup for Monday and Thursday is WWE. That's close to 40% of their weekday lineup. When WWE is on, USA is at or near the top of the daily ratings. When WWE is not on they are almost 100% shut out of the leaderboard.

That demonstrates WWE is putting on compelling television that people come back for week after week after week. Nobody else in the game is close to being as prolific as WWE is in that regard.

[The CyNick]

Because there's no competition for them on Monday nights. This is evidenced by the fact that they get beat by a show on VH1.

Who/what are they competing with exactly during those three hours that has any significant mainstream buzz/appeal?

In addition to college football and the NFL, I can think of numerous other shows that I hear people talk about more often and that have more mainstream appeal and buzz. Walking Dead, Better Call Saul, Gotham, American Horror Story, Fargo, Louie, Grey's Anatomy, How To Get Away With Murder, American Crime.

Granted only some of those are on in direct competition with Raw or SD, but none of them are regularly on for the full length of Raw or SD or have new episodes every week.

Some of these I've never even seen and have no desire to watch but I've heard great things. I've never had anyone in the last 10+ years tell me I missed a great episode of Raw or SD. A segment maybe, but not an episode. I've also never had anyone in the last 10+ years tell me or anyone else I need to start watching Raw or SD and that I or others were missing out. I work with and regularly hang out with tons of current and/or former WWE/pro wrestling fans too.

The point is, despite what you and the WWE would like to be true, all the shows I've listed are likely consistently better written, more compelling, interesting and definitely have more of a mainstream buzz/popularity than Raw or SD.

A lot to deal with in that post.

First, RAW can only fairly be compared to other shows on cable on Monday. Walking Dead is on Sunday, I also believe some of the shows on your "buzz" list are on network. I don't want to even get into why that's a rediculous comparison.

Further to that, you're talking about mostly one hour shows that produce MAYBE 20 episodes per year. I guarantee if RAW only had to write 20 hours of content every 365 days it would be far more compelling.

You mentioned nobody mentions episodes of RAW or SD. Even when I was coming up during the Attitude Era, I never heard ANYONE ever say RAW was compelling and can't miss. At BEST the odd person would say "hey did you see that guy stone cold driving a beer truck, thst was jokes, not that I watch that shit". I've been a fan of this product for north of 30 years, it's always had more of an underground following than being on par with something like American Idol that everyone is taking about at school or work. So i feel like you're holding the current product to a standard that has never been achieved.

The proof to me that is still compelling is that nothing or check that, very few shows they compete with can beat them. That tells me they are among the most compelling shows on TV on that night. That's a success.

[The CyNick]

No one's saying you have to. The point is, if it was compelling enough, why would you change the channel? If I'm watching something that's truly compelling and entertaining me, like a great drama or action or sporting event, I'm highly unlikely to change the channel.

Raw and SD used to be so incredibly well written and compelling, to the point where I wouldn't miss it. When I rarely did have to miss it, it was a big deal that I didn't get to experience it live when it first aired. I either knew that something good was going to happen or that something unexpected/shocking was going to happen that either way, I'd regret not seeing live. That's no longer the case.

It actually became an inconvenience to watch it in its current state and I realized I have other things I'd rather do with my time. What's sad is, it doesn't have to be this way. As a fan for some 20 years, I want to watch it and enjoy it, all they have to do is write and book better.

Counting just RAW and SD that's 5 hours per week. What other episodic show do you invest 5 hours per week into? Hell i love WWE and it's rare I watch all of RAW and all of SD in a given week. I'm doing other stuff. Doesn't mean i don't enjoy when i do watch.

[#1-norm-fan]

Are you gonna blame women for Smackdown losing and Raw often running neck-and-neck in the same demographic to 15-year-old reruns of Family Guy, too?

I don't even know what you're talking about with family guy. I haven't seen FG draw more viewers than RAW. I'm not saying its impossible, just havent seen it.

This is definitely going in the "CyNick has the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader" mega post...

[#1-norm-fan]

First, RAW can only fairly be compared to other shows on cable on Monday. Walking Dead is on Sunday

lol

[#1-norm-fan]

Raw should move to Sundays so it can TROUNCE Walking Dead in the ratings.

P.S. Walking Dead's ratings have gone up every year over the past 5 seasons despite "TV ratings being down across the board". Raw's have gone down. But we can't make that comparison because Walking Dead isn't on Mondays...

[BigCrippyZ]

Even when I was coming up during the Attitude Era, I never heard ANYONE ever say RAW was compelling and can't miss. At BEST the odd person would say "hey did you see that guy stone cold driving a beer truck, thst was jokes, not that I watch that shit". I've been a fan of this product for north of 30 years, it's always had more of an underground following than being on par with something like American Idol that everyone is taking about at school or work. So i feel like you're holding the current product to a standard that has never been achieved.


Then you're as big of a fucking moron as we all think you are.

If you actually think that folks weren't talking about Raw and SD being can't miss television and that WWE didn't have more mainstream appeal, buzz and exposure during the Attitude era days, then you're a moron, because you either weren't paying attention, have a horrible memory or are being intentionally dense.

Was it all great? No of course not. No show is perfect. The fact is though, WWE had substantially more much mainstream appeal and buzz because of the quality of the writing/booking/product back then. The shows of today that I listed have more mainstream buzz and appeal than Raw or SD because their quality is better.

The fact that WWE has to write 5 hours of television a week is a cop out for laziness and ineptitude by the folks in charge. The fact is the poor quality wouldn't (and shouldn't) be tolerated in another competitive company or with a CEO who wasn't so arrogant and/or out of touch.

[BigCrippyZ]

What other episodic show do you invest 5 hours per week into? Hell i love WWE and it's rare I watch all of RAW and all of SD in a given week. I'm doing other stuff. Doesn't mean i don't enjoy when i do watch.

I used to regularly watch 4+ hours of WWE every week because it was compelling, interesting and entertaining. I was probably busier back then than I am now too, or at least I had less freedom to set my own schedule, etc. than I do now.

I no longer watch any first/live airings of WWE programming and haven't since the Raw after last years Mania. I did catch Rock's segment this past week on the Raw replay because it had some good buzz about it.

I just can't be bothered to care about a product when there's only 1 or two 10-15 minute segments out of 5 hours of programming every week that might be entertaining to me. I'm not going to bother record and watch the whole show to hope for a good segment and I'm definitely not going to record a whole show and skip through to watch one segment every week.

The only reason I did it this week is because it The Rock and he brings the goods 99% of the time. If they had more segments that were actually compelling or entertaining every week, I'd be much more inclined to do so.

[BigCrippyZ]

Raw should move to Sundays so it can TROUNCE Walking Dead in the ratings.

P.S. Walking Dead's ratings have gone up every year over the past 5 seasons despite "TV ratings being down across the board". Raw's have gone down. But we can't make that comparison because Walking Dead isn't on Mondays...

Shhh... :shifty:

:lol: