Don't worry. I've often forgotten who holds the titles in this clusterfuck booking era as well.

True. But they have that.

Cena is still the top guy.

Then you got guys like Taker, Brock , and Rollins just below that.

Then you have the glut of guys like Reigns, Ambrose, Wyatt, Owens, Orton, Sheamus, New Day, Ryback and Ziggler. Any of those guys could move into main event programs and have secondary titles to fight for.

And then another tier of guys who get steady TV time but don't seem to have traction like Rusev, Cesaro, Big Show, Miz, Neville, Barrett, etc

Was instead of is

So you're not happy with Owens as IC champ? Should it have gone to Fandango?

The WWE have succeeded in making me stop caring about Daniel Bryan, Cesaro, Dean Ambrose, Paige and Becky Lynch. They've achieved something with that.

I could add Jack Swagger, Neville, Curtis Axle, Team BAD, and a few others to that list.


Its like if your not the WWE champion or John Cena your not shit. Hell, even the WWE champion cant be booked to look stronger than Cena. If Roman is guy they want to be the next top guy, I think WWE will be in trouble. No one is going to get behind Roman as the top face like they do Cena. I personally believe Roman will be his best as a heel. He tries to do Cena jokes and make people laugh, its just not him. I really think the talent today is better than the late 90s and and early 2000s. I feel the only problem with todays talent is that they depend to much on the WWE. I feel like the rosters of old were more independent and less reliant on the WWE, but also didnt have as many resourses as todays talent do.

Reigns has had no real journey. Thinking about it, if they REALLY wanted Reigns to challenge Lesnar for the WWE Title at WrestleMania this year, I think he should have won the Money in the Bank match for the title. He could have kept the title at Battleground, so he didn't look like a fluke champion, then be destroyed at SummerSlam by Lesnar. That way his win in the Royal Rumble and his challenge to Lesnar would have marked some sort of improvement.

Just realizing that CyNick's inability to understand that there's a huge world to take advantage of between "nothing" and "main event" is the same problem WWE seems to have. Things are making sense.

I can actually see some writer pitching an idea for Damien Sandow for a good, entertaining mid to upper-midcard story for Sandow that is showcased somewhere in the middle of Raw every week and Vince responding with "Fuck that, he's not a main eventer!"

The WWE doesn't set anyone up in the mid-card to have any sort of traction where they can step up. A guy is either a main eventer or they're nothing. Then when they've got no main eventers left, they try to pretend one of the nothing guys can suddenly do it and wonder why it doesn't get over.

Sandow was so simple to book coming out of WrestleMania. He wants to fight Miz, but Miz is a chickenshit heel. Maybe Miz ducks out of their first scheduled match at Extreme Rules, because he's got "set commitments" and names Big Show as a replacement. This is stemming from Show winning the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal against Sandow. You have Show toss around Sandow, but have Sandow show enough fight that people get behind him and think he *might* have a chance. Show wins the match after Miz sticks his neck in, and people now REALLY want to see Sandow get his hands on Miz.

Payback comes around and you have conflict established between two former Money in the Bank Winners who have tag history and personal issues. Miz acts like this thing is in the bag, but everyone is clamoring for Sandow to take it. The match sees Sandow get a large measure of personal retribution when he catches Miz in a full nelson, but instead of dropping him into the Skull-Crushing Finale, he brings back You're Welcome and gets the pin. He does a cartwheel after the match and everybody marks out.

You can then maybe have both guys in Money in the Bank and have them cancel each other out. Battleground could see one more match between the two where Sandow busts out a Figure Four and makes Miz tap out to "his own" hold.

You've now taken Sandow through to July, building up the fans' faith in him, his moveset and hopefully getting him more and more over. He might be selling a few t-shirts at this point. It is around here you can consider putting a mid-card championship on the guy. Maybe he holds that for a few weeks until The Miz costs him the title and they head towards a big blow-off in some sort of gimmick match down the stretch, which Sandow again wins, because he's the guy you're really trying to help get a footing.

You're absolutely hilarious.

Daniel Bryan was the man after 30. He got injured. Somehow that's WWE's fault? And i get called a troll? Jokes!!!!!!!!!

Aside from Sasha who will be a star in time, all of those guys had lower mid card ceilings.

You really think Curtis Axel is a star waiting to happen? He's lucky to have a job.

You guys really need to appreciate the difference between a money player and a comedy act.

To be fair, before he got hurt he got stuck with the big red albatross

Were you watching when Sandow was featured week in and week out? He did exactly what you wanted. He had a nice little program based on comedy. It ran is course!

He's not talented enough to transition to a serious program where he can move up the card. The only thing he can do is comedy. That's cool, that means you are barely hanging on to a TV spot.

Let me guess, that Mega Powers parody angle should have taken those guys through Mania where they could explode?

WWE needs to put out serious business rasslin with 30 minute matches and lots of technical rasslin moves and rest holds. That's what people want.

What's the problem with that? Kane is a vet who can help establish Bryan as a credible champion. Who should he have programed with and would that have prevented him from going down?

You're booking is extremely unrealistic.

You just booked an program with opening card guys for like 4 months. But you failed to mention what they will do on all the TVs in between. They would have to fight about 20 times to keep that going. Maybe a best of 21 series??

Wyatts vs Reigns was a long term program

Bellas vs Paige seemed to last a long time

Cena vs Owens was over several months

That program was atrocious. Bryan had to be scared of a guy he was hugging less than a year before who rarely won, and Brie suddenly was hanging off of Bryan on TV playing the damsel in distress. Brie's acting = not good.

Let us see. Orton could've had a rematch, Batista could have had a shot, Wyatt could have stepped up after beating Bryan at the Rumble, HHH could've wanted a shot to redeem his Mania loss, even Cesaro (who just aligned with the guy who masterminded the ending of the Streak and was at his hottest) could've stepped up for a month.

I think there's a disconnect of what the mid card is

A standard WWE PPV looks like this:
1. World Title Match
2. Womens match
3. Tag match
4-8. Random matches (including IC and US titles)

If Cena isn't in the world title picture, you know he has a spot.

That leaves 3-4 matches for the rest of the guys. To me just being featured on a PPV means a lot. The 2nd match in could involve a guy like Randy Orton. Is he considered opening card? He could also easily be headlining against a guy like Rollins.

I understand the desire to see a real ladder system, but then what do you do when you reach the top but don't win the belt? You end up being like Orton or Sheamus or even Cena right now. You're somewhere in the middle of the card moving from program to program. So a ladder system doesn't always work.

HHH, Orton and Batista were busy trying to elevate The Shield.

Cesaro would have been a cold contender. Wouldn't have helped anything.

Bryan was crazy over at that point, he was fine with Kane. As for Brie, I'm sure he was pro giving his gf more TV time. It's not WWEs fault she's a terrible actress.

<font color=goldenrod>The CyNick loves Double Double E</font>

So does everyone here.

Of course he's "not talented enough". Because that would mean you'd have to admit that WWE is just inept and suffers from ADD too much to keep a talented guy in an entertaining role on television. And we can't have that now, can we? So we'll just blame Damien Sandow for not being talented enough and we can stay in our "WWE WRITERS #1" bubble.

SHEEEEEEEEEP

I remember Hunter stating in a interview that Sandow was indeed talented, but needed something to click. Then the change from Idol Stevens to the Intellectual Savior of the Masses was born, and Hunter mentioned how it was something they could run with that Sandow was clearly good with. He got heat, he got over, and he was good enough to be elevated. Instead, they killed the MITB push, jobbed him out, and only when they squandered any heat he had left did they put him in a comedy role.

Feel like CyNick purposely glosses over periods of time where there was legit opportunity for WWE and co to make a valuable upper mid card talent that was squashed for no reason whatsoever.

And not everyone gets loves WWE. Quite a number of us watch or keep eyes on the product via habit, as its been a staple in our lives since we were children. I openly complain about the product and I far from love it. I more or less tolerate it, but even the I find myself tuning out of the hulu episodes they edit because even at half the length, the show is not interesting enough to hold my attention.

I remember immediately after Sandow won MITB, he went on some ridiculous losing streak. He even lost to R-Truth a couple weeks after winning it on Superstars I think. lol

Seriously would love to hear the thought process behind giving a guy a major title/accomplishment to build off of and then immediately going out of your way to job them out left and right.

Wasn't that a running gag for a while? MITB winners suddenly going on losing steaks?

It's a running gag for most champions over recent years. It just so happens the MITB case doesn't get defended so there's no title matches that they need to have them win here and there just to keep it on them. They could just job them out endlessly.

I liked Sandows promos when he was doing the Intellectual thing, but in the ring I thought he was the shits. His body is soft, which shows a lack of commitment to his craft, and he never learned how to keep a crowd in a match.

The comedy thing where he was doing the stunt guy gimmick kept him on TV, but you can only go so far with him. I remember watching his matches closely after he turned on Miz, and he still had the same issues in the ring. He couldnt put it all together.

I think some people on here look at a guy who does one thing well (either something in the ring, or a catchphrase that gets over, etc) and they assume they can put everything together to move up the card. Some guys just cant do it. Sandow is one of those guys.

Whereas a guy like say Kevin Owens seems to have all the tools. His issue is he thinks he can eat cheesburgers all day every day and be positioned as a main eventer. He would be better off showing commitment in all aspects of the business.

Polkadot Door was a staple of my life. I gave it up when it stopped appealing to me. I liked House of Cards, then it got shit. Im not planning to match next season.

Some of you guys are either masochists, self loathing sports entertainment fans, or complainers for the sake of complaining.

Simple.

MITB is generally won by heels. Its the ultimate chicken shit way to win the title. For most guys who win the briefcase, they are going to eventually win the title. By having guys beat them, it creates future challengers down the line.

Have you seen him eating cheeseburgers all day or are you just basing that on his weight? The dudes in shape, he shows that in the ring. Some guys are just built different and won't have a ripped body but it doesn't mean he eats cheese burgers all day.

Dusty Rhodes didn't take his craft seriously since he was a fat fuck who c ate cheeseburgers all day. #CyNickLogic

Think about it from the side of the promoter!


In the wrestling industry its impossible to make everyone happy.


If you keep only making a few certain guys credible, people on forums and on facebook will constantly say how "Youre not fair to not push this guy" and they will do this for any and every guy. So company's fall into the trap of trying to make everyone look credible and then no one looks credible.
In CHW at least...you got people who you know are there to job...like Robb Banks...CHW also gets a lot of, "Why don't you push guys Z or Y" but CHW knows that pushing everyone will mean NO ONE gets pushed and leads to a worst product!


A lot of fan's don't realize what its like behind the scenes of the wrestle industry.

Shut the fuck up. Pretending you're a wrestler in your mom's backyard is not equivalent to being in the wresting industry. Go dive off a cliff.

Yeah, Santino and R-Truth beat Damien Sandow so that it could lead to a world title match months later. Makes sense.

Don't you remember the pushes they got after doing so fan? That's how you build credible headliners. Losing is failing in an upward direction.

I was just using that as a clever comment. No offense meant to Owens

I agree not everyone needs to be chiseled, but there are limits to being the chubby guy who can work.

If Kevin Owens can prove he can draw like Dusty did, he can eat whatever he wants.

I honestly don't remember the entire timeline. You casual watchers of the product seem to have a better handle on the order of events.

I just know I never thought Sandow was anything more than a funny guy. I never saw him have a great match.

So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

No, but they SHOULD win singles matches more than barely over 70% of the time.

A) For fuck's sake, he didn't say that. Seriously, you seem to enjoy arguing, but learn to stop using ad hominem arguments.

and

B) You know what? It doesn't matter as much in WWE or how guys are presented in American professional wrestling, but in Japan, when guys are figured in to be in the main event portion of a big show, they DON'T lose heading into it. I think it was last year that a whole bunch of top Japanese stars didn't lose a match from September-January.

What this does is put momentum behind all the top stars in the company. If you're going to be a top star, then there needs to be guys that just can't beat you. This is why, yes, a ladder system is completely appropriate. It doesn't mean they won't one day climb the ladder themselves, but you need to have pillars that are built, so that when they clash, something has got to give. This is how you build up huge stars to have matches against each other to translate that tension into revenue.

This used to be the way professional wrestling in America worked too. Different times? In some senses, but not in others. NXT -- the most critically acclaimed program the WWE has under its umbrella -- still exploits this method, and has a lot of success generating serious interest for his NXT Takeover shows.

Things like having a three-hour RAW get in the way. Creatively, that has to be one of the most annoying and draining things to the WWE right now. It's harder to leave guys off shows and hold interest with squash matches for that long. But I'm sure that if you really wanted to make people care about Dolph Ziggler vs. Tyler Breeze, you don't need to have them wrestle each other every week on RAW. Or across from each other in tag matches. Or also against other people in clusterfucks. You could have Tyler Breeze wrestle a match, win it. You can then have Ziggler wrestle a match, win it. You can then have one guy promo. You can then have one guy retort.

This stuff works, CyNick. Having every guy on every show win and lose an even number of matches does nothing for anybody. Except for maybe John Cena, who the company needs to count on for longer yet. But at some point it's going to be more of a curse than a blessing for the guy.

There isabsolutely no benefit to losing on a consistent basis. Especially when you're supposed to be a slimy shit bag who only a year ago was weaseling his way to victory after victory only to somehow forget how to win. Why would fans invest in a loser?

I gotta admit, I have no idea what ad hominem means. I hear it now and then, but goes over my head.

People say Kobashi vs ishawa is the greatest match of all time. People always claim that this is one of the greatest matches of all time. I have to admit I just don't care for these types of matches. I can't even get through entire matches, and I've tried on several occasions. I feel like Japanese wrestling insists upon itself. I try to get into it, but it's like they are speaking another language. I just for care for it, give me Spirit Squad vs DX any day. I feel their booking style holds no relevance for what WWE is trying to portray.

NXT only has one hour of TV per week and appeals to a niche audience. Look at their avg attendance for house shows. It's apples and oranges. On top of that, it's a feeder system, so it's easier to build guys up, have then peak, and then they are gone. That's not the case in WWE. In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of.

I'm sure writing 3 hours of RAW and 2 hours of SD is tough, but it's necessary. These other companies - Japan, shitty territories back in the day were not companies that were worth well over a billion dollars and employeed a small towns worth of people. If you want to recommend the WWE makes less money, sure you could make the booking to appeal to a smaller group of people.

You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

Its all about progression.

Rollins weasels his way to the MITB and then the WWE title. At the beginning he lost non title matches, but still hung on to the title. In recent months his character has evolved. In storyline is because HHH tested him, and with each passing test he got stronger. Yeah he survived against Brock, but he didn't beat him. Yeah he beat Cena, but he had help. Then the worm starts to turn. He beat Sting clean, he beat Kane clean. He's won several matches in TV lately all clean. It's all part of a progression in his character. I think it will continue with Reigns and possibly turn the page on a new chapter on the growth of his character.

Through the rest of 2015 and into 2016 he will likely become a more dominant player and the fans will take the journey with him and start to get behind him. If he had been dummying the roster since 2014 as a heel there would be no journey to speak of.

You guys gotta remember, the Seth Rollins book needs to have many chapters. Ideally its a story that's told over the next 15 years not 15 months. Just remember the word progression.

Lol, you'd take Spirit Squad vs DX over Japanese wrestling. NJPW does a really good job booking wise and the matches are always entertaining. Give me Bullet club vs Chaos over anything silly WWE does.

Except for the last 10+ years where they haven't created any new stars, basically since they've gotten and stayed further and further away from the ladder system mentioned above.

No you don't have to turn all TV into squash matches. All we're saying is don't have two guys basically rehash the same segments and matches week after week just because they're feuding. And no, adding tag matches or clusterfuck multiman tag team matches are not variants when you also have those matches repeatedly. No one is saying you can't have feuding guys have the occasional match on TV, just don't do it EVERY week. For example, have guys face jobbers/lowercard guys every other week instead of having the same matches/segments every week.

Diffrrent strokes

They haven't created new stars since 05? Lol

Right so you're essentially suggesting a lot more squash matches. Nobody is going to believe Zack Ryder can beat Kevin Owens. Eventually that will lead to people knowing you can skip segment after segment. And do you want Owens v Ryder in an 8 minute match? In theory squashes are quick, so you will need more of them. Soon RAW would have 30 matches per show. What a trainwreck that would be.

Again, you're making assumptions, I didn't say anything about squash matches. I simply said have different matches outside of basically the same matches every week. Sure, some weeks they might be squashes, some weeks they might be a more competitive match with someone else at or a little above or below the talent's level on the card, and some weeks they'll have a match involving who they're feuding with. The point isn't to have all squash matches, the point is to quit having the same repetitive matches every week that result in me no longer watching and not building anyone.

New guys get built every year. Do you think The Shield got over by mistake? Ambrose loses matches, he's still over. Bray loses TONS of matches, he's over. New Day are more established in the last 3 months than their entire careers combined. Kevin Owens is moving up the card.

You're looking at things from the perspective of the 1% of the WWE Universe. I don't believe the average fan sits there and goes "Ryback has only won 75% off his matches, he should be winning 93.5% in order for me to care about him". They just look at his character, his promos, his look, his skills, and determine if he's worth caring about.

I agree that in long term programs the matches can get repititive, but it's a tough balancing act. If you wait till just before a PPV to announce matches, people chirp about on the fly booking and no long term planning. When they have long drawn out feuds where guys are battling week after week people say "we've seen these guys fight too many times". Like a lot of things with the IWC you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The kicker is the IWC represents such a small fraction of the audience, and are the most loyal, that you waste time appealing to their whims.

When you need to build 7-8 programs every month, it's tough to ensure everyone in those matches are on winning streaks and not fighting one another. Look at tag teams. How many teams can you have at one time? 5 or 6? If New Day is fighting The Dudleys how do you get 8 TV shots without a lot of either singles matches or 6-8 man tags to keep the program going? Do you job every other team to those two teams fighting for the championships? If you do that, who is left to contend next month?

Maybe the WWE does infact have to much programming on TV.

Maybe, but people keep watching in droves

I would agree that 99% of people watching aren't counting the wins/losses necessarily but they definitely notice trends and boring repetition.

I also don't think that the IWC is as small a portion of the audience as WWE and folks like yourself would like to admit. I'd be willing to bet that the IWC as a whole (not just indie fanboys or guys who will watch any wrestling, etc.) actually probably makes up about 25% of the WWE audience.

Now, I've gone back and watched a lot of Attitude era RAWs and PPVs on the WWE Network and Youtube, etc. in the last few years. No doubt, some of the writing and booking was shitty and/or REPETITIVE much like today. That being said, there was not nearly the amount of repetition in terms of week to week, month to month, matches/segments that there is today. In addition, the stories were progressing and made more sense (i.e., the stakes were always raised and/or there was a reason for the matches taking place). Back then, they were able to book 7-8 feuds a month without things getting repetitive with even less TV time.

Now maybe that was a result of non-existent long term planning (i.e., chaos) or better long term planning, I don't know. Whatever the case, it resulted in better quality product, even if you take out the sensationalism of the violence/sex content.

If you think that today's guys coming up the ranks like Bray, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, New Day, etc. are any where near as over as guys like Shamrock, Kane, Benoit, Jericho, New Age Outlaws, HHH, Angle, etc. when they were in the same position coming up the ranks, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. I'd argue it shows in the crowd reactions and ratings too.

Yeah, yeah. I know, "But, media's consumed differently now! There's so much competition!" "These guys just aren't as good as those guys were!" I'm even willing to concede that in some cases, some guys today probably aren't as good as their counterparts from back then but that's not enough. It's always some other excuse other than a systemic problem within the company (i.e., writing, over scripting, booking, etc.) even when confronted with resulting evidence like ratings. The problem with your theory is that in comparing ratings averages for the past 9 years, RAW ratings have slowly declined while Monday Night Football ratings have either stayed stable or increased year to year.

I understand that RAW will never beat MNF in the ratings. Still the question must be asked. Why has the interest in Monday Night Football not decreased with all the "new" media competition? Is it because MNF, like many other non-sports (dramas, comedies, etc.) shows, and unlike RAW, those programs present compelling television that isn't repetitive week to week?

No way its 25%. If it was there would be 1000 people posting on a place like this. Keep in mind, when I say IWC, In taking about the person who follows all the backstage news and reads dirt sheets.

I'll admit I didn't do the research you apparently did, but I feel like during the Attitude Era, I saw some combination of Austin, Rock, Taker, and Foley in matches over a 3 year period. You have to remember that RAW in 1998 was drastically different, and was touching on material that was never done before. The result was strong TV ratings, but significantly hurt the image of the company long term. It's damage they are still to this day trying to reverse, and it's cost them big time revenue. The booking to me was not much different than it is today. I would be curious about how specifically you saw the booking as different. I remember a ton of pointless tag matches with top guys back then. All usually ended with a schmoze and a bunch of Stunners or Austin looking angrily at Vince.

You hit the nail on the head, the difference is the talent. The talent today wants success handed to them. The talent back then fought for what they thought was best. And the person in charge then was the same guy today. Why is it that Steve Austin fought his way out of midcard obscurity but a guy like Cesaro is happy being on TV and posting goofy pics backstage? On top of that, you had a plethora of hall of famers back then, I'm not sure we have that luxury today. It's like a pro sports team, you have some years with amazing talent, other years its mediocre.

You asked about MNF. Great question. Simple answer is WWE programming is more like a TV drama, you can catch up on it at any time. MNF needs to be consumed live. That's why rights fees for sports properties has gone up so much in the last 5 years or so. Live sports are You Tube and DVR proof. RAW doesn't have that luxury because it's entertainment. That said, there are not too many weekly storyline driven TV shows that have remained consistently at the top of the charts like WWE has.

I'm not going to address the whole thing, because most of it is just...yeck, but I will correct you: No, squash matches aren't the only way to do that. John Cena has been very well protected, as has Randy Orton, as has The Undertaker, as is Brock Lesnar now. When Roman Reigns got pinned at Elimination Chamber '14, it was his second ever pinfall loss in WWE. That's 15 months into his WWE stint. Look at what the WWE did with Rusev.

The idea that you have to do squashes to keep guys strong is false. I would do more squashes, don't get me wrong. I think some of the girls could really get something out of it. Bring in Evie to put over the new heel Paige as she builds momentum for Charlotte and the Divas Title. Maybe you've heard of the KISS method? Keep It Simple, Stupid.

You say NXT appeals to a niche audience? I think NXT appeals to a niche of the WWE audience, but I think the WWE appeals to a niche of the television audience. Less people are watching wrestling than almost ever before, and a lot of that might have to do with the things that violate that KISS method, and be results from the Russo-led hot-shotting during the Attitude era, and the soap opera residue that people are now conditioned to and see right through. Why the fuck are there cameras in Triple H and Stephanie's office as they are talking about their evil schemes?

So, yes, NXT appeals to a niche section of the WWE audience -- because it's wrestling, and not so much the circus.

"In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of."

YES! That is why the WWE fucking sucks at the moment -- they're not doing that! Progress! I suppose.

The internet is here to stay, guys. Sorry, but people use it these days. That's why you see tastes a-changing, not only in wrestling, but in a lot of different ways people think and digest media. To think that there could have been a "YES! Movement" behind Paul London in 2004 is absolutely mind-boggling, but things are different now.

This idea that the average wrestling fan doesn't care about the online stuff is a bit silly. Maybe they aren't as heavily invested in the product as hardcore members of the IWC, but that is why you actually need a captivating product to reel them in.

I remember when wrestling used to be a live presentation. People used to go and leave the house and actually watch that shit.

I really want Jim Cornette to sign up to these forums and just eviscerate CyNick.

I feel like I'm unwillingly sucking the consciousness of Jim Cornette into this thread, and am going to cause the poor man headaches.

No matter what I said, you would say he "eviscerated" me.

I would out point him though. Guaranteed.

What they are doing now is simply not working, it is doing the exact opposite. It is the reason why aside from John Cena they have part timers. They need to have the occasional jobber in there, perhap rather than wrestle every week they sit in during a match and talk smack and maybe even cost someone a match that way.... to further the feud rather than have Cesaro lose because the Big Show needed a win before the PPV. The ratings are down because the product is STALE, the fanvorites are JOBBING OUT every other week killing their momentum.

Yep they know how to make stars .. just look at the indy talent on the main roster.... Their main issue is they do not know how to push the stars the fans create... You know the ones that give them their money....

So in your mind they are struggling to make money?

Just going off the title but I think everyone is credible. That is what is wrong though. There is no one who stands out anymore because everyone is on or very close to the same level as everyone else.

I think the issue is more that the people who follow dirt sheets like a certain style of product. So when they see a new guy that THEY like, they want to see them pushed to the moon.

When WWE brings in a guy, I think they take guys they see a future in and like to throw them in the deep water to see how good they are and to quickly establish them as someone in the top mix.

But a variety of things can happen, maybe the guy doesnt get over quickly, maybe they are a nightmare backstage, maybe they just run their course and come back to the middle of the pack. This has happened throughout the whole history of WWE, it's not a new thing. But people are acting like it's new.

Not at all the fact that people can tell when they hear a pin drop in the arena and shit not getting over... or they can just tell plain crap t.v. Not that at all.

The "certain style of product" argument doesn't hold much weight either. I've spent plenty of time arguing with people about the indy darling type not being the kind of guys you should build a company around if you want to appeal to a more mainstream audience. I know a lot of guys here who prefer more of a "sports entertainment" product that pure "rassln'".

And the one place they can all come together on is "My God, whatever they're trying to produce right now is dog shit." They somehow manage to be so bad at the basics of pushing guys long term, building heat for matches and simply telling coherent stories. that they fail miserably on both sides of the spectrum.

Sports entertainment

How about answering my post?
In any case i believe that although they are making money their booking is probably costing them more money in the long run. With the talent they have and the avenues available to them this company should be making more money than what they are and part of that is how they push their roster.

I've thought this for awhile now.

Kinda in the "too much of a good thing" school of thought. An hour of WWE a week (pre RAW- All American Wrestling, Superstars of Wrestling), and maybe a half an hour of whatever else you could get a fix of from NWA/WCW or any regional territory with some local weekend TV time. There seemed to be more done with less.

And it is not just reflected by possibly having "too much" TV time (and squandering a lot of it on the same talent all the time), but booking these large, very impersonal venues. A live WWE wrestling event has evolved into a social event instead of a spectacle for fans, if you get what I mean.

It is one of the (myriad of) reasons for the success of NXT- and I don't just mean the tapings, but the live events. And with the possible exception of the Takeover from Barklay's Center (as there were *other things* going on), pretty much the crowds are more on the intimate side. The people who are there want to be there. They want to see the talent and enjoy the show for what it's supposed to be instead of going to simply say they were there. NXT is sort of in the same feel as ECW in the mid 90's, or a WWE house show in the early to mid 80's.

They've been able to create a hot atmosphere in large venues in the past though. It just takes good booking over an extended period of time that draws in a vocal crowd who can get lost in the show as opposed to the crowds now who come for wrestling but then realize it was a bad idea when they get there and basically sit on their hands for 3 hours trying not to fall asleep.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wOy6b6X9lws" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This was 3 years ago. If only they were competent enough to roll with this instead of willingly pissing it away and leaving themselves in the situation they're in now where they're praying Roman Reigns can get to the point one day that they managed to get Ryback to then.

I don't think Roman Reigns is as incompetent as Ryback though. It'll be tough.

They will likely bring in more money this year than they ever have. In your expert opinion, how much revenue should WWE be making for YOU to consider them successful.

How many consecutive Mania shows should they sell with more than 60k fans? If they sell 100k for Dallas does that tell you the product is hot or cold? They are one of the most popular You Tube channels. Does that mean they are doing well or poorly?

When people come back and buy tickets again its usually because they had a good time the previous show.

You really got a hard on for Ryback eh? He at least seems to speak up for himself. If only he was more talented.

Ryback is anazing. The WWE screwed up so bad with him.

Amazingly bad in the ring.

Ryback > Whatever thing it is that DTTS loves

I've got a "hard on" for well-booked guys with star quality. I actually like the "Vince type". I think they draw well in wrestling when booked properly, too. Ryback was a prototypical WWE superstar, they pushed him as such... and it actually worked.

If only they didn't derp it away by saying "Holy shit, this guy we made into a monster and put in the main event is getting over with the crowd! Now let's start having him lose and let it culminate with a clean loss at WrestleMania to Mark Henry!" Genius booking.

Why is he bad exactly? He keeps me entertained though all of his matches.

And what happens once the Part timers are too old or too busy to come back?
What happens if Cena injuries catch up to him and he ends up on the shelf?
How are their house shows doing compared to 10 years ago? 15 years ago?

Think there's a difference between making loads of money and having an interesting, well written product. CM Punk's pipe bomb said it best; Vince McMahon is gonna make money in spite of himself. However, just because the company is making money, it doesn't mean it can't get better or be more entertaining to the masses. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Some random points:

* Fastway is a bad-ass.

* I'm not a big Ryback fan. At all. But jobbing him out to Henry was one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever seen in my life.

* There's a difference between revenue and profits.

* A business model goes much deeper than anything CyNick has implied.

* The creative direction of something is, indeed, much different from its commercial success. Criticial success and commercial success are not causally linked.

* I appreciate the WWE's success, which is why I don't expect them to drop Total Divas or RAW's third hour anytime soon.

* lolstockdrops

* You can use cloak and dagger tactics to dress up increases or decreases in many different ways.

* The WWE product still fucking sucks.

* Cesaro is the best.