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!

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.

Re-posting for greatness

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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 don't get what that has to with anything.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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"

Being a big bombastic butthole will do you no favours.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Yes by 1%

Down 10% from last year

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.

You don't hold a candle to gertner

That's cool

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.

lmfao Yeah I'm sure they really give a shit

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.

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.

Mm hmmm

I love when Dale loses a debate

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

:roll: Meltzer sheep

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

Is CyNick in the television business?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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...

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

Nice rating. #1 in viewership by a lot.

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.

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.

No comment

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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

<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>

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.

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.

Is Ambrose-Owens compelling enough?

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

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.

<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>

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".

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!"

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.

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

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?