Hmmmm, Daniel Bryan and Cm Punk are franchise players right?
 

CM Punk vs. Daniel Bryan and Lord Tensai in the overrun actually lost viewers – 105,000 for a 2.94 rating. It’s almost impossible to lose viewers in the overrun because you’ve got people tuning into the USA Network for their next show.


Feel free to blow me at your will.

Funny thing is that I saw this, and thought to myself, "Wonder if Gertner is aware of this?"

Gertner is always aware of everything.

TBF, maybe 2 people here have referred to Punk and Bryan as "Franchise Players".

blame it on Albert

I've seen multiple people refer to these two at least as main eventers. Which they are not.

They obviously are. They outpopped DX after all.

Blowjobs are blowjobs, whether it's 2, or 20.

Fixed.

Blame it on the black star
Blame it on the falling sky
Blame it on the satellite that beams me home

And the Rock's return match at survivor series did horrible numbers so he must not be a "Main Eventer" either.

How about your fat gf

How'd Wrestlemania go

:lol:

Punk's proven to be good for business so the argument is invalid on him. MoFo's data if correct shows that if anything it's Daniel Bryan who's the cause here, though Tensai probably didn't help any.

To be fair any 'new' star is going to lose viewers at this point though. WWE hasn't built anyone up as a real deal in ages so it's no wonder people don't take them seriously.

I hate how we look deep into the "numbers" to determine our opinions on wrestling matches/segments.

Blakeamus is right. Back in the day, before all these numbers were available to the fans we wouldn't even be having a conversation this stupid. Honestly I almost miss the days when we had to just go by what WWE let us know.

Yes, God forbid the truth coming out

I watch Raw on Youtube specifically so I can skip Daniel Bryan stuff, its just funny to laugh at how many ppl hate him though.

Yes, God forbid that we can't have an opinion without being influenced by what the "numbers" show.

It's a friggen business. Of course you have to go by numbers.

I can go with your opinion of how you feel towards Daniel Bryan as a worker, but when I see people make their opinions by "going by the numbers", I wonder if the person is really a fan of "wrestling" or a fan of the ratings. They seemed too concern on what they scooped up from information.

It's a business and numbers are important...YES! But let VINCE MCMAHON be concern of his BUSINESS. Let's enjoy wrestling without spoiling ourselves over numbers to determine our views on the product!

I remember reading there was a RAW sometime in 97 headlined by Steve Austin vs. Undertaker, which was the lowest rated RAW at the time. Besides, it's not like Cena is such a huge ratings draw. I wish somebody could pull up the numbers during Cena's first year on top. He sells shitloads of merch, sure, but so does Punk.

Plus, JBL was such a ratings draw too, wasn't he Gertner?

Yes it is, but I'm not involved in the business so I don't have to go by (or give a shit about) the numbers.

Never said he was. He's my favourite wrestler. I'm just not a fan boy who spew bull shit.

You do when people claim that Daniel Bryan is this huge sensation, should be main eventing, some people saying he's a "franchise player", when it's completely obvious that he isn't a ratings draw at all. You shouldn't be losing viewers in your main events.

Okay is your opinion of Daniel Bryan influenced by the "numbers" Gertner?

Ok, well, even if Punk isn't a "franchise player" (who really is these days though, tbf), he's still a credible main eventer, and it didn't take him several years of being forced down everybody's throats as a big deal to get there (I'm looking at you Orton). I can see why the overhyping by the IWC of certain guys is annoying, but to act like he doesn't have any appeal is ludicrous. Daniel Bryan, on the other hand, is a great talent, but definitely not franchise material. He's a guy that is credible in a top spot when they need him, but not someone who draws big money. He can have a good match with anybody and make them look good. You need a few guys like that hovering around.

Blame it on the rain that was fallin', fallin'
Blame it on the stars that shine at night

'Course, that's not what's being done here. At worst, it's using the numbers to justify existing feelings.

That pole doesn't look capable of catching that fish. Something doesn't smell right here.

It's justifying my opinion

A perfect example. Rock couldn't draw big numbers for Survivor Series, but draw well for WM. The reason it didn't appeal more buys for Survivor Series was the storytelling. Why have ROCK accept Cena's offer to be a tag partner when he didn't like him? Where is my traditional survivor series matches? If you want to blame "the numbers" on anyone, blame it on the writers.

What I am getting at is people who has their feeligns influenced ONLY on numbers.

Well that is why I ask, because sometimes it's seems that people give their opinion solely on the numbers...I figured that you were justifying it, because I have read your posts of how you feel about Daniel Bryan. But I am talking about how when a poster or a "wrestling fan" proclaims this guy sucks BECAUSE of the numbers.

I know Survivor Series was never going to come close, and the booking was fine. But I was thinking, what if? Like, what could of been done to give it just a little bit of a spike in PPV buys. The "Miz was to blame for Survivor Series buyrate" was ridiculous.

Partially to blame for Survivor Series having lower numbers than Wrestlemania is that some casual marks mistake SS as a tie-in for the TV show "Survivor."

It's only obvious that Gertner has somehow pulled a Doctor Doom and has an army of Gertbots stationed everywhere programmed to changing the channel every time Daniel Bryan is on.

Taker, Rock, & HHH got over during a time period when things weren't rushed, and characters were allowed more time to grow organically. Cena, I'll give you, but it took years of him beating everybody to get to that point. If Punk went on a 5 year winning streak and 10 world titles, he'd be at that point probably. Lesnar I'll give you, although his UFC run helped make him into the powerhouse draw he is now. And even though I like Orton to some degree, and he is one of the biggest stars of this era, he has never been a household name on the level of the other names mentioned really.

Really? And who are these imaginary people?

Yes, but you see, you're using logic.

I'm not debating anything you say here. My only point is that Punk isn't on Cena's level because the WWE doesn't want him to be, or see that value in him. Orton is untouchable, you're right. The WWE decided in 2002-03 that Cena & Orton were gonna be the big stars of this era. The WWE really hasn't gotten behind anybody new in such a big way since, so to blame Punk and say "Oh, he isn't on there level". Well, of course not, he hasn't gotten that multi year push. I don't know if he'll get to Cena's status or not, but I definitely think he could surpass Orton with time, as he's much more versatile.

As a fan, I still don't have to worry about the numbers. I can like a certain guy without knowing whether or not he's a ratings draw. If I'm a fan of someone, I'll tune in to watch no matter what he's doing.

That is, he would be a draw for me and I still wouldn't have to care about the ratings one bit.

It's just that Cena has to be the least liked top babyface ever. Once he became a main eventer, they dropped everything from his act that got him over so big in the first place. If any other top babyface got the reactions he got, they would have been depushed. Cena has got booed by half the crowd for years, and they play it off by saying he's "controversial." No matter how much they try, nobody really see's him on the level of The Rock or Hogan. I'm not saying that Punk is necessarily the "next big thing", or anything like that, but at least he's a babyface that doesn't get booed out of every building. No avenue of business has increased with Cena on top besides merch sales. And also, I don't believe that all it takes is a big push to get to the top. However, that's pretty much what they have done with Cena really. Austin, Hogan, Rock, or none of those guys had to win as much as Cena did to make a name. It just seems that the WWE doesn't know how to build stars longterm anymore, and there plan with Cena was just to have him plow through everybody, instead of listening to the crowds.

I know he doesn't like Bryan, and I never said Bryan was a franchise player. But I don't have to look at the numbers as a fan because I'm going to tune in when someone I like is featured whether lots of others do or not.

Yeah, pretty much. I would never argue that Daniel Bryan is a franchise player. Anybody who says he is is delusional. However, he fills a void left when Benoit died. He's an old school technician, who appeals to a niche. A good guy to have around, very talented, but not interesting to the casual fan. At the end of the day, I like who I like. Justin Bieber sells more records than Testament, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's better.

Ok, well, maybe Hogan did, but times were different back then. Plus, people weren't sick to death of him winning all the time.

about the Cena booing stuff (gonna go all science right now, well for #1 anyway):

1. booing is a much deeper sound than a cheer coming from anybody. 2,000 people booing (especially when it's mostly made up of 18-30 year old males) in a 10,000 people strong crowd is always going come across really quite loud. This doesn't mean it's a majority, half or any hugely significant number of people except for in certain situations (see: against Rock, in Chicago against Punk, in a "smart" city, the Mania crowd made up from across the world etc)

2. most of those booing Cena these days don't even know why they're doing it (check out everytime he does something unexpected/"cool" and check out the pops (worked) before some of them realize they're supposed to be booing, you know, because it's cool and stuff)

3. if John Cena was around in the Hogan era that you mention, he'd have been a monster. Vice versa if Hogan was just coming through today (he'd get "The Cena Pop")

4. the amount of merch he shifts pretty much speaks for itself in terms of just how popular he is. The vast majority of the people as far as I can see that boo Cena are internet/smart/wannabe smart/follow the crowd fans. WWE's paying audience in terms of live gates, merch, PPV buys etc is mostly made from the casual/non smart fan. The amount of casual male fans I come across who are Cena fans always "pleasantly" surprises me.

5. I'll admit, I'd love to see him turn heel, I've said for years that with the amount of ammunition/natural build he has for a heel turn, it could be incredible. But it has nothing to really do with listening to the crowds. What good does it do turning a guy heel just because small parts of the crowd want to regularly boo him, only for the next top guy to start getting booed by the same people because now he's the popular blue eye going up against what would probably be a "very cool" heel in John Cena? When it comes down to it, the boos don't really mean anything.

and I don't think you'll find anything from Gertner in this thread that says you can't or shouldn't do that

Dude, the reason this shat stinks is because of that wannabe Jap. That damn Jap Albert is the worst thing to happen to pro rasslin since I was banned from the C-fed here.

But Gertner still likes Dean Ambrose, right?

I had a big response typed up, and my connection messed up, and I can't be arsed to type it up again. I will say though that as far as his merch sales go, he probably has more merch than anybody out there today, so of course his merch is gonna fly off the shelves. His main demo is kids, even if he does have some adult fans, so of course mommy and daddy are gonna buy little Jimmy the new Cena shirt that comes out every month or so. Not to mention the hats, wristbands, backpacks, ect, ect.

As far as a heel turn, I agree. If they turned him into a "cool" heel, it would be pointless. My idea was always to turn him, and keep him as the franchise and pretty much the same, but have him act oblivious to the boos. Have Vince back him and follow him around everywhere, decked out in all the Cena gear, from head to toe, being his personal cheerleader. The perfect time for this would have been the Punk feud, if it wasn't for the Rock thing on the horizon.

unfortunately only two of these people are really active. would love to see the last four in a fatal 4 way at mania tho

Can anyone mention how the Nielson ratings are pretty much BS these days?

A lot of people on this board watch Raw through a stream or later on through a stream. Those who don't watch it live will watch it on DVR, then those who miss it will catch the important parts through TPWW or other dirtsheets.

Im going to say that Raw has fucking sucked since Extreme Rules, but this is going to be a lull period for the company. They need to build new people (Brodus, Tensai, RyBack) then they are going to push at Summerslam, then go through another lull until the next WM season.

IMO

Have Orton play a more vital part in the company over the summer and not be in Smackdown matches.

If you want to get Tensai over, stop pretending he's Japanese and have him speak against Punk and Orton throughout the summer.

When Cena gets back from his divorce shit, make him heel. Have him Albert and Orton claim that the WWE is their's.

Have them go against the people like Punk, Daniel Bryan, and whoever else want to claim the WWE as the "new" place for actual wrestlers.

Punk and Bryan already have enough clout to make them look like legit competition to Orton and Cena.

Ok Gertner wins. Now what?

I don't really get the point of this thread. We've established that Lord Tensai is a terrible draw and...

Handjobs aren't blowjobs just because 2 people say they are.

You guys realize that the ratings are just pol who watched the whole thing live or on.DVD in the first 24 hours without fast forwarding or changing the channel.

You realise that someone just said that, right?

Nobody mentioned the ratings for people watching on.DVD in the first 24 hours.

I am guessing people tuned away because they realized the was going to be no HHH/Cena/Brock that night.

I don't really get the problem or disconnect. People on here have been trying to pretend these guys are big figures for WWE, including trying to correlate drawing power to them. Gertner is saying "hey guys, remember when you said x? lol."

Not entirely true.

Who the fuck has correlated drawing power to Punk and Bryan beyond anything other than the immediate spike CM Punk did create in a PPV buyrate? There's love for Punk and Bryan here out the ass, but I don't think anyone's ever come in and said "Punk and Bryan are proven mega-draws."

The term "Franchise Players" has been used by a couple of people though. Erroneously, but still used.

More than a couple.

Err...I mean, nobody has ever said that, ever!

I've never seen that, in truth. I must not have been in those threads.

I'm slightly interested in the ratings for people watching 24 on DVD during Daniel Bryan matches.

Be a great tag team name.

::roll:

Well?

Go on, show me some.

I don't pay attention on who (or imaginary people), just from what I read from forums, facebook wrestling groups, etc. I was just stating I hate seeing how people are interested into something that really isn't of importance and takes out the fun of being a wrestling fan. And I know I shouldn't really bother with this discussion anymore since now this is plagued by your presence.

Wishbone speaks the truth here.

The character development is shit. This issue tends to get lost when discussing who "sucks as a main eventer". The company sucks at building up main eventers.

So people who judge shows by ratings are imaginary, yet people who think that Daniel Bryan and CM Punk are mega-draws aren't?

Lot of this has to do with looks.

Daniel Bryan looks ridiculous and Punk rocks a neck beard.

Change those two things and this thread would be completely different. Don't think Bryan is in Punk's league, for that matter. But, whatever, that's who they have at the next PPV.

Shit, even the themes would change it all. Daniel Bryan's theme is fucking retarded and CM Punk downgraded his theme.

I dont think Rock Bottom knows what a neck beard is.

Tell me he didn't just say that.





You go to hell, sir. Do not pass Purgatory. Do not collect fire or life insurance. Just go straight to hell.

The low ratings can solely be blamed on the crappy WWE Title belt. Why they didn't change it when Punk ran off the bling belt is beyond me.

So you don't pay attention to these guys, you just read these claims on forums and facebook.

That's kinda paying attention. Are you Mitt Romney?

But people want him in a leading spot. Using the Testament analogy, if you want to make money (which is what the WWE does want to do), do you put your money behind Beiber or Testament?

Look, I understand that "more popular" doesn't mean "better." A lot of my favourite groups are local. I don't expect them to have the national appeal for throngs of fans, and that's fine. But if you're talking about who should be on top, it's not going to be those guys.

When you correlate the intelligence of the booking and Vince to the pushing of certain people like Punk or Bryan, has has been done in the past, you're talking business. Not even just "I want."

Additionally, if you want to just enjoy the show, why even come into threads like this? You don't care about ratings, great. Why not let those who do talk? Even if they do "enjoy people based on their drawing power," who are you to tell people they're enjoying the show wrong.

Do you tell sports fans not to crunch numbers because you're a baseball purist?

I already said something about this, but I'm just going to point out:

You mean they only count the primary statistic which is most important both to advertisers and WWE? Holy shit!

I mean, seriously, there's a reason these numbers are still relied on. The number of people who watch first run is the most important. And I can't remember if it was in this thread or not, but someone mentioned streaming and torrents. Nobody cares about that because you're not contributing to them in any direct financial sense.

That is to say, if most of Daniel Bryan's fans watch on the web from sites outside WWE's influence, then they don't matter in terms of whether or not he should be pushed. In fact, they might hurt him. The only exception is merch sales, but as they're already factored, that doesn't really change anything.

"Draw" is a term only really important in terms fo revenue stream. The reason people don't count illegal rebroadcasting is because nobody involved makes money off it. And, as redundant as it seems, if guy A makes them money and guy B does not, 90% of the time, they will run with guy A.

What you're saying makes perfect sense, KK, but who is a draw in the WWE besides The Rock and Brock Lesnar?

This sums it up for me. :y:

I didn't pay attention to WHO said it, but aware of what was said. How are you not understanding that?

The fact that you worded it clumsily might be part of the point.

Might want to take your own proficiency with the English language into account when asking how hard something is to understand, champ. :y:

Was Shawn Michaels a franchise player? Weren't ratings pretty low when it was him and Bret carrying the WWE?

All I care about is that they don't hastily put another World or WWE title on DB again so soon after losing his first one. He obviously had no idea how to handle the pressures of it and it showed. Give him a few more years, let him earn a couple IC/US titles first. Hell, maybe even a tag title or two.