Thread: QUESTION - In your opinion, what should the "life cycle" of a WWE Wrestler be?
View Single Post
Old 02-12-2009, 03:22 PM   #2
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 61,634
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Interesting post. As always, really.

I'm not sure if I really agree with your allocation of ECW as the rookie/veteran show. While it does seem a simplified way of using the show, I think there are so many more better uses for it. A rising star, for example, could use the exposure that comes with being an ECW Superstar, and used on RAW and SmackDown! as well as Sci-Fi, to really get a footing in the company.

I have to say that something looks a bit weird about SmackDown!, too. Perhaps it is that the gap between mid-carder and peaked main eventer is a little too much?

Besides that, you do seem to have things organised very neatly, which is a definite plus. If the WWE were run like that, I could see it working. Even if ECW got very low ratings.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote