Thread: QUESTION - In your opinion, what should the "life cycle" of a WWE Wrestler be?
View Single Post
Old 02-14-2009, 10:18 AM   #44
Ruien
MVP Mark
 
Posts: 16,451
Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Ruien makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Heyman Hindu View Post
As opposed to the current system?.....where almost ZERO main-event stars have been created in the past four years?

2005

You had - Triple H, John Cena, Dave Batista, Randy Orton, Chris Jericho, JBL, Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, Edge.

2009

You have Triple H, John Cena, Dave Batista, Randy Orton, Chris Jericho, JBL, Undertaker, Edge, and Jeff Hardy.

Glad to see that so much has changed.



If the WWE want a SHOT of getting higher ratings and shaking things up? They need to create a situation where new stars can be pushed without there being a glass ceiling (or a ridiculously small one).


Well the thing is, the ratings war has been over for a few years now. As long as the numbers are not 1.0, 1.1, 1.0, ect they are fine. If a income is coming in, they are fine. THere is no one who will put the WWE out of business, and with dvds, t-shirts, and all those good things will make a nice income.
Ruien is offline   Reply With Quote