|
It really depends on who it is. If they have a history of good work (for example, Daniel Bryan) then I'm going to like them, unless they completely change in the ring/on the mic/etc. If I actually enjoy what they do in the ring or on the mic, despite being "jobbers", then I'll like them.
Steve Blackman wasn't a "jobber". I'm not saying this to say "LULZ STEVE BLACKMAN!11!" He actually had a winning streak going for a while and had a kick ass match with Shane McMahon on PPV. He's a bad ass in the ring. Part of it is to be funny. He's a meme. But he wasn't a "jobber". He was a lower-tier guy who had a lot to like about him.
It also depends on how you define or see a "jobber". Just because someone is on Superstars doesn't mean they're a "jobber". There's a chance of them working their way up in the company. It can almost be seen as "paying dues" within WWE's system. Trent Baretta may be something someday, he may not. It all depends on if he can be marketable to the mainstream and sell to Vince and creative that he's marketable.
And who's to say people are supposed to LOVE the main eventers? WWE would obviously love that, don't get me wrong. But even the most casual fan who isn't a complete retard could see someone like Randy Orton and go "You know, I don't like him. He's slow and boring. He has a cool move, though. But that Cena guy, he's the man. He's always showing intensity in the ring and is a good guy. I like John Cena but I don't like Randy Orton that much."
People watch Superstars, and I'm sure there are people who are fans of the Superstars crew, even the lower tier ones. If you're a real fan, you don't let position on the card get in the way of liking someone.
|