Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tucsonspeed6
To tell you the truth, if Vince was given an extra hour per week to give us a product, he'd give us an extra hour of fake boobs throwing pillows at each other, and I'd give my TV an extra bullet to sort through.
|
Perhaps you have a point....a good one at that.
So - even if the WWE was *only* a 2 hour show (without the roster split), would that be such a bad thing?
-Does it really matter if a lot of wrestlers (such as Rosie, Viscera, Richards, etc.) get canned? Will most fans care?
-Does it really matter if a guy like Guerrero or Benoit gets further pushed DOWN the depth chart if the rosters comes together?
a) They may not get main-event spots, but they could still entertain the fans with their wrestling....and contribute to a higher quality show (kinda like what Jericho is doing now).
b) NO ONE in the company is drawing anyways. Therefore - does it really mean anything if guys like these get *temporarily* demoted? (I use the word 'temporary', because guys like Angle, HBK, Taker, and Triple H won't be around forever).
-Ratings were at its highest in 99/00
-No Roster Split
-Women's division was practically non-existent
-CW division was practically non-existent
-Shorter matches on TV (except ME's). Longer matches saved for PPV's.
As far as I know, its not like the WWE (back then) were making less money than now due to (arguably) less House Shows, Int'l events, etc. (which are some of the ALLEGED benefits of the roster split).