Thread: Ratings Thread
View Single Post
Old 02-16-2017, 05:04 AM   #189
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 60,894
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+)
I can't believe you haven't processed that it's not that one possible hypothesis you draw from the information that people don't like -- it's your fucking pigheadedness towards any other possibility. EVERYBODY has considered that the WWE will get offered more money for more television in the future. Fuck's sake, man. That does not mean that it also couldn't come tumbling down like a house of cards either.

There are several reasons that the USA Network might decide that WWE RAW isn't performing like they'd like it to when the contract comes up. In fact, given that they will be requested to spend more money for the same amount of content reaching a decreasing number of viewers each week, it'd be insane if they didn't try to get it for cheaper, and right now the WWE is depending a lot on that money.

Cable is going down. Clap, clap -- you fucking idiot. That doesn't mean that the WWE's downward spiral in ratings -- actually a greater decrease than most other shows on cable -- is a healthy trend. It feels obvious stating that, but it seems to evade you. It also is NOT relevant to whether or not three hours is detrimental to the product or not, you fucking muppet.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote