Raw rating lowest since July 2012

**BigCrippyZ** · 12-15-2015, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

You clearly missed my point on this.

Dave's report said "there appears to be at least one major change...". He goes on to claim it does not involve bigger talent appearing, so he concludes it is EITHER commentator OR set related. To me that's either horrific reporting because it's so vague (essentially a guess) or it shows his sources are pathetic. If it was a real source in the know (say Michael Cole), he would know that it was a new commentator and would be able to confidently report that (even if he didn't want to release the name).

I predict Wrestlemania will feature several wrestling matches, some of which will be championship matches. I also predict they will use a lot of elaborate entrances for the show.

In 4 months I will have been verified as a legitimate insider. Yay me.

Oh so now only Vince, HHH, Steph, Dunn and on-air talent like Michael Cole are legit sources? None of the other 620+ employees are legit. No matter how long they've worked there, what they do/have done or who they've worked with/for?

You also missed my point, the news wasn't just that they were bringing in a new commentator or changing the set/production, but also that they weren't going to bring in bigger talent to reboot the show. The conclusion was that they weren't going to bring in bigger talent but were likely to change commentators/production.

Also your comparison doesn't work.

Of course WM will feature several wrestling matches, some of which will be championship matches and they will use a lot of elaborate entrances for the show. WWE does that every year at WM and anyone could guess that.

WWE doesn't move Smackdown to a new network every year. What or even if any changes will or won't be made to Smackdown as a result of that move is harder to predict than the basic annual WM recurrences.

Sure, I and most people could have guessed that WWE MIGHT make some changes for the move. So because he could have simply guessed the same info, he and/or his sources suck?

I can guess what a testifying witness might say too by inferring from other evidence, history, or my own experience. Does that mean my witness might suck and I shouldn't enter their testimony as evidence? Using your logic, no witness is credible if their testimony can also simply be guessed with a modicum of accuracy.