Raw rating lowest since July 2012

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick The fan report I mentioned was a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT. The guy claimed he was at the show and reported what the crowd responded to. Dirt Sheetz would get a quote from that guys 2nd cousin's pool guy, who overheard the 2nd cousin talking to someone else and saying the show was not very good, even though he didn't see it.

So the guy with the photographs of people leaving before the main event and his claims that there were very few people left in the crowd for the main event Reigns segment and even fewer who actually seemed entertained by it, his opinion doesn't carry as much weight. If so, why? Is it because it fits into your own personal narrative and bias that the product is good and we're all wrong?

I tend to find the guy with the photographic support to be more credible and put more weight behind his first hand observations as he has photographic evidence to support it.

That's the problem. We don't care that you enjoy the current product. Have fun. Enjoy away.

It's your marginalization that those of us that aren't enjoying and are critical of the quality of the product, that we are some small, insignificant portion of the viewing audience so our opinions and the facts we back them up with (like lower ratings and live attendance figures) aren't credible or relevant.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ So the guy with the photographs of people leaving before the main event and his claims that there were very few people left in the crowd for the main event Reigns segment and even fewer who actually seemed entertained by it, his opinion doesn't carry as much weight. If so, why? Is it because it fits into your own personal narrative and bias that the product is good and we're all wrong? I tend to find the guy with the photographic support to be more credible and put more weight behind his first hand observations as he has photographic evidence to support it. That's the problem. We don't care that you enjoy the current product. Have fun. Enjoy away. It's your marginalization that those of us that aren't enjoying and are critical of the quality of the product, that we are some small, insignificant portion of the viewing audience so our opinions and the facts we back them up with (like lower ratings and live attendance figures) aren't credible or relevant.

Everything is relevant to varying degrees.

I watched RAW, I heard the crowd pop for Reigns' promo. I heard multiple tater tot chants, which tells me the fans were with him. That was confirmed by the dude who provided the live report.

That said, I also saw the photo of a few fans leaving. So clearly some fans didnt care for the final segment. But we already knew a segment of the fanbase is determined to reject Reigns as a headliner. Just like those same fans who show up to every arena to chant Cena Sucks.

Devil is in the detail. You said "very few people were left in the arena". For that to be true if they had say 8000 in the building to open the show, i would say you need to have at least 3/4 of the fans to leave. I don't think that one image of one part of one section tells that story.

The problem is you guys who think the product sucks refuse to look at the aspects of the business that are doing well. Ratings are important, but if RAWs audience is declining at a slower rate than the rest of the prime time shows on USA its likely a by product of changing behaviour vs definite decline in intetest. Especially when you look at their numbers on social media and VOD, which are through the roof.

[Big Vic]

Originally Posted by The CyNick The problem is you guys who think the product sucks refuse to look at the aspects of the business that are doing well.

Because we don't care about their financials

Originally Posted by The CyNick Ratings are important, but if RAWs audience is declining at a slower rate than the rest of the prime time shows on USA its likely a by product of changing behaviour vs definite decline in intetest. Especially when you look at their numbers on social media and VOD, which are through the roof.

Their main event segment on youtube has a little over a million views, that is not "through the roof"

[Savio]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Especially when you look at their numbers on social media and VOD, which are through the roof.

Also we find out later that cynick didnt even look at their numbers

[Big Vic]

CyNick never cited from which dirt sheet he got the report of the fan who said the pop for reigns is great.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by Big Vic CyNick never cited from which dirt sheet he got the report of the fan who said the pop for reigns is great.

True. Honestly though, I never did and don't expect him to.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Big Vic CyNick never cited from which dirt sheet he got the report of the fan who said the pop for reigns is great.

www.tpww.net

[Damian Rey]

So your citing a source notorious for taking reports from Meltzer's site and rewriting them as their own? Brilliant.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey So your citing a source notorious for taking reports from Meltzer's site and rewriting them as their own? Brilliant.

Can you not read? It was a FAN sending in a report. Dave's site does the same thing. I'm not working off an oped piece written by the editor of tpww.

[Damian Rey]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Can you not read? It was a FAN sending in a report. Dave's site does the same thing. I'm not working off an oped piece written by the editor of tpww.

So you are now citing a report sent from a fan to a site that regularly publishes dirt sheet news? And how do you know the fan was actually there? Was there any confirmation?

If you think Meltzer is some hack why are you citing an even less credible wrestling website known for ripping off the work of others? I thought you only go to the source for facts? Is the main page now a legitimate source?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey So you are now citing a report sent from a fan to a site that regularly publishes dirt sheet news? And how do you know the fan was actually there? Was there any confirmation? If you think Meltzer is some hack why are you citing an even less credible wrestling website known for ripping off the work of others? I thought you only go to the source for facts? Is the main page now a legitimate source?

Dave does the exact same thing on his site. How do you think he geys results from house shows? Do you think he pays someone to go around the country?

When tpww or f4w or any newz site posts Smackdown spoilers, do you believe them to be true? It's done in the same manner. A random person sends in results and the newz site posts it.

So based on that, yes I believe it was a legit report. Now that said, pops can be different in one part of an arena vs another. I've been at shows where someone has written in and said something about a certain reaction and thought that's not what I heard. But remember, I'm also connecting Reigns reported reactions to what I heard with my own ears in TV. For the record, I never saw any fans leaving on TV, but I still believe that the picture that was circulated is accurate in that a handful of people left their seats before the end of the show.

[BigCrippyZ]

I think it's a common misconception that WWE makes any direct money from the advertisers on RAW and Smackdown. Not to be confused with WWE's direct sponsors, the advertisers pay NBC Universal/USA Network to run the commercials. In turn, WWE is paid a television rights fee based on a negotiated contract out of the advertising revenues that are paid to NBC Universal.

It is true that on a week to week or even quarter to quarter basis, WWE doesn’t get any more or any less money from advertisers on Raw when viewership goes up and down. It would be better for them if they did, because then they might be more responsive and open to change rather than stubborn and could potentially have incredibly successful weeks/quarters versus average weeks/quarters.

As of the last quarterly financials WWE released, TV rights fees equal 40 percent of WWE revenue, Network subs total 25 percent, and house show tickets sales and venue merchandise sales equals 18 percent of revenue. So low ratings means WWE is going to have to brace for a huge drop in TV rights fees next time they negotiate a contract, and in the mean time, fewer people are being reached as potential Network and house show customers.

WWE right now is like an athlete being lazy the year after they sign a big contract. However, eventually that contract ends, and if they only perform well in their the last year of their contract, people are going to notice that and pay less than they would otherwise, expecting that athlete to be lazy again once they sign the new deal and feel fat, happy and comfortable again.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ I think it's a common misconception that WWE makes any direct money from the advertisers on RAW and Smackdown. Not to be confused with WWE's direct sponsors, the advertisers pay NBC Universal/USA Network to run the commercials. In turn, WWE is paid a television rights fee based on a negotiated contract out of the advertising revenues that are paid to NBC Universal. It is true that on a week to week or even quarter to quarter basis, WWE doesn’t get any more or any less money from advertisers on Raw when viewership goes up and down. It would be better for them if they did, because then they might be more responsive and open to change rather than stubborn and could potentially have incredibly successful weeks/quarters versus average weeks/quarters. As of the last quarterly financials WWE released, TV rights fees equal 40 percent of WWE revenue, Network subs total 25 percent, and house show tickets sales and venue merchandise sales equals 18 percent of revenue. So low ratings means WWE is going to have to brace for a huge drop in TV rights fees next time they negotiate a contract, and in the mean time, fewer people are being reached as potential Network and house show customers. WWE right now is like an athlete being lazy the year after they sign a big contract. However, eventually that contract ends, and if they only perform well in their the last year of their contract, people are going to notice that and pay less than they would otherwise, expecting that athlete to be lazy again once they sign the new deal and feel fat, happy and comfortable again.

Nobody who understands the business things WWE makes money off ads ran during RAW.

You're so off base in your thinking that is not even funny. WWE had double or triple the ratings in the Attitude Era, but monetarily they didn't maximize TV rights fees because advertisers wanted no part of the show. Today, even though ratings are far lower, they are doing better financially in large part because WWE has reinvented itself as a respobsible corporate citizen. Now you have a lineup of advertisers looking to buy airtime from USA. That wasnt even happening 3 years ago. USA recently came out and responded to the declining ratings by touting how successful WWE is for them.

Further, as I've explained many many times, if ratings across the board on down, advertisers will still pay top dollar for the shows that draw the most of the right type of viewer. RAW week in week out is a top 3 viewed show on Monday. Therefore advertisers will still pay top dollar.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Nobody who understands the business things WWE makes money off ads ran during RAW. You're so off base in your thinking that is not even funny. WWE had double or triple the ratings in the Attitude Era, but monetarily they didn't maximize TV rights fees because advertisers wanted no part of the show. Today, even though ratings are far lower, they are doing better financially in large part because WWE has reinvented itself as a respobsible corporate citizen. Now you have a lineup of advertisers looking to buy airtime from USA. That wasnt even happening 3 years ago. USA recently came out and responded to the declining ratings by touting how successful WWE is for them. Further, as I've explained many many times, if ratings across the board on down, advertisers will still pay top dollar for the shows that draw the most of the right type of viewer. RAW week in week out is a top 3 viewed show on Monday. Therefore advertisers will still pay top dollar.

I'm not talking about currently. I'm talking about the impact of declining ratings next time WWE's contract is up.

Regardless of whether or not ratings across the board are down in the future, if WWE's ratings are consistently down compared to where they were when they negotiated the current deal last year, even if they're attracting the same "quality" advertisers in the future that they are today, WWE's rights fees are more likely to decline as well. Sure everyone's rights fees might be down too because the lack of viewers over all and WWE may still be getting top dollar.

When WWE makes 40% of their revenues from television rights though, and those rights fees are due to audience size and ratings, any drop or potential drop in that revenue or audience/ratings size is a huge risk. Not only to their financial bottom line but also to their ability market their other products, i.e., Network subs, merch, live events, etc. For example, according to WWE, RAW DVR viewership has stayed stagnant at only an additional 10-12% of the live audience size.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ I'm not talking about currently. I'm talking about the impact of declining ratings next time WWE's contract is up. Regardless of whether or not ratings across the board are down in the future, if WWE's ratings are consistently down compared to where they were when they negotiated the current deal last year, even if they're attracting the same "quality" advertisers in the future that they are today, WWE's rights fees are more likely to decline as well. Sure everyone's rights fees might be down too because the lack of viewers over all and WWE may still be getting top dollar. When WWE makes 40% of their revenues from television rights though, and those rights fees are due to audience size and ratings, any drop or potential drop in that revenue or audience/ratings size is a huge risk. Not only to their financial bottom line but also to their ability market their other products, i.e., Network subs, merch, live events, etc. For example, according to WWE, RAW DVR viewership has stayed stagnant at only an additional 10-12% of the live audience size.

You're missing the aspect that ad rates are not directly tied to the actual rating year over year. Large audiences are harder to come by now. Used to be you had 4 channels, and everyone with a TV watched whatever wad on one of those channels. Now you have hundreds plus other forms of media. An advertiser may have paid say $100k for 1 million viewers. But if 100 shows used to get 1 million, and now only 20 do, you've made the 1 million person audience more scarce. Therefore even if viewership dips to say 750k, tv rights fees could go up because so few shows draw that number of people, but the same number of advertisers want to reach a large audience. That's why I harp on the number of shows that draw a larger audience than RAW on Mondays. Aside from football, nothing beats it consistently in its timeslot.

On top of that WWE is better positioned in terms of presenting a clean product which gives them a larger base of interested advertisers which will mean USA can be more profitable. On top of that, even since the last TV deal that was struck, cable viewers are declining across the board. So having a property that draws 3 million viewers a week is even harder to come by. Lots of cable outlets would love to have 5 hours of programming per week at anywhere close to 3 million viewers. Again, that means more interest, which will drive up rights fees through a bidding war.

No doubt WWE wants their product exposed to as many eyeballs as possible to sell The Network, merch, and tickets to live events. But more and more those eyeballs are not all on cable.

[Rammsteinmad]

Pretty sure you made claims like that Cesaro/Big Show feud was "obvious" or whatever. But I'm too lazy to look for it and don't really care.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Rammsteinmad Pretty sure you made claims like that Cesaro/Big Show feud was "obvious" or whatever. But I'm too lazy to look for it and don't really care.

I did think it was clear they were setting something up for down the line. Does that hurt me because it didn't happen?

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by The CyNick It wasn't a priority. You don't want to have Show lose so quickly after they built up a big match with Lesnar. Again, this whole thing is comical in that it was just an idea I presented as a possibility to give Cesaro something to do. I never once said I heard it would happen. Hell I've never ever claimed I have any inside info on anything. But now that it didn't happen you're using it as some type of slam against me. Comical really.

Originally Posted by Rammsteinmad Pretty sure you made claims like that Cesaro/Big Show feud was "obvious" or whatever. But I'm too lazy to look for it and don't really care.

I got it...

http://www.tpwwforums.com/showpost.p...1&postcount=21

Originally Posted by The CyNick Now here's where most of you guys miss the boat. Cesaro is gaining popularity. Big Show needed someone to heat him up to get ready for Brock. Sure, you could pick another guy to heat up Show, but Cesaro is someone the people care about, and in the long run this will help Cesaro. If you actually watch the fights, you will see Cesaro gets put over in commentary for putting up a fight and trying crazy strength moves against Big Show. But he keeps coming up short. Once Show is done putting over Lesnar strong, I would bet you will see the tide magically change in the ongoing Cesaro-Big Show issue. Instead of Cesaro just going over Show in 5 minutes and quickly heading nowhere back weeks ago when this started, you get multiple weeks of telling a story of Cesaro overcoming the odds. Terrible terrible booking, amirite?

Sounded pretty sure to me. Right down to the "You guys just don't get what they're doing" tone from the first sentence. It wouldn't be as funny if it weren't for the smug "Terrible, terrible booking, amirite?" at the end in regards to something that everyone else knew WWE didn't have the foresight to do and, lo and behold, didn't do. lol

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan I got it... http://www.tpwwforums.com/showpost.p...1&postcount=21 Sounded pretty sure to me. Right down to the "You guys just don't get what they're doing" tone from the first sentence. It wouldn't be as funny if it weren't for the smug "Terrible, terrible booking, amirite?" at the end in regards to something that everyone else knew WWE didn't have the foresight to do and, lo and behold, didn't do. lol

So when both guys are back on TV and they do what I said, should I dredge up this post?

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by The CyNick So when both guys are back on TV and they do what I said, should I dredge up this post?

Dude... They had two months.

You also said this...

Originally Posted by The CyNick My guess is Cesaro gets back in his face either right after MSG or after HIAC leading into Survivor Series.

Do you honestly think after they had ample opportunity to pick the "feud" up after the MSG show they are now gonna say "Hey remember when Show squashed Cesaro on the road to that match where he got squashed by Lesnar? No? Oh. Well, here's Cesaro's revenge!"?

Seriously, what's your plan with that response? To just keep moving the goalpost of when that hot feud is gonna pick up so that you can always use the age old "I can never be proven wrong because technically as long as the two of them are alive, it could still happen." out so that you can save face?

Not gonna work. Sorry. You were wrong. As usual.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan Dude... They had two months. You also said this... Do you honestly think after they had ample opportunity to pick the "feud" up after the MSG show they are now gonna say "Hey remember when Show squashed Cesaro on the road to that match where he got squashed by Lesnar? No? Oh. Well, here's Cesaro's revenge!"? Seriously, what's your plan with that response? To just keep moving the goalpost of when that hot feud is gonna pick up so that you can always use the age old "I can never be proven wrong because technically as long as the two of them are alive, it could still happen." out so that you can save face? Not gonna work. Sorry. You were wrong. As usual.

I could easily see them going back to Show vs Cesaro when Cesaro gets back.

So I'm not wrong yet. Well sorry, I was wrong about the timing. In retrospect Survivor Series was probably too early to do it. TLC would have made more sense. But Cesaro is hurt, so we'll never know.

[Big Vic]

He still didn't even cite it he just said "www.tpww.net"

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Big Vic He still didn't even cite it he just said "www.tpww.net"

I'm not going to look for the story. It was from Monday. If you don't believe it, go to the front page and read yourself.

[Big Vic]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I'm not going to look for the story. It was from Monday. If you don't believe it, go to the front page and read yourself.

Originally Posted by TPWW Front Page Roman Reigns is already making his way to the ring as we come back from the commercial. Reigns says he’s here for his lesson from Sheamus. A giant ladder is set up in the ring. Reigns says the ladder reminds him of his first day on the job with WWE. His first match in WWE was a TLC match with The Shield. They earned their spot on the bottom of the ladder. Now he’s rising the ladder as he chases the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Reigns starts climbing as the crowd barely responds and gives him the “WHAT” treatment. Reigns says he became the champion, but that lasted 5:15 to put him back at the bottom of the ladder. Reigns says he’s taking back what’s his at WWE TLC. As far as tonight goes, he’s not leaving the ring until Sheamus comes out and he hits him with every toy in the ring. Yes, call weapons that cause a lot of damage to a body “toys” to get it over. Good god. Sheamus’ music hits, and he comes out to the stage. Sheamus asks if he’s really trying to intimidate him. Sequels are in these days, and TLC will end exactly like Survivor Series did with him still with the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Just like at Survivor Series, Reigns will be on his hands and knees wondering where it all went wrong. Reigns asks if this is really how he’s going to teach him a lesson. Reigns invites him into the ring. Sheamus says he’s the champion, so Reigns doesn’t call the shots. Reigns thought the Irish loved to fight, but he’s not fighting. Sheamus says he’s told the world since day one that he loves a fight. He will fight Reigns, just not tonight. Reigns’ chance will come at TLC, and he better step up. Reigns says he’s just yapping. Reigns thought the Irish had potatoes, but he just has tater tots. Sheamus runs down, but doesn’t get in the ring. Sheamus says he’s smarter than that. He won’t build a fort this Sunday. He’ll build a castle with battered chairs, broken tables, and mangled ladders. He’ll build it right on top of Reigns. Reigns says it sounds tough coming from the guy on the floor. Maybe Sheamus should man up. There’s a ton of stalling, and Reigns is constantly calling him “tater tot” as it’s the one successful joke he’s had in quite some time. Reigns eventually clears the ring of chairs, the table, and the ladder to get Sheamus to agree to come into the ring. Reigns throws the ladder at Sheamus and laughs. Reigns ridicules him for flinching like a little girl at the sight of a ladder coming at him. Reigns asks if he’s a champion or a footnote. Reigns says if he doesn’t get in the ring, he’ll run through him and all that will be left is his dumbass shirt. Sheamus gets in the ring, and Reigns immediately throws him out of the ring. Reigns throws him into the barricade and they brawl through the crowd to a reaction that is not befitting a main event angle or the supposed face of the company. Reigns goes for a powerbomb off the stage, but Sheamus takes him down. The heat is super low for this. Sheamus cracks him on the back with a chair a few times. Reigns throws a chair at him and follows him to ringside. Sheamus sends him into the barricade and goes to powerbomb him through the commentary table, but Reigns hits him with a Superman Punch. Reigns goes for a Spear, but Sheamus sidesteps him and sends him over the commentary table. Sheamus taunts the fans before Reigns spears him through a table at ringside.

This is the only reaction to raw on the TPWW main page I saw

[Savio]

Originally Posted by Big Vic This is the only reaction to raw on the TPWW main page I saw

CONFIRMED: CyNick was lying.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Savio CONFIRMED: CyNick was lying.

Its possible I read it somewhere else.

I would say its a moot point as clearly Reigns is over. Didn't see anyone leaving on Monday.

[Big Vic]

Wish I could have done that for school reports

Citations:
"New York Times"
"Fox News"

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by Big Vic Wish I could have done that for school reports Citations: "New York Times" "Fox News"

Wish I could do that now for citing legal authority.

1. Smith v. Jones

2. A Tennessee case

3. A Tennessee statute

It would be so much easier but unfortunately, I don't think I'd be very successful. Smith v. Jones, there's only been about a million of those.

[Big Vic]

You are bringing up ratings not me.

Their Youtube channel is in the top 100 but their youtube channel plays videos from every wrestling era, not just todays.

[Damian Rey]

So what makes the reports on Tpww more reliable than what is given and then reported by Meltzer? Do you believe the fan that posted people leaving and being dead for the main event? If not then why do you believe the other account?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey So what makes the reports on Tpww more reliable than what is given and then reported by Meltzer? Do you believe the fan that posted people leaving and being dead for the main event? If not then why do you believe the other account?

I never said I believed one over the other.

[#1-norm-fan]

So my point about you moving the goalpost so you can never be "proven" wrong but can always someday maybe be "proven" right because it's technically always possible still stands.

If they don't go with a legit Cesaro vs Big Show feud when Cesaro gets back, will you admit you were wrong? Of course not. Because it could happen next month.

If it doesn't happen the next month, will you admit you were wrong? Of course not. Because it could happen the next.

If it finally happens in 3 years will you claim victory and pretend this feud was directly related to the forgettable Cesaro squash from a random episode of Raw years back and WWE had some amazing foresight in booking that squash so that they could continue the story years later and they were just letting that memory simmer as long as possible? Of course. Because... derp.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan So my point about you moving the goalpost so you can never be "proven" wrong but can always someday maybe be "proven" right because it's technically always possible still stands. If they don't go with a legit Cesaro vs Big Show feud when Cesaro gets back, will you admit you were wrong? Of course not. Because it could happen next month. If it doesn't happen the next month, will you admit you were wrong? Of course not. Because it could happen the next. If it finally happens in 3 years will you claim victory and pretend this feud was directly related to the forgettable Cesaro squash from a random episode of Raw years back and WWE had some amazing foresight in booking that squash so that they could continue the story years later and they were just letting that memory simmer as long as possible? Of course. Because... derp.

But again, let's say it never happens. In your mind, I'm curious what you think this proves? That I suck at predicting future angles? Wow, big accomplishment.

You have a weird obsession with me.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Show Net Time Viewers (000s) 18-49 rating
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ESPN 8:15 PM 14151 4.8
SPORTSCENTER: L ESPN 11:48 PM 4271 1.8
LOVE & HIP HOP HLLYWD 2 VH1 8:00 PM 2522 1.3
STREET OUTLAWS DISC 9:00 PM 2960 1.3
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 8:00 PM 3270 1.1
FAMILY GUY ADSM 11:30 PM 1916 1.0
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 10:00 PM 2850 1.0
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 9:00 PM 3042 1.0

WWE beat everybody except Football. (SportsCenter=MNF overrun so it's the same show)

The only thing close was 9pm 3042 to 2960.

They are always number two which is why USA isn't sweating it.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Originally Posted by Triple H We just have to become more disciplined and more creative with how we do things, and how we operate the shows. We’ve had some unfortunate situations with injuries and everything else. It’s on us to be more creative and come up with a better format; a better show. We hear people’s frustrations and in a lot of ways feel the same way. It’s fixing it. And, trying to fix it. It is what it is. How we fix it, we’re not 100 percent sure yet. But, we will get there. Trust me.

Even Triple H doesn't think they're there.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by SlickyTrickyDamon Show Net Time Viewers (000s) 18-49 rating MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ESPN 8:15 PM 14151 4.8 SPORTSCENTER: L ESPN 11:48 PM 4271 1.8 LOVE & HIP HOP HLLYWD 2 VH1 8:00 PM 2522 1.3 STREET OUTLAWS DISC 9:00 PM 2960 1.3 WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 8:00 PM 3270 1.1 FAMILY GUY ADSM 11:30 PM 1916 1.0 WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 10:00 PM 2850 1.0 WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 9:00 PM 3042 1.0 WWE beat everybody except Football. (SportsCenter=MNF overrun so it's the same show) The only thing close was 9pm 3042 to 2960. They are always number two which is why USA isn't sweating it.

Everything other than football on that list is in deep trouble.

[drave]

Including WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA

[#1-norm-fan]

It proved that that smug, "Terrible booking, amirite", "You guys just don't get it" shit while everyone was telling you "WWE is shit at developing characters and that's not going to happen" was laughable. You can pretend it was a simple prediction all you want but the quote and context is still there. People were saying "This shit is pointless and helps no one get over" and that explanation of where they were going was your way of "setting everyone straight" about how WWE's booking isn't incompetent and they had some long-term plans.

And I do have a bit of an "obsession". It's with calling out silly shit when someone says it. It just so happens you've been pumping it out WAY more than anyone else these days. So I call it out, you ignore it half the time because you feel backed into a corner with no way to defend your precious beliefs on WWE's high-quality booking and I keep throwing it in your face anyway. Because it's funny to watch Mr. cocksure "I'm spot on 99.9% of the time. You guys have no argument. I win another round." run and hide when he can't defend something for everyone to see.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan It proved that that smug, "Terrible booking, amirite", "You guys just don't get it" shit while everyone was telling you "WWE is shit at developing characters and that's not going to happen" was laughable. You can pretend it was a simple prediction all you want but the quote and context is still there. People were saying "This shit is pointless and helps no one get over" and that explanation of where they were going was your way of "setting everyone straight" about how WWE's booking isn't incompetent and they had some long-term plans. And I do have a bit of an "obsession". It's with calling out silly shit when someone says it. It just so happens you've been pumping it out WAY more than anyone else these days. So I call it out, you ignore it half the time because you feel backed into a corner with no way to defend your precious beliefs on WWE's high-quality booking and I keep throwing it in your face anyway. Because it's funny to watch Mr. cocksure "I'm spot on 99.9% of the time. You guys have no argument. I win another round." run and hide when he can't defend something for everyone to see.

So you think because I incorrectly predicted a feud that means WWE cant create stars?

Let's see if I can break things down for you.

WWE can and has created stars for every 50 years. They continue to do it today. The Shield are all big stars, New Day are becoming huge, etc etc.

Cesaro lost to Big Show for the sake of building up a Big Show-Lesnar program, which was logical at the time. My claim was based on how the Cesaro-Show matches were laid out, I felt like they were purposely making Cesaro look strong for the body of the match to tell a longer term story. Cesaro was having trouble beating Big Show, but down the line, he puts everything together and he starts to beat him. I believed that to be the case because normally if WWE was just trying to heat up Big Show, and didnt care about the opponent, Show would have just killed Cesaro. But he didnt.

We'll never know if that was in the cards because both guys are currently off TV. Further, Cesaro was tied up in the title tournament, which wasn't planned for. So again, you dont know what was in the plans before Seth got hurt. But the point I was trying to make was WWE takes a long term approach to many of the talent. How do I know this as fact? Because I heard Triple H say those exact words in a podcast. I also know from watching TV after the Cesaro-Show matches that the commentators were putting him over, they were focusing in on the Cesaro Section signs in the crowd, and Cesaro was winning matches or coming within an eyelash of beating Roman Reigns - the guy being groomed to be the top guy.

So maybe Big Show vs Cesaro didn't take place at Survivor Series like I predicted it would. But I still fail to see how that disproves any of my point about the over arching issue of Cesaro's booking. But hey, if you feel like you just hit a grand slam by holding my feet to the fire on that prediction, cool man, cool.

[KIRA]

I just kinda threw my hands up after his New Day comments.