PeterHilton

There's NO WAY that happens. I mean..I totally see why owners would want that but the players would be giving away a giant chip in terms of negotiation. I agree on the contraction stuff...I could see those 4 but after that you're talking some major legal headaches and financial pay-outs.

I would disagree with the timeline but I understand your point Now, I don't think that parity and a salary cap have EVERYTHING to do with why the NFL is more popular than MLB, but I think it has a lot to do with keeping fans engaged. Going back to the original point that Capelli King brought up: fans like to think their team has a shot to win. On a local level, it's hard to market to your ticket buying customers when the league is structured so that big market teams have all the advantages. The NBA does need to contract, but beyond a few obvious teams like the King, Hornets, and Bobcats (for instance) how many teams can you get rid of? Eventually a hard salary cap encourages a competitive league which is good for everyone, whereas an open market is probably good for the league on a national, "network TV deal" level, but it eventually leads to teams in smaller markts- except in rare instances - being totally irrelevant . I can't speak to a salary cap in soccer in Europe because -from my understanding - teams can spend years and year in the middle of the pack, never winning anything, never being relegated and fans will still go to the stadium almost as if it's mandatory just for the experience. That isn't really what happens in American sports. And if there are fans chirping about *wanting* a cap maybe that won't continue in Europe forever. Now..here's the big HOWEVER in the NBA...the system in place now actually DOES encourage more parity. That's why Cleveland had more money to spend in their effort to retain Lebron than any other team. That's why there's a luxury tax. But when players are willing to exercise their rights and sign for tens of millions of dollars less to play with a better team...and when teams are willing to blow past the luxury cap every season ..what do you do? That's why I think the NBA CBA is going to take so long to negotiate. The owners are asking for checks and balances that already exist, but are simply ignored.

It's easierto deal with because the NBA used to have such a short first round that the flotsam and jetsam were toast early. Those 7 game series are killing me in the first round though

TEW terms don't translate to reality: I'll just say that I think they have to bring back some of the more risque elements and faster paced storytelling. New styles in the ring can't hurt, but they won't make ahuge difference regardless of how well they're received.

No. YOU are the majority. Net fans just don't like admitting that

True. But it's also limited its appeal in years when the yankees don't make the postseason While with the NFL, regardless of who plays on a weekly basis, or what teams go to the playoffs...the ratings are monstrous. As a comparison: the World Series averages around an 8.5-10 rating, which ends up being around 15 millions viewers The NFL beats that FOR REGULAR SEASON GAMES. The SB just drew 111 million viewers. They wipe their nose with MLBs numbers There's nothing saying that baseball's no cap system can't work...but having a cap that practically guarantees that every team has a chance to be competitive from year-to-year has proven more successful. You're referencing the league's popularity after the Giants/Colts game in the late 50s...that doesn't even compare to the league's popularity now. The league was popular at a level that made it *arguably* the #2 or #3 sport in the US. Theres no argument now: it's the #1 Sport in America. And that happened after parity and after the cap. The fact that ALL fans can be engaged ona yearly basis helps exponentially imo

C;mon..you don't really think that ringwork is the issue? Look at the E's history (heck, look at the history of the industry): the biggest stars..the ones that drive the business and create mainstream popularity...have rarely been great at what net fans consider "great ringwork" I dont see any giant surge in popularity being achieved by adding different wrestling styles. There's no underground wave of hardcore wrestling fans out there that are going to push the WWE back into huge ratings and buy rates. So yes..more 'entertainment wrestling.' just make it actually entertaining

You're making a big assumption based on the relative tastes of a small sampling of their viewers. All true. But I doubt that adding more diverse ringwork will really create that much of a surge in popularity and - more than likely - if/when the E bounces back, it will have a lot more to do with finding new characters that engage the audience rather than adding a bunch of flippy indy guys.

Considering there's not a single bit of proof that wrestling fans want to move to a more 'modern' or 'realistic' style of ringwork, I doubt that. But you're right...so far the move to PG hasn't panned out. Not sure what that has to do with emphasizing the entetainment aspect.

Listen..I'm not going to play 'let's name logical terms' here. I'm not in debate club. This is what you said: "And like I said before, they can rename and rebrand all they want, but it HAS to be good, or don't it if isn't." 'Good' is an incredibly subjective, incredibly relative term. Really, who are you to decide what is 'good?' It's just your opinion My point was that they obviously make decisions based on some kind of homework or forethought. Now, whether or not you think is good is totally up to you, but to just dismisss the idea that a company that big doesn't do any research before naming their characters is nuts. just because YOU dont like the names does not mean that they just pulled them out of a hat.

Maybe. But the underlying philosophy worked for the last 30 years, his promotion is the most powerful in the world BECAUSE he wanted to separate himself from the wrestling industry, and i'm not sure that NOT following that philosohy would do anything for the WWE either.

So your stance is that a publicly traded, billion dollar, multi-national corporation doesn't do market research (or doesn't do enough market research) because some of the names they give wrestlers are iffy? Well there you go...

And don't you think they are doing it because they think it's 'good?' you really think that they haven't done their homework before changes are made?

i agree. Again...just pointing out that there was a method to the way they structured things and the type of product they've created. Stories liek this come out and internet wrestling fans react like "OH NOEZ just another example of why Vince is soooo stupid!!!!" when the fact remains that the product the E has created is wanted more than the stuff the IWC thinks people want. They misjudge the market. And they are incredibly slow to react. But they know what they're doing more times than not.

That 'mile wide' thing is hard for business people to ignore. Especially business people with shareholders they have to answer to.

this has been going on for a while. i'm not saying 'denying they are wrestling' is logical of particularly effective, I'm just pointing out that re-naming is a common strategy and that the WWE specifically has been trying to pull away from the common perception of wrestling pretty much since Vince took over. Rock n Wrestling was the same thing. The Attitude Era was the same thing. And based on those successes, yes it's worked. If you guys want to put your noses up at Vince trying to change the image of his company, then you pretty much have to deny the success he's had since the first Wrestlemania, because it's all part of the same thing. He may not have been as obvious, but he's been doing everything possible to not be ' a wrestling promotion' since the get go. Calling the E 'an entertainment' is just an extension of that policy. because I'm fairly certain there were Quite a few fans who complained about the WWF changing it's identity back in the ealry 80s...but it worked. If you want to say now - 30 years after the fact - that it makes no sense then i'd like to know exactly where you think the wrestling industry would be NOW if the WW(W)F hadnt tried to separate itself from the industry back then,.

This is probably the best summary of the WWE's current problems I've seen on these boards; critical without being stupidly 'wrestling nerd' snarky They grossly over-estimated how easy it was to predict what wrestling fans like and how long mainstream fans would tune in to straight-forward stories and simple characters. They tried to get rid of the risk, and ended up delivering a product that is pretty boring after a while; there's no reason you HAVE to tune in.

Haven't they done that? I mean..isn't what the WWE does significantly different than what longtime fans considered your typical 'wrestling' show? Plus..re-naming things is a pretty standard part of publicity and spin. Doesn't seem all that surprising to be honest.

That's completely false. I mean..totally..false. To the point of being a little silly... Their rights are dictated by the terms of their contracts. Nothing else. It's not like they would all of a sudden be guaranteed some kind of medical coverage or insurance if they were called 'wrestlers.' By that logic, wouldn't the 'wrestlers' working indy rights be treated better than the WWE entertainers are? And how's that going?

What they do puts them so far beyond what any other wrestling promotion in the US does, why bother putting themselves in the same category? Wrestling fans know it's wrestling. They are just doing this to change the perspctive of people outside their fanbase. To change the minds of those people - if it's possible - it's worth it.

How so? Seriously...the stigma attached to wrestling was around for ages befroe the Attitude Era. If anything, that was the first time where wrestling was seen as 'cool' and more specifically it was seen as cool for people that weren't kids or parents of kids. The only reason mainstream media *might* take wrestling seriously is because quite a few names from that era have crossed over into mainstream projects.

From a pop culture standpoint, Pro Wrestling has a bad reputation attached to it...of being for the poor, the dumb, the slightly white trash..even with the years of proven crossover appeal...as if the only people who watch it are dorks and hicks. A lot of members of the mainstream media still see wrestling as if it's close to roller derby and drag racing. And the WWE wants to be regarded as more of alive-action event, like you're attending a Las Vegas show.

This. I seriously have no idea what amp is talking about I suppose it's "easier" to get a smaller guy over because of the advent of technology or whatever, but the biggest stars in the industry are still roughly the same size and height.

This is true in a sport like basketball with smaller rosters. However, ..the success of the NFL says this is wrong and that parity is a good thing to most American fans.

Wow People aren't IDIOTS. They may not know the circumstances, but any paying customer knows that the main event wasn't supposed to go under a minute It did not make Sting look "bad ass" It made TNA look like a rip-off