PeterHilton
-
Posts
4,281 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by PeterHilton
-
-
I am not saying that the NFL is not the number one domestic leauge. Because there is not doubt about that. I am saying the league has been in the most dominate spot before parity. I would say by the mid to late 1980's the NFL had surpassed Baseball as the dominate league.
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.
-
Also, whats up with the NBA playoff system?
A losing team makes the NFL playoffs and its SCANDAL.
Does no one even care anymore that the East is terrible and has been for YEARS?
Im in favor of allowing Chicago and Boston playing a single game to decide it and everyone else being sent home right now to contemplate how terrible they are at basketball.
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
-
There are three ways (though not exclusive from each other) that WWE can go. WWE CAN'T do more entertainment. Or I should say, they WON'T. To do so means they bring back some risky elements. They went to have their cake and eat it too, in this case.
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.
-
Maybe I'm a minority but I don't really watch wrestling for the wrestling, I enjoy the characters, interviews and skits more then anything else. I too find the comedy dumb but I wouldn't watch wrestling much if it was like ROH. I got a few of their first dvds and didn't like it.
No. YOU are the majority. Net fans just don't like admitting that
-
Also, who is to say parity is good? Baseball reached new levels of post-strike popularity thanks in part to the home run chase but also thanks in part to the rise of the Yankees. People need a bad guy to root against and having the most hated franchise in baseball back to winning multiple championships in a row, has greatly helped baseball.
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
-
But that's not my point. Entertainment wrestling has been done. What else can they do? More entertainment wrestling?
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
-
WWE isn't just any big company. If I was saying big companies was doing this, that's one thing. But I'm talking specifically the WWE. And if you read the names of their FCW roster, it DOES sound like the pulled it out of a hat. And whether YOU like it or not, it's not like WWE is known to do something they think is right, all evidence be darned. And I'm not the only that thinks the names are bad. some are good. But seriously, McGillicutty? I can understand why they didn't go with Joe Hennig, but come on. At least try to do a good name.
You're making a big assumption based on the relative tastes of a small sampling of their viewers.
It does and it doesn't. People are bored with entertainment wrestling, or to be accurate, 80's style rock'n'wrestling entertainment wrestling. Bottom line, though, the WWE's product isn't diverse enough. It caters to only a few audiences, and that hurts it. They can make the product more diverse without adding that much risk. But WWE is so dead-set on being an entertainment company, they need to remember, at the end of the day, everyone OUTSIDE of wrestling sees them as pro-wrestling, and everyone INSIDE of wrestling sees them as pro-wrestling. They can't change or even hide that fact.WWE has been making some attempts to broaden their product (more Lucha, please), but some of it's token changes.
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.
-
Look, no one disputes that. But what we dispute is the WWE needs to change with the times, and they haven't. It might be going back towards more wrestling, it might more towards something more realistic. But WWE's answer to go back to a barebones 80's style product with modern workers hasn't worked. And it's showed.
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.
-
No, they do market research. They just pick their names correctly. That's a huge difference. Just because they do market research on a business level doesn't mean they have the best minds on the creative level.
That's a strawman argument. Don't miscontrue my words.
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.
-
For the record, I'm not turning my nose up at Vince changing the image of his company. I'm just pointing out that, right now, it simply isn't doing what he thinks it will do. It hasn't changed any perceptions of WWE (the TMZ situation should tell you that) and it hasn't done wonders for their business.
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.
-
McGillicutty (sic). Need I say more? And, yes, I don't think they have done their homework before changes are made. The names they give people are terribl.e.
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 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.
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'm not asking them to ignore it. I'm saying they are relying on it too much. You must always have a solid base you can rely when things go bad, and the WWE is slowly chipping away at their own base.
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.
-
I don't think they abandoned ALL risk. That would be unfair statement... but the thing is, their version of "entertaiment" only appeals to a mile-wide but inch-deep fanbase. And when the economy and/or the wrestliing industry isn't so hot, these fans are simply not going to be there.
That 'mile wide' thing is hard for business people to ignore. Especially business people with shareholders they have to answer to.
-
And it's done a bang up job of changing perceptions, not to mention enticing in the paying customer.The thing is, their rebranding and renaming sucks. If it was good, who would complain? But if it's not good, they should have just sticked to not rebranding or renaming at all. If you are going to do it, you have to do it right, or don't do it at all. It's exercise in pointlessness and aggravation.
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,.
-
The WWE has put all eggs in the entertainment basket, and now they are paying for it.
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.
-
Changing the name of what they do, whilst simultaneously denying they do what they do, isn't what's going to change the perception. It's the product they present that will do that.
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.
-
While this is all true, I believe the real reason for World Wrestling Entertainment trying to claim they are not a wrestling company and their workers not wrestlers is simple: by calling their workers 'superstars' or 'performers' or whatever instead of 'wrestlers', their employees have a lot less rights than if they were achknowledged athletes.
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?
-
I still remember the Raw when Cole welcome us to "the hottest action/adventure show on television."
It's one thing to present your wrestling product as 'entertainment' or 'sports entertainment' and all that jazz, and I can understand wanting to change the perception of what it is you do. But to outright deny you're a wrestling company entirely? That's something else.
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.
-
The only thing I can think of is that there's still a stigma placed upon professional wrestling in the U.S. While things have changed quite a bit, I think the attitude era, while great for wrestling fans, ultimately made them look rather foolish from a mainstream perspective.
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.
-
I don't think I'd be tempted to go to an Entertainments, myself - surely they can think up a better word than that!
Incidentally, can someone explain to me why they don't want to be a wrestling company? I'm not kidding, I really want to know (without the sarcasm, preferably!) - I'm guessing there is a reason behind the choice but I'm at a loss as to what that reason might be.
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.
-
Remember a few years ago when Orton had his shoulder injury and was on Raw with Vince and Vince made a crack about Orton looking small? Or the infamous Triple H insult of Masters? It's always been about height and physique.
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.
-
Bottom line is that stars want to play together and in the end they find ways to try to make that happen and they usually end up on those big market teams irrelevant of you having stupid caps or not.
This is true in a sport like basketball with smaller rosters. However,
I rather see a league where there is 5-6 super teams, 8-10 good teams and 20 average to poor ones than a league of 30 teams all slightly above average teams...the success of the NFL says this is wrong and that parity is a good thing to most American fans.
-
As far as the Hardy thing killing TNA, I'm sure that most people who aren't "smarks" even know that Jeff showed up high. Sting just dominated Hardy, making him look pretty bad ass.
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
Official NBA Discussion Thread
in The Dog Pound
Posted
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.