PeterHilton

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>No, he wants the megastar, he just doesn't the issues that comes with having a megastar. Like I said before, wanthing to have your cake and eat it too.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> THIS makes sense I suppose...I'd still say they trade the "issues" for the chance to have another megastar that could possibly drag the WWE back into the mainstream</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>They have TRIED to make a Megastar out of John Cena. That I can see. But there are some things they are simply unwilling to do if that means they can make it so that John Cena has a lot of leverage on them. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> They created an entire film division in order to push him to those major star levels. What else could they have done?</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>More important to Vince than money... is control. He will put money above anything else, EXCEPT Control. WWE may not be able to get the Austin/Rock right now, but they can get darn close... they want to, but they don't the workers get bigger than them.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah...not buying it.</p><p> </p><p> The workers they have now just don't have the combination of looks, starpower, and raw charisma that Austin and Rocky did. It's not that they are being nerfed by the WWE..they just can't do it.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="LoganRodzen" data-cite="LoganRodzen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Lies, Peter. Lies! Do you remember the main event as Wrestlemania 2000? HHH walked into a 4-way dance as champ and walked out as champ. Austin had nothing to do with that. HHH was a star by that point and everybody knows it. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> meh...i hated that WM. It might be personal bias but I really loved Trips back then. But when he beat Austin in that feud, even the people I knew who didn't like him finally admitted he was the sh*t.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I am high, but I truly believe Vince doesn't want to make a star like that again.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Not buying it. Where's the downside?</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="LoganRodzen" data-cite="LoganRodzen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I argue that by 2000 HHH was already a star. His matches with Foley (No Way Out 2000) cemented him as a bad ass heel. Austin had nothing to do with it in my eyes.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'd disagree.</p><p> </p><p> EDIT: still think you're high if you think Vince wouldn't kill to have an Austin/Rock level star. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels 82" data-cite="shawn michaels 82" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>First of all, Autin didn't exactly leave. He would still be in the ring to this day if it wasn't for Owen and some other injuries. And the Rock...well,yes he is the only one having a succesfull career...but he is not a leading man to any extent and in any degree. A good career,but he's not the next Schwarzennegger. Not yet at least. And i doubt he'll get bigger. From now on...down is the way. And he will end up returning like they all do.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> He's banking $10-15 million a movie for those Disney family movies...he's easily as successful as guys like Jason Statham or Ryan Reynolds. </p><p> </p><p> If he comes back, it won't be because he has to.</p>

<p>First..you guys are high if you think Vince & Co don't want to create another giant megastar. </p><p> </p><p> That's like saying the Cleveland Cavs would never draft a top player like Lebron because he might leave in 7 years again.</p><p> </p><p> Second..Logan your brain is screwy because Austin put over The Rock big time early in their rivalry (although you could argue Rocky would've been a star regardless) and then, when Triple H made his jump to the main event in 01, it was his feud with Austin (specifically going over clean at No Way in that 2-of-3 fall match) that cemented him as a main eventer.</p>

<p><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5401230" rel="external nofollow">http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5401230</a></p><p> </p><p> That sound you hear is GatorBait drooling at the possibility of a Chris Paul/Dwight Howard combo.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's why he's gone... and why the WWE will never ever let anyone get as big as the Rock or Stone Cold again, unless they have to.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's kinda ridiculous. </p><p> </p><p> "Unless they have to" makes it seem as if they have a choice in creating a star that big. If the E could duplicate the success of the Rock or Stone Cold they'd do it in a second. </p><p> </p><p> Even if that star left in a few years, the PPV buys and ratings they generate short term, and the revenue and exposure they create longterm, is totally worth it.</p>

Totally agree with this. If they aren't your primary source of income, and the PPVs are this bad from a buyrate perspective, then just put your best matches out there for free and trust that the longterm benefit of gaining new fans will pay off eventually.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Eisen-verse" data-cite="Eisen-verse" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">I just don't see them turning John Cena heel for this scenario in the slightest. There really would be no gain, and if anything, it would hurt Cena's brand; something the WWE doesn't want for business. To me, Cena is much like Hogan before his nWo run: A guy who always wrestles as a babyface. </span></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't necessarily think Cena is going to turn, but if you take your Hogan comparison, then Cena would be the PERFECT guy to turn.</p><p> </p><p> Uber face who's character may no longer be as popular as he once was. A turn would be relatively unexpected. And if a Cena turn was even a tenth as successful as Hogan joining the nWo, then the WWE would make waaaaay more money turning him.</p><p> </p><p> But as has been mentioned, it doesn't make storyline sense. Cena's brand is still really strong. They will probably tease a turn, and then reveal Trips or something.</p>

The problem became that A) their defense was such a focal point that they didn't seem to execute on offense and B) the league was so lenient on calling touch fouls that teams could body up everywhere on the floor and the game would grind to a complete halt. The handcheck rule and some of the other things that came about regarding off the ball defense were a direct result of that style of play. So in a lot of ways many teams today CAN'T play defense the way those Pistons/Knicks/Heatteams did, even if they wanted to.

Totally agree. I "discovered" WCW when I was 10 or so and they ran the first Clash of Champions the same day as WWF's Summerslam. I was so blown away by the noticeably more intense ring work that I made it a point to follow them after that.

I'm stunned people still don't get that TV is more important to TNA than PPV is.

Haha...no it's fine. I like defense too. I just like to see a balanced team that can do both. The Jordan Bulls were phenomenal on defense and they still ran a really good offense and used a lot of passing in the post to move the ball. The Bird Celtics were as physical as any team in that era but still lit up scoreboards. it's a personal preference ..i can respect that.

Yeah that's it...the reason players don't win 11 title..because they played DEFENSE back then and no one does now Nothing to do with the size of the league, the popularity of the game, the greater depth of talent, the rules restricting roster movement and when and how teams sign and draft players, the expansion of the game to international markets... It's because old timey basketball players played DEFENSE like no one in today's game can..durn those whippersnappers!!! What are you, 90?

Talking about two extremes though. I didn't like watching Detroit and New York. By the same token, I don't take the Suns or the Knicks seriously today because of the up tempo style and complete lack defense. Somewhere in between...I enjoyed the Spurs title teams, I think the Lakers, Celtics, Magic currently play tough defense but still execute well on offense, I liked the Nuggets teams from two seasons ago that were physical as hell but could still run the floor.... Again, I appreciate defense. But the Riley Knicks and the Bad Boy Pistons played ugly as hell, it wasn't fun to watch, and the NA had to spend years adjusting rules to get teams away from it.

Yes.

It was awful basketball and it set the league back like 10 years. I get the toughness factor, but basketball is a game of motion, passes, and teamwork and everything Riley installed for the Kicks and the Heat was the opposite of that. Games turned into wars of attrition. Awful.

I'd be curious about the timeframe. Because if it includes the months before Hogan/Eric when AJ was wrestling against Angle and Sting, and the PPv matches against Daniels and Joe & Daniels then I'm totally with it.

C'mon fellas...I know it's just a preference, but it's a SPORT. Of course there are going to be unexpectedly short endings every once in a while.

True enough. The Knicks needed him more. If he stays in Cleveland and wins a title, all your points are true. And I guess what I'm saying is that I'm taking for granted that - had he stayed in Cleveland - he was never winning a title. They were never going to attract another star player. So the choice was to be loyal and become a modern day Karl Malone, or go somewhere else and win a title. And of his choices, I think NY would've done the most for his image, Chicago would've given him the best chance to win immediately where he was the focal point of the team, and Miami...well until i see otherwise Miami was the easy way out.

It IS possible to be critical of a company without wishing death on that company or being a hater. It IS also possible to be a fan of a company while still admitting they make a mistake. It's cool.

You know what...i don't even think you're reading what people are saying. Seriously...NO ONE IN THE LAST FEW PAGES HAS SAID THAT TNA NEEDS TO BE SAVED. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT A WORST CASE SCENARIO. Read through the thread. There's not many people on this board jumping on the 'TNA is dying' internet bullsh*t bandwagon. They can't die anytime soon because they have a great TV deal and good revenue coming in internationally. TNA has done a wonderful jump of getting themselves rightside up financially, even with the mistakes they made early on in their existence. And their ratings have bounced back on Thursday despite the debacle that was the first few months of the Bischoff/Hogan era. This isn't about piling on TNA. This is a perfectly legitimate back-and-forth about TNA's buy rates (which are and always have been relatively low) and whether or not it even makes sense to continue doing PPVs considering how much money they make with their Spike deal. Forchsissakes...you make one little comment about low buy rates and all of a sudden the wrestling industry is low because of Benoit blahblahblah...

Fair enough...I guess saying they weren't 'significant' is unfair. Although..I HATED those Riley/Ewing/Anthony Mason teams. That was the ugliest most godforsaken brand of basketball I've ever seen. They set the league back 10 years in terms of playing style.

THEY haven't released numbers but there have been estimates for years. And those estimates come from people who know enough about the industry that you can't just dismiss them entirely. They aren't "guessing" any more than any other journalist or writer could be described as guessing. You make a good analogy though. And that's the problem for TNA: around 5% of the E's TV audience buys PPVs. So if you use that as a basis, TNA should be around 65 K buys They've NEVER sniffed that. Ever. Never come close. No estimated buy rate has been in that neighborhood. Even if you say that sites like Wrestling Observer are WAAAAAY off when they say there were 10 K buys...how off could they be? Off by half? a third? That'd still be only 20-30 K. but again..TNA is built on TV so maybe it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't, then maybe it's time to move to TV specials.

Totally agree with this A. No one was comparing the buys to WWE buy rates. They were comparing them to buy rates from the past or mentioning that their buys are low regardless of how 'big' the company is. Listen..if you are getting @ a 1.0 on national TV and the best you can do is roughly 10 k buys,that's bad no matter how you slice it. B. This is the kind of thing Vince spouts off. You are competing against MMA/UFC because the viewing audience is similar and because both use a PPV model which means that most fans are deciding on a monthly basis to pay for a TNA, WWE, or UFC show. C. true. althugh there have been educated guesses around forever. Lastly, it's not Bischoff because the buy rates have always been relatively poor. If anything, maybe Eric is smart enough to realize TNA makes more money off of TV so it's more worthwhile to fight to raise he TV ratings. It's sad because by now Kurt would've had the greatest 3 disc DVD set ever. His call though...Kurt is in TNA because of HIS personal issues.