PeterHilton

Chicken and the egg. Do wrestling fans expect it because the WWE is popular? Or is the WWE popular because they give fans what they want/expect? But I see what you mean. Fair enough. But you may want to check and see how long those other shows ran as compared to how long Power Rangers was on tv.

Again..optimize is an opinion. But as to cost: it may not be much, but what are you gaining, really? The net fans who bitch sand complain generally tune in regardless and the current product keeps their fans happy. So if you added more wrestling and more "smart mark" storylines etc how many more fans will tune in?

And WOW do I think you'd be wrong. Or at least incredibly disappointed. For all of it's criticisms, the E has been the industry standard since the early 80s. They took over the market during the Rock n Wrestling Era despite the fact that their in-ring product was honestly not that great for the most part..definitely not what net fans would look at today as being 'quality' The Attitude Era was based more on characters than ring work (ironically the WCW's greatest success was also based more on characters and names than ringwork, although they did a great job of blending things) And today, they draw far more fans than other companies despite formulaic and largely predictable matches. I think net fans should realize that - as crazy as it sounds - most people DON"T watch wrestling for the actual ..y'know...wrestling. There's a segment of the audience that does...but most people want the soap opera. That's it. Even if it IS pandering to the lowest common denominator, who cares? It works. They are a publicly traded company with a responsibility to generate profits, not to please wrestling nerds. I think kayfabe is an impossible dream, especially with the advent of MMA.

Thanks. I keep meaning to post pics.

The idea that the IWC is trying to optimize the product is a matter of opinion. For all we know using the ideas that most net fans put forth would drive away the majority of the E's viewers. And it's totally fair. Especially on these boards: I assume the people who post here play TEW. One of the basic tenets of the game is that your product needs to amtch the desires of your fans. If you criticize the WWE for creating a product which appeals to the majority of its viewing audience, then you are -metaphorically speaking - telling them to play the game wrong.

Well, yes, we could go point by point and find varying examples of just 'terrible.' But overall what I'm trying to say is that peope who hyperanalyze the WWE are missing the point. THEY are not the target audience. Net fans criticizing the WWE is the wrestling equivalent of listening to bubble gum pop music and criticizing the lyrics.

By that logic everything that's popular is somehow of lesser quality becase the masses are all complacent and therefore not willing to chase after a higher standard of measure. I think net fans need to get over themselves for the most part. It's wrestling. To most people its mindless entertainment; brain candy. The WWE has been wildly successful for decades marketing themselves as just that. If you want something different that's your prerogative. But that's all you're looking for: something different. Not better. Not smarter. Not scientifically superior. Just different.

I liked him specifically because he was a Dick Murdoch knock off. Not to get too off topic ..but someone on these boards did an ECW relaunch diary with Murdoch that did a full on "foul mouthed, racist, ignorant" (EXTREME) redneck gimmick and it was f'n brilliant.

Yes, yes...only the intellectual giants that comprise the IWC can truly appreciate what great wrestling really is. The WWE caters to the masses which means it obviously must be completely and totally without merit, despite the roughly 40 years or so that it's dominated the industry. It's a wonder net fans don't dislocate their spines what with all the patting themselves on the back and saying how smart they are.

Your call..but in here defense the trailer trash/redneck gimmick has been a standard part of pro wrestling for about the last 30 years or so.

All true. I guess what I was saying is that you have to set the talent debate aside when you discuss the FA market because SOMEONE will shell out that money. I don't know if I'd pay max money to Bosh because i've never seen him in a pressure situation. I don't think Joe Johnson is a max deal guy because he's a limited player and really doesn't add anything outside his offensive skills and i don't think those skills are good enough on their own to justify his contract. But they're both going to get max or close to max deals because GMs can't help themselves. So yeah..call them all max deal guys because that's what they're going to get paid. Stop being so touchy every time someone disagrees with you. No sh*t it was your opinion on who deserves max contracts. I was just interjecting the fact about what those guys are going to get. If you want to have a private conversation use PMs. I don't need to get your permission to comment on a post in the message boards. PS David Lee is a guy actually "deserving'' of a max deal in the same line as Wade, Kobe, Lebron, Dirk, Carmelo, etc? REALLY? And I'm talking like a chicken with it's head cut off? Or they could trade for a package of players; if Lebron re-signs the sign & trade to Clevleand would be very much alive.

You guys are being retarded. The 'max deal' guys aren't 'max deals' because oif their true worth or value or whatever. it's because there are enough bad GMs out there that are willing to pay that amount that the market sustains thos econtracts. Whether you want to admit it or not, Bosh, Amare, Dirk, Boozer... they're all getting max deals. And besides..the max deal wannabe's who get paid aren't what kill a team..it's the cap space they waste on subpar guys. Giving big money to a Bosh won't kill you. But giving that money (or even close) to someone like Ben Gordon or Sam Dalembert or Allan Houston, that's murder.

I have no idea what you're talking about. "Luck" is just as indefinable and indeterminate a quality as you seem to think that "clutch" is. If you want people to take something as ambiguous and totally random as luck into the equation then you pretty much HAVE to talk about players who are clutch. After all, if you're going to ignore the fact that some players know how to clutch up, then the game might as well be played on a computer. EDIT: I want to clarify because i don't want to seem totally dismissive of youur opinion I've read lots of articles talking about how clutch is a myth in baseball; basically that if you take a large enough sample size then players perform under pressure situations in a way so similar to their performance under normal circumstances that the difference is negligible. Fine. but terms like 'clutch' and 'luck' and 'homefield advantage' and 'the will of the <insert sport here> Gods all fall under a very nebulous aspect of athletes and their psyche that really can't be measured or explained by stats. Can stats explain why some players always seem to perfrom best in the most importan games? Not really. They also can't explain why certain franchises always get the worst bounces, how certain players can fall ass backwards into great plays, or why athletes like Rick Ankiel or that catcher from Texas can go from totally normal to getting the yips and being able to perform the most rudimentary of acts. So yes...fans don't realize that 'cluth' has something to do with luck. But if you're going to take luck into the equation, then you have to also consider that some players are just more likely to succeed in trying circumstance (they're clutch!) regardless of the numbers. Anbd if you want to eliminate clutch, then do the same for luck, because that kind of thins is all sports voodoo that will never be fully explained by numbers alone. .

And? So does any kind of statistical analysis.

Slag, you're definition is cluth is too connected to baseball (where it's easier to statistically recognize repetition in a player's performance ) and - as I stated earlier to the previous poster - ignores the emotional context of the game.

"Clutch doesn't exist" is one of those retarded things statisticians and sebermetrics geeks spout off. It's BS. So any two free throws at any point in a game are exactly the same regardless of game situation, time on the clock, playoff or regular season, etc? It completely ignore human nature and emotion and the way athletes react to their outside environment. It's a crap theory. And yes..for Orlando specifically Hedo was worth overpaying. He fit better with that roster and the gameplan that any other player in the FA market.

But going back to original discussion, the Magic basically cut off negotiations with Hedo to trade for Carter. And Hedo was their best option in the most crucial times last season. So whether or not Vince is their BEST player he was the guy they expected to play big come 'crunch time.' Which was a giant effing mistake. Because he is a spineless coward.

Stats don't tell the whole story. C'mon... Carter had two free throw late in Game 2 that could've changed the outcome and the whole series. He missed them both. BOTH. That's a choke job, regardless of what his overall FT % is.

Then you guys are idiots because this year you had a real chance to win it all with Hedo and a longer bench. As for the series, if Pau doesn't allow himself to be outmuscled and Artest guards Pierce with the ferocity that LA brought him in expecting, the Lakers should win in 6 or 7.

Huh? That was the most baffling "defense" of a player I've ever seen. He missed two free throws in a game the Magic absolutely had to win at the beginning of the series, was nowhere to be seen when Howard struggled, and "they got this far" is a poor response because they got ..yknow... FARTHER last year. It was a bad signing. Just bad. The Hedo/Rashard combo was so hard to deal with because both guys are odd match ups; one near seven foot jump shooter is hard to deal with much less two of them. And Hedo won how many games for them in last year's playoffs? Throw in that he's tougher and a much better ball handler than VC who could run pick n roll as the shot clock wound down and I literally have no clue how they thought Carter was an upgrade.

Yeah well I bet the Magic wish Hedo hadn't left after the giant turd Vince Carter laid when they needed him most. To be fair, how many people were surprised that pansy choked?

You said "he still has some yards in him" she said she thought it wasn't true, then explained how some guys have great seasons then fall off. How hard was that?

It's also ironic that he's soooo happy now considering the primary reason he was so miserable for a good chunk of those years between 86 and now was the way he was treated in WCW by Eric and Hogan.

It is But the E trated him like a god. There's an entire wave of wrestling fans that have been programmed to think Ric was the greatest performer to work in the business. And maybe he was. But considering his 'prime' was over 20 years ago, he should be thanking the wrestling gods that the E gave him the 'legend' treatment since he came back because that's the reason he's even remotely relevant today.