PeterHilton

Actually, the truly sad thing is that the Clips used to play in Anaheim a few times a year, and there was a standing offer from the people there to buy and move the team. Anaheim is close enough to LA that the fans would still have been able to see their team, but far enough that they would've had their own town..similar to the Angels/Dodgers rivalry. But Sterling knew he'd make more money holding onto the team once Staples opened and that was that. Now Anaheim is interested in the Bobcats or possibly the Kings.

No. Love had left. And Holiday came is as one of the top Gs in all of HS. (Rivals had him as high as the #2 prospect in the country) His year at UCLA was actually a major disappointment. Awful, actually if he had the season he was expected to have he wouldve easily been a top 10 pick First round is a 7 game series??? Welcome to the last 20 years. The Clippers are the worst franchise in sports, with the worst owner, and the most incompetent management. If the CBA is anything like the current model, Blake Griffin is gone by the end of next season

That was a discussion from months back. Things change.They are still profitable And they are nowhere near 'struggling' but they had a crappy year. And WM is their biggest single financial draw because of the huge PPV numbers it usually does and the fact that it tends to be one of if not the biggest home video seller. So they need it to be a hit every year. This year ...just more so. Agree to all of this. Anything more than one PPV a month is ridiculous. That's the thing..it looks more and more as though the greater number of PPVs is actually costing them. By watering donw the importance of those events, its weakened their PPV business as a whole. You continue this pattern and suddenly you're holding more events, at a larger price, with less and less viewers, at a loss.

Based on the numbers from last year...not as many as you'd think. It does matter. Because they just released the 4th quarter numbers and the PPV rate were awful. Waaaaaay down. Combine that with the dip in the st****s and the beating they took in video revenue and the E needs this to be a success.

Totaly agree with this. I think it was a case of Sloan being burned out and no longer being able to give what was necessary for his team to excel. Ifanything, management should be blamed for not recognizing this sooner and giving Jerry the luxury to retire and get a more deserving send-off.

All of that is totally fair. But again...as many people as there were on the net at the time with that opinion...was all of that bad for business? Did it hurt the WWE to have that segment of the audience - net fans, mostly - who despised X Pac? Did the 'X Pac heat' take away from the legit reaction that he go because he was a bad guy? Or was it net fans just complaining loudly and assuming that everyone in the audience though the same way. Take your personal feelings aside: in all honesty, did it have any effect whatsoever on the character and t effectiveness on TV?

And that is a totally fair evaluation and I can't honetly say i disagree with it, even though I don't fell that negatively towards Cole and his act. And I don't disagree with the way amp feels about Vickie, even though I think she's the goods. But when people use that term 'XPac Heat' what they are saying is that there is such an overwhelmingly negative and visceral reaction to the character that large segments of the audience will turn away from their TV to avoid seeing that one worker on screen. And I really don't see that happening that often and I definitely don't see it in the WWE. XPac heat is kind of a myth ..and a the very least...is wayyyy overused. Now who wants to talk some more about Sting coming to the WWE?????

Yes on Cole. I just used him as an example because of the negative reaction he got from fans starting from when he started hammering Danielson Re Cena: another good example. I loved how people would demand that he turned when he was getting mixed reactions 'because fans wanted to boo him.' At the time, he was still the most over worker on the roster so I never thought it made a difference.

I touched on this a bit, but TNA (and smaller promotions like TNA) is a different situation than the WWE because they have smaller crowds where smarts make up a much bigger portion of the audience. The Impact Zone made it nearly impossible to deal with Bubba as on on-screen character. I actually think tht eventually he could've become super useful as a full-fledged manager, but all of his off-screen antics and the way he behaved and talked about the product on his radio show made him a liability..and from what I've understood he was paid REALLY well so he just wasn't worth it. EDIT: or to put it another way, if he could've 'turned off' the character on his radio showand stopped trying to work the fans (and the wrestlers backstage), I think Bubba is still in TNA.

Well to be completely fair, there ARE people who will stop watching a program because they dislike a character so much. And in smaller promotions, that matters. I mean..I brought up the Nasty Boy example because nets fans make up a bigger segment of their audience and a MUCH bigger segment of the Impact crowd..so when those guys started getting 'XPac heat' it actually did affect the presentation. But to a company the size of the WWE? why would they care? You'd literally have to be so bad that millions of people turned off their TV sets te instant they saw you in order to make a blip of difference.

Ok...all true. But the point i was making is that fans 'not caring at all' is ten times worse than a tiny fraction of the audiecne booing because of XPac heat. You're still getting a reaction.

You know what does kill off a character that no one talks about? Apathy. If you dislike Cole or Vickie or XPac because of the performer themselves, and you still boo, then they're still doing their job. Rob Conway or Ted Dibiase comes out to the sound of crickets? not so much

I think the idea of 'X-Pac Heat' is very real; there's obviously going to be some fans that dislike a performer so much they begin reacting negatively to the worker and not the character itself. And there's going to be some workers that get more of that than others. X-Pac did. More recently, the Nasty Boys in TNA did. And even more recently, Michael Cole gets some of that. BUt it think the point lazobeak is getting that, is that there's never been any evidence that 'XPac Heat' has any real effect on anything. I mean..some promoters buy into it (net fans basically ran the Nasties off of TV). But has anyone ever really seen it have any effect? On ratings, buy rates, over-all popularity? If I went to any wrestling message board and started a Michael Cole thread, I'd probably see a "well I hate him so much I don't tune in any more" response pretty quickly. Probably several. But has any of that actualy hurt RAW's ratings? And if the WWE thought it did, wouldn't it make them enormously stupid for keeping him in that position? So yes...while 'XPac Heat' may be an actual thing among a small segment of the audience, does it matter? I'd say no. Like Self said,it's just as useful as any 'normal' heat because getting a reaction from the audience IS the performer's job. It has no effect on what a wrestler can be purposed for within a show. And -like most things when it comes to nets fans- it's blown completely out of proportion because they forget that they make up a tiny fraction of the over-all audience. XPac heat exists, but its basically meaningless, becaue I have yet to see an example where a large enough segment of the audience rejected a character that it actually effected business.

<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>The bigger issue is, there is never going to be another Vince McMahon, or Eric Bischoff, for that matter. Both, especially, Vince, were especially good as heels, with good amount of Mic Skill, and decent charisma.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You mean a really good heel authority figure that fans hate the instant they step foot out of the curtain and by the same token will root hard for anyone that's trying to go against them?</p><p> </p><p> I'd say Vicke Guerrero has done all that and more on SD. As of a matter of fact - and I'm sure people will completely trash this - I think she's better at it then Eric is. At least shes can get over as a heel without makingthe entire show about her. </p><p> </p><p> Vickie as a heel GM with a string of 'boyfriends' she pushes to the top is sheer awesome as an Authority Figure</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And was very quickly cooled off one month later when he lost the World title to Triple H. I stopped following Raw for a long time after that because I just wasn't ready for another lengthy run of Raw Is Triple H.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yup. But more than the loss to Trips it was the fact that fans rooted for Randy as an arrogant jerk but then despised him when he turned and became a cookie cutter goody two-shoes babyface.</p>

Exactly this. He was MOLTEN hot post Evolution. He got one of the biggest pops of the night at WM for his stupid 'pose' and then the WWE followed it up with a lots of bland nothingness and a string of feuds against lesser known opponents. Randy hasn't hit as big as Id thought as well, but its not entirely his fault

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You don't need to do Attitude Era anti-hero stuff to get over as one. Just outsmart the authority figure, mouth off to him and beat people up who try to get you to confirm; do everything the common man would like to do to his boss but can't. It's not rocket science.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Agreed..but again, that's poor booking. Kinda hard to go after the Authority Figure when it's a nebulous, faceless, all-knowing voice from a laptop who i just as likely to harass the faces as the heels.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If it was a midcarder who had done either of those things, then he would have been fired on the spot but stars get the breaks. To Orton's credit, he has mellowed a lot in the last few years which he put down to finally growing up and meeting his wife. Obviously, the temper is still there but Orton has grown up and that's to be commended.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I guess the point is: how do those issues from 3-4 years ago relate to an accidental injury now? </p><p> </p><p> As to what you were wondering though...yeah it's pretty obvious there's a star system in place. But doesn't that exist in almost every industry, especially any industry related to entertainment? </p><p> </p><p> As to Orton specifically: I think he's doing fine..but I also think he's limited by the fact that A) he's really never been that great on the mic B) it's hard to do the anti-hero stuff that Austin could do in the PG era and C) he hasn't exactly been blessed by a string of stellar opponents. Sheamus? Barrett? Miz? The program with Edge was cut short and he didn't really get any time with Jricho. So his recent program with Punk is the first time he's facing a really established name over an extended period. </p><p> </p><p> Orton's not a promo guy, so matching him up with opponents who arent magic on the mic does him no favors.</p><p> </p><p> He's not the #1 Face in the company. And that'son him, mainly. But if the E wanted him to be there's ways they could've booked him that would've helped.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="milamber" data-cite="milamber" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Latest rumour:</p><p> </p><p> A storyline where Sting has been trying to get sacked from TNA but can't so to get into the WWE he had to become the Anonymous RAW GM.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> lolwut???</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think it may be a bit premature to say there's nothing on Wrestlemania worth seeing a solid 2 months before the show goes to air, before any of the matches are set and before we know who this "guest host" is supposed to be. You may be right but I think you're jumping the gun right now.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's totaly fair and I'm not saying there's NO WAY the could get me to order it. I'm just pointing out that - with the current storylines - the chances are low.</p><p> </p><p> But they could probably make some minor adjustments - say, line up Taker to face Cena - and I'd probably be back on board.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Zeel1" data-cite="Zeel1" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I love how Cole used it, I personally found him hounding him on it to be hilarious. Just the way he made such a <em>massive</em> deal out of it, acting like he committed a cardinal sin... <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><p> </p><p> Yeah, a little bummed now that I think the promo vids aren't Sting. I kind of doubted it before, but it was still a nice thought. It was the "Ain't No Grave" song that sealed it for me - if only because I remember them using it for promo vids for Taker/Shawn last year, or maybe the year before it, I'm not sure. That's not entirely concrete, I know, but re-using it implies 'Taker for me. Nevermind the fact that he was last seen being buried in a grave... ah well.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Y'know, I know it's not the WWE's fault per se for everyone jumping to conclusions and thinking it might be Sting and getting excited. </p><p> </p><p> But the ONLY reason I was considering ordering WM this year was a Sting return. If that doesn't happen, there's just nothing on that card that makes me want to order. </p><p> </p><p> Undertaker coming back after a few months off? So what..it happens every year. </p><p> </p><p> Cena vs Miz?...meh...Cena in the main event at WM is no longer a must-see for me at least.</p><p> </p><p> Punk vs Orton? Del Rio vs Edge? Trips vs Sheamus? <em>Another</em> MITB? Nothing there makes me want to shell out the extra cheese to see WM. </p><p> </p><p> So while it's not the E's fault that I assumed it was Sting, it's certainly their fault that WM seems like it's nothing that I will regret missing if he's not there.</p>

Also disappointed, but if you believe web news conpiracies, you ould also look at the fact that TNA updated their roster page and removed Sting entirely.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="thommohawk" data-cite="thommohawk" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Maybe I've simply found my own personal wrestling Nirvana in TNA but for me ROH don't have the name wrestlers that they used to (or is it those guys are now famous?) and for me WWE has been flatout laborous and drop dead boring for years. I grew up as a WWE fanboy but honestly around 3 years ago I lost all interest - what killed it for me was I hadn't watched all year and I tuned in to consecutive Wrestlemania's only to find that quite literally nothing had changed all year....that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me with the E.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> 100000% agree with this. I think that's why the Nexus hit so big..it was the first 'surprise' angle theyd done in years</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If I had to pick one thing about TNA that turns me off of the product when I try to give it another chance is the frenetic pace of the product and the presentation therein.<p> </p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yup. Just..yup.</p><p> </p><p> They don't let storylines sink in, characters switch allegiance to fast, no one is ever a good guy or bad guy long enough to make a turn meaningful..</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I think the E is moving at a snail's pace and is incrdibly predictable, but holy sh*t is TNA too much in the opposite direction</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="thommohawk" data-cite="thommohawk" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>In the interest of not stepping over the line I digress. And Angle may have won an award for his promos I don't know (you'd know better than i) but honestly some of Angle's promos in TNA have been the most real as there's been times when he's been in tears in the ring, but, have you honestly ever seen Angle have the crowd in the palm of his hand like The Rock or Jericho ? Ever seen Angle cut such an effective promo as the HBK 'lost my smile' classic ? I'm not disputing that Angle isn't a decently acceptable promo cutter (maybe even on his day can be great) but I am disputing that he's a great promo cutter....which to me it's a fact that he's not. I don't wish to be an a$$ about it but that's the way I feel.<p> </p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> First I'd like to say that this is a great example of stating your opinion strongly without necessarily making it sound lik you're literally thumping your chest while typing. <img alt=";)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/wink.png.686f06e511ee1fbf6bdc7d82f6831e53.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> I disagree that he's not a great promo. BUt I'm not gonna run this argument into the ground. </p><p> </p><p> Also... you definitely have a point about his TNA stuff being more 'real.' I don't know what happened, but around the midway point of his WWE run he stopped being 'funny Kurt' on a regular basis and I sort of miss that.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Derek B" data-cite="Derek B" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> TNA's product is generally good, but can range anywhere between awesome (Flair/Lethal promos, Angle/Hardy or Angle/AJ matches) to terrible (where to begin....) on a weekly basis. Fans will always have opinions but it's fairly clear that people enjoy things more than they say they do otherwise they would stop watching. It's that simple. Personally, I watch TNA every week and most weeks I'm happy with what I've watched.</p><p> </p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, the Rock/Anderson comparisons are probably more true now than ever before. The fact he has the entire audience chanting 'Im an A-Hole' is verrrry reminiscent of an Attitude style promo</p>