lazorbeak

That's still not a travel. He didn't take two steps and then hop. He picked up his dribble and jump stopped. That is a perfectly legal play. Here's the rule: "-A player who lands with one foot first may only pivot using that foot. A progressing player who jumps off one foot on the first step may land with both feet simultaneously for the second step. In this situation, the player may not pivot with either foot and if one or both feet leave the floor the ball must be released before either returns to the floor." It's called a jump stop, and it's part of the rules of the game. A video that shows this in more detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm0k2rqEeJQ

LBJ didn't pick up his dribble until he did the jump stop, and then he shot the ball. Doc is just flat out wrong, that is not a travel. It's just a freak athlete making a freak play that looks wrong because it's so far beyond the abilities of 99.99% of human beings.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>No offense but you don't know what you're talking about. I work in television and I can tell you that SyFy is indeed a "cult" network however it shows just as much prime time original programming as A&E, Spike T.V, etc. Its not USA/FX/TNT but it has a dedicated original programming schedule.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> No offense, but I do know what I'm talking about. Kind of seems like you don't know what I'm talking about, though. SyFy is a cult network that tends to average 1.0 ratings on a regular basis and, as I just said, is showing reality show marathons in primetime multiple times this week. It's more than a little ridiculous to say something like "you don't know what you're talking about" when I'm looking at the programming schedule and stating fact. Also when you agree with one of my main points it doesn't really compute with not knowing what I'm talking about.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>SyFy is in 96 million homes, USA is in 98.5 million homes so SyFy is in every major market in the United States. If you have cable t.v you have the SyFy channel. Also pro wrestling does not fit in with any of USA's programming shows like White Collar, Psyche, etc are not aimed at the Pro Wrestling audience. Please don't point out how Cena and Show have been on that shows that does not make them geared at the same audience its makes the USA a smart network for synchronizing as many products as they can on their brand.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Wow it's almost like Burn Notice and Psyche, etc., are aimed at a similar demographic on a network that encourages cross-promotion. But I look forward to Cody Rhodes starring in Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus 2.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So you can't say that nobody watches SyFy because nobody watches WGN and that doesn't stop Superstars from generating roughly a 1.0 rating. SyFy is basic cable and its seen around the country in nearly every home that has cable. Its got nothing to do with not being a wrestling network as wrestling has been on that network for FOUR years almost five years now so thats not an excuse. Its not an excuse that its not seen in many homes when its seen in just 2.5 million less homes than USA Network.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I guess I couldn't, but fortunately, I <em>didn't</em>. I didn't say nobody watches SyFy and I didn't say it was in less homes than USA, I said it was on less homes than broadcast/air channels it was formerly on. And some of that audience they're losing is an audience that doesn't have cable and/or doesn't watch SyFy.</p><p> </p><p> My response was aimed at Hyde, who said that SyFy was a "better network."</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="crownsy" data-cite="crownsy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>mytv is on cable as well, a large portion of the country doesn't even have it.<p> </p><p> Syfy reaches more homes than mytv i believe.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> No, mynetwork TV is a broadcast station, in almost every case it was the channel that didn't get merged into the CW. And no, Syfy doesn't reach more homes.</p><p> </p><p> I mean: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MyNetworkTV_affiliates" rel="external nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MyNetworkTV_affiliates</a></p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Well Smackdown's 52 week low was a 1.6 and high a 2.2. So with it being on a better network, a live show and a "debut" show I think that a 1.7 is lower then expectations.<p> </p><p> rating's source:</p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/columns/155465/The-Hamilton-Ave-Journal-09.30.10:-Volume-2-%E2%80%93-Issue-157.htm" rel="external nofollow">http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/columns/155465/The-Hamilton-Ave-Journal-09.30.10:-Volume-2-%E2%80%93-Issue-157.htm</a></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Uh, Sci-Fi is not a "better network." It's a cult TV network that's only available on Cable, so it's in less homes and doesn't have anything remotely related to wrestling that can be used in advertising. This is a network running marathons of ghost-related reality shows multiple times this week in prime time. While it's probably lower than expectations, it's still significantly above where ECW ended and still above NXT's ratings.</p>

I think coaching is more to blame than roster as far as 'Melo's lack of defense. Chauncey is a tough defender who can bully smaller point guards, they have guys in the post that can alter shots and keep people out of the lane: all 'Melo should really have to do is shut people down on the wing and they'd have a solid defense. But George Karl coaches that team and he doesn't like that slow tempo, Detroit Pistons/Boston Celtics type of game, so 'Melo hasn't really been put in a position where improving his defense is a priority.

Yeah I mean top 5 in the NBA means top 1 or possibly 2 at your position. 'Melo is a very good scorer but that's about it. His game isn't complete, and he's not a guy who will go out and win for you. It's like saying "gee I don't understand why Vince Carter isn't considered an all-time great." It's because he's not. He's a freak athlete and could be a top 5 type guy, but at the moment 'Melo is not that guy. He's too quick to fall in love with the outside shot and he's not really an elite player at any other aspect of the game. The highest 'Melo appeared on any stat that wasn't a scoring or minutes stat last season was #11 in efficiency rating. When you're #3 at your position it's tough to argue you're a top five player.

You're absolutely right that there's no evidence that female wrestling is what people want to see in record numbers. Women wrestling is a niche, and it's probably always going to be that way. But, the mistake TNA is making, which is the same mistake WCW made 11 years ago, is that there is no pay-off to T&A segments, especially in a situation like the over-run: even if you make short term gains it leads to long-term losses. TNA can say that PPV buys aren't their primary revenue source and that's fine, but nobody watching that TNA over-run you're referring to was more likely to go "gee I better buy the PPV now!" It'd be one thing if they were out there saying "hey there might be nudity at this ppv!" Bizarrely enough, that would sell, albeit to a niche in TNA's already niche audience, but it also runs the risk of costing you sponsorship money and getting a bunch of values ****s after you (see: WWF in 1999 and 2000, and the resulting publicity for the PTC [consequently, this was probably the last time Stevie Richards was over in any real way]). But even if you say "well they don't want to sell the PPV," just having T&A for the sake of T&A is still bad long-term strategy because while you are drawing in casual channel flippers, you're not keeping them and you're not establishing a brand identity. And since TNA's current brand identity is that of WWE's retirement home/ rehab alternative, putting the "T&A" in "TNA" just makes the company look bad. I mean WWF could've had Sable getting her top ripped off in every overrun from 1997 to her trip out the door and it would've drawn ratings equal to or greater to what WWF was doing at the time, but to what end? Instead, WWF would end on big moments featuring their top guy(s) every week, so that Mr. idle channel changer sees Austin stunning 10 guys and he knows "this is what WWF is about: watch next week for more!" over time strong over-runs were one of the many reasons the show steadily increased in viewership. I mean TNA needing to find an identity that isn't fundamentally derivative is a bigger problem, but high profile T&A segments is a symptom of that problem, and when they had Kong and Kim et al., they could at least point to that and say "this is how we're a wrestling alternative: we do this thing better." Now they can't really say that about anything they do outside of tag team wrestling, a concept WWE has all but abandoned.

You sign a contract? With massive penalties in the event of breach? How is it any harder to believe than literally any other thing that happens in wrestling?

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know that eaygrat but dj was talking about the fact that WWE's total number of viewers have not gone down. That does not matter as it is market share that rates popularity etc. The total number of potential viewers has gone up etc but the E has not been able to attract the same percentage of viewers from them as before. Thus they have declined in popularity.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> What DJ is talking about is the complete opposite of a decline.</p><p> </p><p> Kudos to Stennick and DJ for being the voice of reason here.</p>

WWE maintains 4 trademarks for "Shawn Michaels" including clothing, games, packaging, and "wrestling exhibitions and performances by a professional wrestler and entertainer," so yes, WWE owns the rights to the name. I've mentioned it elsewhere but figuring out what trademarks are living and dead can easily be looked up at: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp

Not only that, both women cheated on him with other wrestlers. Although we never did get a worked shoot Paul London vs. Matt Hardy for Ashley's love.

Well at least she's always got a job as Paige Webb, the web mistress, all lined up. I'm sure she'll make just as much... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfPhRHdvFwo "She just turned my floppy disk into a hard drive!" (Also how has Jennifer Blaze not gotten looked at by WWE?)

I'm confused why this surprises Moe Hunter, hasn't the Latin Smackdown audience been pretty well-known since forever? And they taped in Bakersfield, California, 100 miles north of LA. Also some baffling criticism earlier in this thread based on somebody's debut show: how on earth could anyone justify "X-Pac heat" towards a guy based on one appearance? I just don't get that sort of thinking at all. Just watched Smackdown. My thoughts: Del Rio is going to be a huge deal. I like the size and the look a lot, I like that he's using a submission finisher, in keeping with his MMA career. Don't like the name much, and I wish there was more references to his family history beyond being a descendant of Ferdinand and Isabella. His mic skills aren't great, but that's why he's on Smackdown, where nobody except Punk is particularly great on the mic. It's the ring-work focused show, and his ring-work should be solid. Gotta love the 5 minute memory of the WWE: "we've never had a diva like Serena before!" Yes, you've never had a girl with a regular body type and a shaved head before. That said I'm a fan of Serena so good to see her join the active roster. Why was Kelly Kelly sent to Smackdown when the Raw women's division is so horrific? Kelly's not great but she's acrobatic and can be carried to a good match, as long as she's not in there with someone greener than she is. Didn't care for Kane's promo at all. Kane just sort of goes up there and gives a history lesson and talks about how all those times in the past decade he was Taker's partner was all part of a decade long plot to beat his brother. I didn't love the structure or the presentation: it fell flat as a piece because the crowd wasn't involved at all. In the old days this would've been a segment where Jim Ross would conduct an interview with Kane either in the ring or backstage. It would've flowed better and seemed less like Kane rambling, and would've given the audience a chance to get into it, since it would create natural pauses for the fans to boo. This was just really flat and seemed pretty heavily edited. Speaking of things I don't care for: MVP as a babyface. He's just awful. "How's your dad's diarrhea" is a terrible line, but his delivery of the line was even worse. Kind of sucks for Swagger that he's this far down the pecking order so soon after being champ. I'm liking the Christian/Matt vs. McIntyre/Rhodes set-up they're doing. Smarks may not like Cody or Drew, but they're young and have a good look going into the future, and they get experience dealing with solid hands like Christian and Matt who are, let's face it, never going to be main eventers. The only thing that sucks is WWE doesn't have enough PPV time to advance the storyline for guys at this level, so nobody tends to get elevated. In the old days they could work this feud over a month or two and end it on PPV in what would basically be a filler match between midcarders, but they don't even have time for that because filler matches seem to belong to the divas or the tag team champions.

Yeah that analogy makes absolutely zero sense. First, we're talking about a hypothetical situation. Second, we DO know the result. Bischoff thought hoarding talent and paying guys not to work would drive WWE out of business. It didn't. Vince was smart to take a chance on an unproven group of new guys, because the alternative was paying big money for proven commodities that had never been that profitable for him or were on the downswing. As good as Bret Hart was in the ring, he was never all that great on the mic and never drew big money, so he absolutely did the right thing by letting Bischoff steal the guy for far, far more than he was worth. As clear as it was in 1996 that Hogan still had a lot of drawing power, how many more years were WWF fans going to put up with him main eventing? It was time to push new guys, and while it hurt WWF in the short term, long-term it was a good investment. So your analogy doesn't make any sense, because WCW's short-sightedness is one of the direct causes of what caused them to hemorrhage money for three years to the point that they were sold for pennies on the dollar. They weren't doing the right thing and then just happened to have a negative result: they were doing the wrong thing and it caused a negative result.

I'm sure Bischoff was laughing at WWF in 1997, since they were winning the ratings every week and had what had to seem like the greatest roster in history while WWF was pushing unproven new stars and were too cheap to pay for guys that would draw better in the ratings. Silly WWF, when will you learn?

You're kidding, right? There's the snake shirt, plus they've been selling the gas mask shirts for months, and before that, there were legacy shirts, and before that, there were RKO shirts, and before that, there were "legend killer" shirts. I mean his default attire outside the ring has been t-shirt and no pants since forever.

Orton is a babyface and has been for months. That says, yes, Nexus has a shirt for sale and yes it's a big seller. Miz is also on the top seller list as a heel. The rest of WWE's top selling stuff is all Cena and Orton, which isn't surprising, since they're the two top babyfaces in the company.

Hey I get pimping your own product, but if you're going to take cheap shots at your neighbor, maybe you should make sure there aren't any beams in your eye, to mix my metaphors. He could have quit while he was ahead, or he could have just hyped up his own work without feeling the need to denigrate his competition (although that's never been his style). Instead he just looks like an idiot.

In the short term, yes, putting over new talent hurts your ratings. It was true in 1997-98 WWF, it's still true in 2010. It's also a necessity to evolve your product, create new stars, etc. Sheamus right now isn't going to draw big money because there's still a segment of the casual wrestling fan-base that doesn't know who he is because he wasn't working when those casual fans regularly watched the show. The more casual your fan-base is, the more it needs help figuring out who it's cheering for and what's going on in the promotion. For me the height of this was WCW in 1999 and 2000, when WCW fans were essentially cheering anyone they recognized: "the Outsiders? Hey I know those guys! Tank who?" But, like you said, new faces can also bring in new fans, and more exciting for me as a wrestling fan, we haven't already seen absolutely everything they're capable of as performers. I don't care about Triple H coming back, because I've seen absolutely everything he can do as a babyface and as a heel, whereas I'm curious how John Morrison would do as a main event heel or how effective Sheamus would be as a main event babyface. My favorite is how Bischoff makes some credible (if obvious) points, but then, apparently feeling he was on a roll, begins talking directly out of his posterior when he says this: Is that why ratings have dropped, Monday Night Impact was a disastrous failure, and an "emerging" talent like AJ Styles dropped the title and down the card while a 40 year old with nostalgia appeal from his time at bigger, better companies years ago is TNA's champ? Because... those are facts too.

All of Edge's big gold belt reign's combined are barely half the total time Batista held the belt. Undertaker won the belt what, 3 times in the past 5 years and has held the belt for almost as long as Edge. More reigns =/ heels going over most of the time.

Uh, that's not really true. WWE was and is all about babyface champions and sending fans home happy. Triple H is the only guy on WWF/E's top ten champions in terms of reign length that worked primarily as a heel. Even Randy Savage was a babyface for the majority of his world title reigns in WWF. Cena has held the WWE title far longer than anyone else the past 6 years as a babyface, and on the other side of that, Batista's held the big gold belt longer than anyone not named Triple H, entirely as a babyface.

Probably called in a favor from Mr. McMahon.

I've been a fan of Black ever since I built a small indy promotion around him in EWR about 4 years ago. Is bringing him in as Punk's rookie next season of NXT or a member of the SES too obvious? I mean he could be Punk's little brother the two look so similar.

Yes, all titles are props in professional wrestling, because it is a fake sport. Being World Heavyweight Champion doesn't mean you are literally the greatest wrestler in the world because you won a pre-determined match. And they look like overblown pieces of jewelry so they can sell overblown pieces of jewelry, because again, wrestling is a work whose goal is to make money. It's just a reason to give lower card guys something to fight for on TV. It's fine for what it is, but I agree I like belts that have a specific purpose better. As gimmicky and dumb as the hardcore title eventually became, at least it had its own set of rules so when Al Snow or whoever held it they could claim to be the "most hardcore" guy in the promotion. Again, belts like this have a purpose, in that they give guys that don't have fully formed storylines something to do. Dolph Ziggler isn't going to get a 10 minute promo, but darn it, he wants the IC belt! I guess he should fight the champ on TV or something... Yup, all belts are props. And now I can't help but think about Triple H withering away and rambling about "his preciousssssss." I don't get the occasional smarky coplaints about how the IC title isn't as valuable as it was in the 80's or early 90's: of course it isn't. In the 80's and early 90's, Jimmy Snuka or Shawn Michaels could never be Heavyweight Champion, because they weren't heavyweights: the IC belt is about as far as they could go. Chris Jericho and Rey Mysterio would never have runs as world champs in that era. Additionally, the brand system means you basically have twice the guys in the main event picture, and whichever belt is being depicted as being less important in a given month is functionally acting the way the old IC title did. I mean the belt isn't the #2 belt anymore, and by a distant margin. Of course it's not as important as it was 20 years ago.