Raw To Be Moved To 3 Hours

[chris caulfield]

credit:Wrestling Observer & 24wrestling.com [QUOTE]USA Network has talked of wanting Raw to increase to three hours in the fall. The belief is that is guarantees the network one extra hour of very high ratings every week, thus enabling them to maintain their status of being the most watched network on cable television. The thought process being the move is that if Raw starts at 8 p.m. more often, people will get used to tuning into Raw at that time, and it will lead to higher ratings in the second hour in particular. They also made the suggestion of Steve Austin and Undertaker being regulars on the show, even if they can't wrestle. On the WWE front, they aren't too keen on making Raw a three hour show, every single week. They think this is the last thing they need. Although, if they go through with the move, they'll likely get a rate increase from USA.[/QUOTE] Personally i think if they put some decent stuff in the third hour and started pushing some new talent possibly bring some up from development it would be great.

[Sensai of Mattitude]

Nah, while it may bring some decent viewing to the table, that would just totally ruin the point of PPVs (unless they changed them to 4 hours monthly, which would just be awful).

[justtxyank]

WCW ran 3 hour Nitros I think for awhile didn't they? Anyway, a 3 hour Raw would probably work fine if WWE had any creativity left in them. Sadly, they don't.

[chris caulfield]

[QUOTE=justtxyank;254489]WCW ran 3 hour Nitros I think for awhile didn't they?[/QUOTE] Yes they did and they used it to give the cruiserweights more air time and it worked well if raw did that and gave more time to new talent and the women and tag team ranks it would work perfectly but it would be like a weekly ppv which would get tiresome after a while.

[PeterHilton]

[QUOTE=justtxyank;254489]WCW ran 3 hour Nitros I think for awhile didn't they? Anyway, a 3 hour Raw would probably work fine if WWE had any creativity left in them. Sadly, they don't.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=chris caulfield;254496]Yes they did and they used it to give the cruiserweights more air time and it worked well if raw did that and gave more time to new talent and the women and tag team ranks it would work perfectly but it would be like a weekly ppv which would get tiresome after a while.[/QUOTE] The first hours of Nitro were routinely among the worst rated and eventually WCW started booking an hour of nothing. Literally, just an hour os BS skits and recaps. Because nobody watched. This would be a terrible idea. For one, they don't have enough people on the roster to consistently fill up 3 hours. The only reason the last regular 3 hour show (the Draft) worked was because it was 'tri-branded.' Also, if you look at the raitings for the Draft, the first hour scored very low (a 3.2 IIRC ) while hours 2 and three were very high (3.9 and a 4.2). So the regular Raw slot would've had a great rating except it was artificially dragged down by the first hour. I could easily see the pattern continuing. Not sure what the pay-out from USA would be, but it would have to compensate for the residual issues caused by decreased ratings over-all.

[sebsplex]

No from me. Most recent editions of RAW lately seem about 40 minutes too long anyway. Unless the WWE is suddenly going to go balls-to-the-wall with creativity, it'll just mean more filler. PH has already touched upon the problems of the 3 hour Nitro broadcasts and that's with the wrestling industry at one of it's peaks. Plus the WWE is already in the realms of TV and PPV overkill at the moment and the last thing they need is an extra hour.

[AfRoMaN36]

[QUOTE=PeterHilton;254500]The first hours of Nitro were routinely among the worst rated and eventually WCW started booking an hour of nothing. Literally, just an hour os BS skits and recaps. Because nobody watched. This would be a terrible idea. For one, they don't have enough people on the roster to consistently fill up 3 hours. The only reason the last regular 3 hour show (the Draft) worked was because it was 'tri-branded.' Also, if you look at the raitings for the Draft, the first hour scored very low (a 3.2 IIRC ) while hours 2 and three were very high (3.9 and a 4.2). So the regular Raw slot would've had a great rating except it was artificially dragged down by the first hour. I could easily see the pattern continuing. Not sure what the pay-out from USA would be, but it would have to compensate for the residual issues caused by decreased ratings over-all.[/QUOTE] But its often because Fans were so accustomed to tuning in at 9 that people forgot it was a three hour show, I dont know how many times this has happened to me. I think after a short term, it would balance out. But I think if anything would hurt this idea in the long run, it would creative drying up.

[djthefunkchris]

THere is no doubt in my mind that they would be able to not only get better ratings then now, but be able to entertain as always..... I would watch it most the time anyways. I think they should do it.... The only thing is... Vince has been wanting 90 minutes instead of 2 hours for a good bit of time. I know that He don't think an hour is enough, and he thinks that two is too much... Imagine what he thinks of three, lol.

[PeterHilton]

[QUOTE=AfRoMaN36;254523]But its often because Fans were so accustomed to tuning in at 9 that people forgot it was a three hour show, I dont know how many times this has happened to me. I think after a short term, it would balance out. But I think if anything would hurt this idea in the long run, it would creative drying up.[/QUOTE] Maybe. Maybe not. If it were your company would you risk ad revenue just so USA doesn'thave to show an episode of Law & Order?

[PeterHilton]

[QUOTE=djthefunkchris;254556]THere is no doubt in my mind that they would be able to not only get better ratings then now, but be able to entertain as always..... I would watch it most the time anyways. I think they should do it....[/QUOTE] Other than your eternal optimism, there's really nothing to justify that. Nitro's first hour was awful AND even when they tried to do things with the time they were getting lower numbers. Not every fans has the patience to sit and watch 180 minutes of TV. And since most Raws are structured so the good stuff happens at the end, you'll end up with very backloaded ratings. This is probably an extremely bad idea. Vince has a decent track record on these kinds of things.

[Capelli King]

3 hours is hard to keep the interest. Hard one. Of corse it gives more time to promote new talent

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=PeterHilton;254565]Other than your eternal optimism, there's really nothing to justify that. Nitro's first hour was awful AND even when they tried to do things with the time they were getting lower numbers. Not every fans has the patience to sit and watch 180 minutes of TV. And since most Raws are structured so the good stuff happens at the end, you'll end up with very backloaded ratings. This is probably an extremely bad idea. Vince has a decent track record on these kinds of things.[/QUOTE] I'm going by the reason that it's in question in the first place. I didn't state it, because I felt it was obvious... [QUOTE]USA Network has talked of wanting Raw to increase to three hours in the fall. The belief is that is guarantees the network one extra hour of very high ratings every week, thus enabling them to maintain their status of being the most watched network on cable television. The thought process being the move is that if Raw starts at 8 p.m. more often, people will get used to tuning into Raw at that time, and it will lead to higher ratings in the second hour in particular. They also made the suggestion of Steve Austin and Undertaker being regulars on the show, even if they can't wrestle.[/QUOTE] USA's thinking is going by the "Special" 3 hour shows they already do... The overall show would probably not have any higher ratings at all, if you average it out, but it would definately be a boost (In their thinking) of gaining on one of the hours. WWE makes mistakes all the time, in their storylines, but it seems to me, the one's they get the most flack for are the one's that get the most interest. So... I don't see an extra hour being something that would drown them, since they seem to be able to do it whenever they think it's right to anyways. USA wants it, because even if the ratings sink a bit, they will have an extra hour that is better then average. I know Vince is totally right, but that doesn't mean I don't think they can pull it off... IF YOU HAD To choose any wrestling promotion out right now to do three hour shows, Which one would you put your money on? It's a gamble, and I have nothing but circumstancial evidence to proove anything, but then again... This was an opinion, and so I didn't feel the need to provide proof, it's just my opinion. Myself, I would keep pushing what Vince wants, 90 minutes... IF I was part of the network though, I would be on thier side. However, I still think the WWE could do it, if they set out to. EDIT: About that first hour... I don't know, seems to me there is always a Main Eventer on almost at the very first segment. Also, Realise that when I watch, I could care less who the Main Eventer's are, I watch for who I want to see... Flair, Boogieman, Booker T, Finlay, Hardy's, Duece and Domino, London and Kendricks, etc... So if the first part is going to have any of these, it would make me watch it... I"m pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

[mjdgoldeneye]

I don't know if aw getting another hour will even make a difference. I'd watch the same percentage of the show that I do now (around 40%). I think if they just took what they did now and expanded it, it may work... (Give the matches more time, give the angles more time, etc.) Or, they can throw in another feud per month than he have now (The only problem would be PPV's.) As was said, I don't tune in to see "Main Eventers". I actually dislike most people more when they are over pushed or hold a title too long. I'm more for the mid-card IC title scene. (Carlito, Shelton Benjamin, Johnny Nitro, the tag teams, people like that.)

[ColtCabana]

I chose yes, but on the condition that they use the extra hour too put over more wrestling as opposed to entertainment. maybe used to highlight the midcard or the next generation of main eventers.

[makarok]

I chose no, because even if they did get another hour they would doubtless fill it with more mindless crap.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=makarok;254811]I chose no, because even if they did get another hour they would doubtless fill it with more mindless crap.[/QUOTE] Although I might not aggree with HOW you put it, I do think it will be the same show, just longer... That's what USA wants though, so weather or not its mindless crap or not, doesn't matter. I've been probably looking at it from the networks point of view then any other. They see the potential to have compatible ratings in one more hour of broadcasting. Meaning, They figure if they can get just a piece of what the other two hours get, it would be great for the network. I wouldn't mind them just airing "Heat" match's or something, with highlights of what's going on, or even Dark Match's.

[sebsplex]

I agree, 90 minutes is ideal given the state of the WWE's brands. Plenty of time to put across a good overall product without the flaws being exposed by trying to fill time. As for the ratings... eh, 3 hours may give better overall numbers for USA, but I look at it a little like the WWE's format of PPV's. The WWE make more money out of running so many extra PPV's a year these days, (lots of lower buyrates must generate more revenue than less higher buyrates) although the overall quality has noticeably dropped. [QUOTE=djthefunkchris;254596]Also, Realise that when I watch, I could care less who the Main Eventer's are, I watch for who I want to see... Flair, Boogieman, Booker T, Finlay, Hardy's, Duece and Domino, London and Kendricks, etc... [/QUOTE] That's funny, in the other thread regarding Bischoff's comments on TNA, you posted that unlike TNA, the WWE make you want to watch everyone on their roster. Now you only tune in for some... ?

[NickC13573]

[QUOTE=djthefunkchris;254596]IF YOU HAD To choose any wrestling promotion out right now to do three hour shows, Which one would you put your money on? [/QUOTE] I would put my money on TNA. they have spectacular PPV's. and the weekly PPV's were the best.

[GDE71]

TNA doesn't have enough people to job to all the "stars". People who should be winning: Samoa Joe Kurt Angle Christian Cage AJ Styles Christopher Daniels Sabin & Shelley Team 3D LAX Rhino Wildcat Chris Harris Abyss So right there you have 8 singles who need to be winning and 3 tag teams that need to be winning. I didn't even really deal with the X Division(which needs to be rebuilt).

[PeterHilton]

[QUOTE=djthefunkchris;254914] I've been probably looking at it from the networks point of view then any other. They see the potential to have compatible ratings in one more hour of broadcasting. Meaning, They figure if they can get just a piece of what the other two hours get, it would be great for the network. I wouldn't mind them just airing "Heat" match's or something, with highlights of what's going on, or even Dark Match's.[/QUOTE] That's the thing: If you look at it from the network's POV, fine. But how would this benefit the WWE? And REALLY...if they aired "heat" matches or did recaps, wouldn't that pretty much guarantee that a first hour would get sh*t ratings. No one wants to watch that..OK, MOST people don't want to watch that.... And that leads back to my initial post in this thread: a first hour with sh*t ratings would drag the rest of the show down and the WWE would then lose revenue from existing advertisers and be even les slikely to go after big ticket sponsors down the road. [QUOTE=NickC13573;254930]I would put my money on TNA. they have spectacular PPV's. and the weekly PPV's were the best.[/QUOTE] Hmmmmm...I must've missed those. All the TNA PPVs I've seen lately have been 1 or 2 really good spotfests, a couple of average matches, and about an hour of crap.

[Chriswok]

Hmm I voted don't care, but actually, I'd say no - if I did. 3 hours of Raw, 1 hour of ECW, 2 hours of Smackdown, 2x 3 hours of PPVs a month - then throw in Saturday Night's Main Event once and a while. That's way too much mediocre WWE for anyone to stomach, even hardcore fans. Currently, Raw seems stretched thin as it is and holds my interest sporadically at best. I believe that 3 hours of Raw would over expose WWE in more ones then one.

[thug saint oga]

another hour of suck? count me out. if they hired a dozen luchadors a la wcw back in the day, then count me in. especially if one of them is l. a. park (the original La Parka)

[Tyler Gadzinski]

I say NO because as of late they have been doing really really bad... and they dont need another hour of John Cena.. ... you know thats what theyll fill it with.

[dvdWarrior]

No with a capital NO on this one. I have a hard time watching the 714 hours of wrestling they have on tv every week as it is. The shows themselves are decent, but I just get burned out on it after a while. Sometimes, less is more. I really like Vince McMahon's idea of the shows being 90 minutes, to be honest. Three hours just seems like way too much of a good thing.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=PeterHilton;254938]That's the thing: If you look at it from the network's POV, fine. But how would this benefit the WWE? And REALLY...if they aired "heat" matches or did recaps, wouldn't that pretty much guarantee that a first hour would get sh*t ratings. No one wants to watch that..OK, MOST people don't want to watch that.... And that leads back to my initial post in this thread: a first hour with sh*t ratings would drag the rest of the show down and the WWE would then lose revenue from existing advertisers and be even les slikely to go after big ticket sponsors down the road.[/QUOTE] I do see your thought, but I think they could do it with just doing three hours of Raw... I'll explain my thoughts after this next quote. [QUOTE=Tyler Gadzinski;255153]I say NO because as of late they have been doing really really bad... and they dont need another hour of John Cena.. ... you know thats what theyll fill it with.[/QUOTE] WWE Has been doing REALLY REALLY GOOD Lately, and John Cena is rarely the highlight or the main event of the show anyways, so even if you were right about him, that's not accurate about him being so over used, in my opinion... Matter of fact, makes me think you haven't been actually watching WWE at all "lately", or at all since Wrestlemania, in which I believe they have really improved their shows, not that I was complaining about them before. Back to the subject though... I notice something when watching any of the shows, No matter which one it is... ECW, Smackdown, Raw.. don't matter. TO me they NEVER EVER use everyone on their roster's... Not even close most the time, unless they do some sort of battle royal or multiple tag team match's, fatal fourway or sixways, etc... So, this leads me to believe... They have plenty of people to fill up three hours with. Heck, all they would really have to do is add a couple of minutes onto their match's and not even do anything else differently, outside of... This was mentioned already, but if they "Tried" to use most of their roster (Raw's Roster for example), They might cover it without even doing that. We know who is hurt, who isn't, etc. Has nothing to do with what the average member of the Raw Fan Nation see's. I have yet to see a WWE show look like they didn't have enough guys, even when they don't. They just make a long super match or something if plans have been changed at the last minute. My point is, just because WE know that Undertaker and HBK is out, and Benoit not being their makes their roster a bit lacking... the average watcher doesn't even think about it. They tune in and see a whole show, and don't go "Oh my GOD, What are they GOING to do!!!" I think we overreact, although not as much as other sights. I don't think about "How many" people they have on their roster, NEVER EVER... It has never looked like they ever get everyone on the show anyways. I mean at any one time they have around 40 people on that single brand. We get maybe.... JUST MAYBE, we are able to see 14 to 16 of them, and I'm giving it something their. Even taking five people off of Raw (just say they have five people hurt or something), that would still leave them around 30 to 35 people... Your still not seeing half of them in one show. Give the half hour or whatever they do for dark shows, and your still not coming close. So this is where I dissagree with the whole lot of you claiming that WWE is so "Thin" in their roster. Main Eventer's are made, and pushed their. Weather or not I or you aggree with them, they get their. So we have a Nitro on ECW now as a world champion... Good for him, I thought it would make people happy, but they can only say "That sucks they don't have anyone credible to give it to", even after some of the same people claimed WWE needed to push him in the first place (to the main event). I'm going to have to say that I think... A third hour if done right, could actually help the WWE's roster more then hurt it. They could really put out people like Cryme Tyme, Duece and Domino, and other's alot better then they have been doing. So their you have it, my "Optimistic" approach here. I'm not saying that anyone else doesn't have valid points... especially if the faults they point out are turned into reality, but... Just what if the WWE used the extra time alot better then any of us can think up... I'll tell you what... People will start complaining about it without even watching. I don't know why, but WWE gets picked on by more then just the media. The whole thing that should put everyone's perspective online is the fact this was NOT a WWE idea, but a Network idea. I don't think WWE will do it, but hey, If they do I certainly am not going to judge it till I see it. Vince isn't the only one with creativity on the show, other's might be up to the challenge.