The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[Guest Instant Classic]

I haven't inflated my numbers they just sound crazy.

 

October of 2005 Impact had a .8 rating

 

January 4th they got a 1.5 rating

 

March 8th they got a 1.0 rating

 

In April it sunk to a .6 rating. If you take the highest a 1.5 in Jan and the lowest in April .6 they lost 2/3 of their viewers in four months. His point was that TNA wouldn't lose 1/6 of their viewers if there was a natural disaster problem. My point was they lost 2/3 WITHOUT a natural disaster. So in theory TNA's booking could be argued to be FOUR times as bad as any natural disaster. I keed I keed.

 

At any rate my numbers aren't infalted I wish they were but I said they lost two thirds of their viewers and they did.

 

As far as everything else I could disect it but right now I'm not motivated to. The important this is they had a 1.5 and it dropped to a .6. Which is just under a 2/3's drop in viewership. Sure their ratings were up this week but as he pointed out over and over again the WWE lost a 6th of those viewers some of them found their way over to TNA for the week.

 

So yeah the numbers are spot on I'm a stickler for factual numbers and mine are just that factual.

 

So they weren't rocking .2's five years ago they were getting .8's five years ago and drawing just over 1.0's up until their move to Monday nights.

 

So yeah you'd think the numbers were inflated or I was just generalizing but there is no getting around 1.5 to a .6 is a 2/3 loss in viewership unless my math is wrong. Its not like they lost these viewers of the course of several years IE the WWE they lost 2/3's of their viewing audience in three months thats unfathomable even for them.

 

Nice... but we're talking averages.

 

You're taking record high and record low.

 

They're two very different things. The average is about .9 to 1.0, which equals 1/3 as I said.

 

You're still twisting everything to fit your own view.

 

Going by how you're viewing it, which isn't what your original debate was, let's look at 2007 for Raw off the site Hyde found.

 

2007; High was 4.3. The low was 2.5. That is a 42% drop.

 

Do you not see why I'm not taking this seriously with you? You grab TNA's high and low and make a claim when no one is talking about the high and low. We're talking average viewership.

 

Going by how you're trying to twist this, I could say Raw lost near half it's viewership in 2007, because that's how you're calculating it for Impact for 2010. Do you not see why I'm jumping on your case yet?

 

Not that I even trust Wiki, but taking a look at their data, they only lost 25% viewership after the move to Mondays on average, and that doesn't even mean those 25% stopped watching, they could be changing channels or watching the replay later in the week!

 

The data doesn't lie no matter how much you try to twist it into what you want it to read.

[Hyde Hill]

I haven't inflated my numbers they just sound crazy.

 

October of 2005 Impact had a .8 rating

 

January 4th they got a 1.5 rating

 

March 8th they got a 1.0 rating

 

In April it sunk to a .6 rating. If you take the highest a 1.5 in Jan and the lowest in April .6 they lost 2/3 of their viewers in four months. His point was that TNA wouldn't lose 1/6 of their viewers if there was a natural disaster problem. My point was they lost 2/3 WITHOUT a natural disaster. So in theory TNA's booking could be argued to be FOUR times as bad as any natural disaster. I keed I keed.

 

At any rate my numbers aren't infalted I wish they were but I said they lost two thirds of their viewers and they did.

 

As far as everything else I could disect it but right now I'm not motivated to. The important this is they had a 1.5 and it dropped to a .6. Which is just under a 2/3's drop in viewership. Sure their ratings were up this week but as he pointed out over and over again the WWE lost a 6th of those viewers some of them found their way over to TNA for the week.

 

So yeah the numbers are spot on I'm a stickler for factual numbers and mine are just that factual.

 

So they weren't rocking .2's five years ago they were getting .8's five years ago and drawing just over 1.0's up until their move to Monday nights.

 

So yeah you'd think the numbers were inflated or I was just generalizing but there is no getting around 1.5 to a .6 is a 2/3 loss in viewership unless my math is wrong. Its not like they lost these viewers of the course of several years IE the WWE they lost 2/3's of their viewing audience in three months thats unfathomable even for them.

 

Yeah but that is taking a highpoint uber promoted show for TNA standards and 3 hour one against their worst two full head to head. I could do the same and the E has done 8.1 against 3.0. I know that there is a long period between those and a short one between the TNA ones but it is better to take averages not high and low points. Pre Hogan Bischoff they did a 1.0 average on Thursday then they averaged 1.2 on Thursdays and now 0.8 on Mondays. Also not trying to sound disparaging but if you take percentages on low numbers it is much easier to get dramatic up as well as down.

 

Also it was a 1.5 rounded up and 0.6 rounded up if I remember. It is near 2 thirds but not totally there. 1.46 and 0.58 or something. 3 times 0.58 gives 1.74 which TNA never managed. Even rounded numbers 0.6 gives 1.8 not 1.5

[The Masked Orange]

Nice... but we're talking averages.

 

 

 

 

The data doesn't lie no matter how much you try to twist it into what you want it to read.

 

Thankyou for telling us. Now we understand La Règle du jeu.

 

The High-Low figures Stenncik use, while not the averages, are still correct. They had an actual audience of 1.5, and that did fall to 0.6

 

Somewhere along the line they lost those viewers. Don't try to say that those viewers don't count, those were viewer who r

watched one TNA show to give it a 1.5, and then didn't watch. That 0.6 is 0.9 people who have watched who didn't. Simple as that.

[Guest Instant Classic]

Thankyou for telling us. Now we understand La Règle du jeu.

 

The High-Low figures Stenncik use, while not the averages, are still correct. They had an actual audience of 1.5, and that did fall to 0.6

 

Somewhere along the line they lost those viewers. Don't try to say that those viewers don't count, those were viewer who r

watched one TNA show to give it a 1.5, and then didn't watch. That 0.6 is 0.9 people who have watched who didn't. Simple as that.

 

It's still twisting words around to fit what he wants it to be. WWE has lost about 50% of it's audience from it's most popular era in the US. Do we say WWE has lost half it's audience just because we can?

 

Taking it the way Stennick does, we can also say TNA has gone up in viewership over 150% since getting on national TV. Going from the FSN days where they started at a little under .1 going up to the 1.5 rating on January 4th.

 

The original argument from him was TNA has lost on average 2/3 of it's viewers, which it has not. He clearly did not believe me when I was spouting off rating histories and said so repeatedly, so he decided to make the numbers work for his opinions instead of what we were talking about in the first place.

 

I've proven my point concisely and definitively at this point with the factual numbers. If he wants to continue twisting them to fit his own agenda more power to him. If this were a case of high to low, WWE would still lose in the long run. If you go waaaaaay back to the beginning of Raw you can say the WWE has lost just as much if not more viewers if you take the all-time Raw low and the all-time high. The argument is now done as far as I'm concerned. I backed myself up with all the facts while he's still twisting it to fit his opinion, so this can keep going on without me.

[The Masked Orange]

It's still twisting words around to fit what he wants it to be. WWE has lost over 50% of it's audience from it's most popular era in the US. Do we say WWE has lost half it's audience just because we can?

 

Taking it the way Stennick does, we can also say TNA has gone up in viewership over 150% since getting on national TV. Going from the FSN days where they started at a little under .1 going up to the 1.5 rating on January 4th.

 

The original argument from him was TNA has lost on average 2/3 of it's viewers, which it has not. He clearly did not believe me when I spouting off rating histories and said so repeatedly, so he decided to make the numbers work for his opinions instead of what we were talking about in the first place.

 

I've proven my point concisely and definitively at this point with the factual numbers. If he wants to continue twisting them to fit his own agenda more power to him.

 

It's how a debate works. You have facts to support you view. He has facts to support his. Dicussion ensues.

[Guest Instant Classic]

It's how a debate works. You have facts to support you view. He has facts to support his. Dicussion ensues.

 

And once again for those not paying attention; The argument was averages. He is not using averages because it proves him wrong. He's taking the high-low to back up the average argument which does not work.

 

Seriously I've repeated this multiple times already and made several comparisons. If you want to stick your head in the sand please continue to do so but this is a dead issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Adam Ryland]

Please stop this particular argument, it's going nowhere and some of what is being posted is getting very arrogant. Agree to disagree and move on.

[fatallylost]

Please stop this particular argument, it's going nowhere and some of what is being posted is getting very arrogant. Agree to disagree and move on.

 

I agree with this... also, for the love of God, you're talking ratings numbers... which no one cares about. Except you two. Just because more people saw something, means nothing. Guess what? Clash of the Titans made a ton of money, and I've heard not one good thing about it, especially in 3D.

 

Numbers mean nothing, unless you work for a network, then you use it to throw out good shows.

 

So, now let's move onto this topic.

 

With all the releases today, can anyone tell me why they won't just make the world a better place, and rehire Todd Pettengill already?

[Stennick]

And once again for those not paying attention; The argument was averages. He is not using averages because it proves him wrong. He's taking the high-low to back up the average argument which does not work.

 

Seriously I've repeated this multiple times already and made several comparisons. If you want to stick your head in the sand please continue to do so but this is a dead issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

I never used the word averages and neither did you until the debate started. Originally you made a big deal about them losing 1/6 of their audience over night. I pointed out how TNA lost 2/3 of their audience over the last four months. You can't say we're dealing with averages when an extremely low rating for one night of WWE is not an average that makes zero sense. An average is several numbers added together and divided. If I can't take their "record high" then why can you take their "record low" under extreme circumstances. So when I use a special circumstance "thats cheating" or whatever but when you take a volcanic eruption and use it as a reason to use a number thats different. We're not dealing with averages when you mentioned one show and paraded a 1/6 loss when I used four months worth of shows to demonstrate how they lost the two thirds audience I was talking about.

 

I'm sorry that it upset you that you going around parading a 1/6 loss when they still murdered TNA in the ratings bout like 300 percent or some nonsense upset you. I'm sorry that you claiming TNA was one hot angle away from gaining 300 percent of their current fan base and Vince losing his upset you. I'm sorry that you don't like Batista, Cena and Orton as a heel so you need to create some movement through out the millions of people that watch this show to claim they want something when the numbers or reactions on television just don't hold true to what you're claiming. I'm sorry you predicted that after 30 years of being in the business he was producing a business model that would fail. Even though he's been in this business longer than most of his current fan base is love. Even though he's done nothing but print money for all but about two of those. I'm sorry that you saying he's applying to the lowest common denominator of fan which I'm not sure there is such a thing. You tune in, you buy the merch, you buy the ppvs, you show up to the shows your money is all the same. Wasn't this an argument during his attitude era the type of people he was attracting was unsavory? Maybe it was and so there you have it he switched up his product. Its what he does its what he always does and I'm sorry it upsets you that I questioned your bold and unfounded claims that Vince's business model would fail.

 

All I did was take the outrageous claims you were making about magical "people", losing an audience and failed business models and show you there is another side. I haven't stuck my head in the sand I told you they lost 2/3 of their audience. How can you say it doesn't count? They HAD a t.v audience of 1.5 they dropped to .6 in four months. I'm not talking about gradually over time or even in a year. I'm talking over four months, over what 16 shows they went from a 1.5 to a .6. I didn't make those numbers up in four months they LOST that audience. Its been talked about oodles of time the WWE had a much larger audience in 1999 and they have fans but it didn't happen in two months.

 

I'm done now I tried to be reasonable and use numbers to back up what I said. I think I did that, heck I don't care about t.v ratings I could care less if both shows did a 0 rating tomorrow but when we're talking about viewing audiences and you start throwing around percentages and fractions you can't then be upset when someone else details a more complete picture. I'm done discussing this as well if I had my head in the sand its because your vision of reality is so severely skewed from actuality that it makes it impossible for you to even see that some of your points may have been way off base. Instead your going to continue to think you got your finger on the pulse of the people and all the proving wrong in the world wont' uncloud your world.

 

As far as the releases go I'm not too saddened by them. I liked Shelton's run with TWGTT in 03 and in 04 his stuff agaist Evolution was pretty good. However in the 6 years past then I've just been bored. I think my favorite match of his all time is when he faced off against Shawn Michaels and did the springboard into the superkick just awesome.

 

Mickey James in a weird way to me is the last connection to Trish in the Divas division. After Trish and Victoria came Mickey, they had a fun feud and Micky translated psyopath fan into fun and energetic babyface. She carried the division on her back after Trish left. She might join TNA and if so it would be warrented or she may just decide to see where this music thing takes her. She stated loving wrestling and not wanting to leave while still getting a full time paycheck from a company for wrestling. People say anything when their technically being paid to.

 

I hope TNA shows restraint when picking these guys up. It wouldn't hurt them to do a bit more trimming of their own roster.

[Jaysin]

Have they future endervored him 3 times? Maybe he no longer wants to work for them now.

 

Yang has had 3 stints with the WWE if you count his time in developmental back when WWF bought WCW. He was sent to HWA, but got let go the following January.

[shawn michaels]

Instant Classic, no one will take you seriously unless you are reasonable. This not an isult, it's just a fact. YOu say that TNA would not lose viewers if most of their crew got stuck in Europe? Really? You really believe that? It's sad. Anyone would lose ratings under those circunstances. You Say that TNA is on hot angle away from threatening WWE? Not even close. I say that they keep screwing up and are one poor angle away from threatening themselves. And i am not against TNA, i really hope they make it.

In your discussion against Stenick i saw you, a guy loyal to TNA, and Stennick, a guy who is not loyal to the WWE and you still think it's some kind of personal attack to TNA?

 

You are wrong. The only people i saw agreeing with you were other TNA loyal fans. So please accept that. And btw that TNA loay fanbase is getting smaller...and smaller....

 

I do not intend to respond to your possible remarks about this post, having in mind that you probably will take this as an insult, when it's not. You 're just plain wrong. Think about it for a couple of minutes, while you keep your loyalties with TNA aside for those couple of minutes, and then maybe your conclusions will be a little different.

 

 

Back on the latest subject: Shelton was bland for years, true, but it wasn't entirely is fault. Sure, he didin't have the X factor to breaktrough, but am i the only one thinking that the WWE didn0t always handled/booked him correctly? However, i totally understand the release. How many of us can say: "I never released a talented guy that i was suposed to push,but never got to actually do it, or did it but it backfired and/or he got bland?" I sure as hell can't. Already happened on some of my games,if not all, and surprise surprise, already happened with shelton! LOL

[Jaysin]

Back on the latest subject: Shelton was bland for years, true, but it wasn't entirely is fault. Sure, he didin't have the X factor to breaktrough, but am i the only one thinking that the WWE didn0t always handled/booked him correctly? However, i totally understand the release. How many of us can say: "I never released a talented guy that i was suposed to push,but never got to actually do it, or did it but it backfired and/or he got bland?" I sure as hell can't. Already happened on some of my games,if not all, and surprise surprise, already happened with shelton! LOL

 

Shelton has come out and said he didn't want to main event multiple times. Why should WWE push a guy that's ok with being mid card? Can't believe I'm defending a promotion I haven't watched in months

[shawn michaels]

Shelton has come out and said he didn't want to main event multiple times. Why should WWE push a guy that's ok with being mid card? Can't believe I'm defending a promotion I haven't watched in months

 

Maybe he said it because he knew we was never gona make it. I mean, can we believe anyone on that business (unless guys who have already done enough, like Michaels and Taker, etc) that say something liek that? I don't.

[Jaysin]

Maybe he said it because he knew we was never gona make it. I mean, can we believe anyone on that business (unless guys who have already done enough, like Michaels and Taker, etc) that say something liek that? I don't.

 

Why not? Jake Roberts and Roddy Piper were the same way.

 

Shelton has untapped potential(which is unreal considering the level of athleticism and talent the guy already oozed), but if he doesn't tap into that, WWE or TNA can't. I was a fan of his since day one of the World's Greatest Tag Team.

 

Personally, I'd rather see Shelton in a company like ROH or TNA where he'd have better in ring workers to work with. That's not a shot at the talent WWE has, but it's no secret WWE prides itself on the entertainment aspect as opposed to the actual matches.

[Self]

It would be interesting to see how a guy like Shelton, working the WWE style for 8 years, will cope elsewhere. If you look at Brian Kendrick now working the indies, he noticeably works the WWE style, almost to the point where it's a detriment, as everyone around him is doing the flips-upon-flips-upon-supermegabombs that the indy audience appreciate. Shelton's worked WWE a lot longer than Kendrick, so it's possible his style would be even more rigid, but then he's also been a bit of a spot monkey when the situation requires it. It'll be interesting to see.

[The Masked Orange]

I think Hardy may actually make more money if he left WWE at the moment. The obvious team with Jeff in TNA, the potentially lucrative indy booking's. I would miss him but he really is starting to look dated in the WWE.

[shawn michaels]

I think Hardy may actually make more money if he left WWE at the moment. The obvious team with Jeff in TNA, the potentially lucrative indy booking's. I would miss him but he really is starting to look dated in the WWE.

 

Letting Hardy go would not be a good business move. I mean, sure, TNA is no threath to the E, but that doesn't mean they should just release all the workers that would be useful weapons for TNA. (Even though they don't need them anynore) I always though that Matt was a little underrated by the E. They could have done much more with him, especially with the Edge situation. Typical Vinnie Mac at his best. Doesn't give people what they want, and when he finally listens to people, they just don't care about it anymore. Oh well...

[The Masked Orange]

But then again, why make a star out of someone who then will just be an expensive UMC (Rey Rey) or who doesn't deserve it? People hav to earn it, ecspecially in the political warground of the WWE.

[shawn michaels]

But then again, why make a star out of someone who then will just be an expensive UMC (Rey Rey) or who doesn't deserve it? People hav to earn it, ecspecially in the political warground of the WWE.

 

Rey is not an expensive UMC. I mean, he stops beeing expensive as soon as he justifies what they pay them. And he does. Like it or not, many people just can't get enough of Rey.

[Jaysin]

But then again, why make a star out of someone who then will just be an expensive UMC (Rey Rey) or who doesn't deserve it? People hav to earn it, ecspecially in the political warground of the WWE.

 

Explain Sheamus and Jack Swagger to me than

[shawn michaels]

Explain Sheamus and Jack Swagger to me than

 

Or many others. But those two especially, having in mind that i personally can't really see why some people like them. Bland stuff from those two. Nothing more.

[The Masked Orange]

Explain Sheamus and Jack Swagger to me than

 

And look how the fans have taken to them, they're superstars!

[crownsy]

Without expanding on it, since i'm running out the door, I'll say this. Swagger has grown on me.

 

Another 2-3 months of solid booking and good matches out of him, and I'll be ready to say he's a good young M/E'er.

 

Still needs to work on his mic skills, but heck, based on the matches he's been in since he cashed it in, you can't say he isn't bringing it. His matches with orton, the three way, and the taker match have easily been good enough to be M/E matches on TV.

 

Now comes his first huge PPV match, we'll see how he does.

 

Shemus isn't a good example for him to explain by the way. He's triple H's workout partner, and thus falls into the "political battleground" exception. Only easier route to the top is the one hunter chose....Although hunters method seems infinitely more enjoyable, Steph aint exactly ugly

[Tha Black Phenom]

I still dislike Swagger, but I've learned to accept him in the ring. Indeed, he's pulled good matches out of Taker and Orton, I guess he has a certain.. flair in the ring, and with enough time his gut-wrench powerbomb can be given lots of credibility. I just can't stomach him on the mic. Nevermind the lisp but his drowsy high school kid voice just uninspires me.

[shawn michaels]

The Swagger example only proves that if Shelton never made it to the top it had nothing to do with the lack of the it factor. Vinnie Mac may be an idiot, but he can push anyone he wants. Partly because WWE is the current definition for sports entertainement, partly because like it or not the man is good at what he does (which is the cause of the first reason), and partly because he has the business so well tamed that he can push whoever he wants. SO if shelton didn't make it, it was because shelton wasn't really into it, or because Vince didn't bothered to seriously push him...or both!