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

[Zeel1]

Hm. Sounds like Xian's set up to get some help for himself at SS...

 

For what it's worth, I've heard Edge will be there for SummerSlam Axxess or however that's spelled, but isn't supposed to actually appear on the show...

[Teh_Showtime]

Hopefully Brodus Clay. I really mark for that guy. Maybe Henry or Miz possibly

[Zeel1]

Hopefully Brodus Clay. I really mark for that guy. Maybe Henry or Miz possibly

 

Hm, it may very well be Miz, now that you mention it. He DID say that he'd be making an impact at SSlam. This would certainly be the perfect opportunity to do just that. What would that lead to, though? Would Miz move to SmackDown?

[Teh_Showtime]

Only if he feuds with Orton.

[Stennick]

As I was saying earlier though, the problem with your posts is that they totally ignore facts, and try to insert personal "feelings" as if they are facts instead. I want to try and think of something as an example, but all I keep thinking of is 1 pluss 1 equals 2. Then someone comes along and says... That's the old way, 1 pluss 1 is 3, bottum line. I'm going to believe this no matter what anyone else says because it's the way I see it. 1 pluss 1 will never be 2, because I say it's 3, and if you don't like it, tough, because I should get an equal opportunity to answer the question, and discuss my feelings on it as well.

 

Bassically the debate goes like this:

 

John Cena sucks, because I don't like the way he wrestle's.

 

Other's: He might not be the best in the ring, but his merchandise sells are unbelievably good. The PPV sells are better when he's there. The show ratings are better when he's on the show. He's good on the mic, does great entertaining segments. He excells in every other aspect in a product that labled themselves as "Sports Entertainment".

 

Your response: So, he still sucks in the ring, and therefore it doesn't matter to me. They need to put someone else in his spot.

 

 

Then there is the incredible belief that "Anyone" could step in the same shoe's and do just as good in all those other area's, although there's only been a very small handfull historically that ever has. Doesn't matter to you, because you believe someone else is more deserving, and so everything else doesn't matter.

 

IF this is exactly what you mean, then really there's no reason for anyone to take you seriously. IF this isn't what your actually trying to say, hopefully my post will allow you to see what other's are seeing.

 

DJ this is exactly what I was getting at earlier. It can't be put any better than that. "The guy excels in nearly every area, he's entered an area of success in this business that only a half dozen men have ever experienced but because he doesn't wrestle how I want him to I say he sucks".

 

SM82 can say Cena sucks all he wants and he's right nobody can stop him. He's got every right to say it and every right to sound as foolish as he does in saying it.

[VTial]

DJ this is exactly what I was getting at earlier. It can't be put any better than that. "The guy excels in nearly every area, he's entered an area of success in this business that only a half dozen men have ever experienced but because he doesn't wrestle how I want him to I say he sucks".

 

SM82 can say Cena sucks all he wants and he's right nobody can stop him. He's got every right to say it and every right to sound as foolish as he does in saying it.

 

Or it could be... "WWE dominates wrestling in nearly ever area, they have entered an area of exposure in their business that only a half dozen other pro wrestling promotions could compete against but everyone clearly has seen a decline in their product and they end up scapegoating certain wrestlers like Cena because it's easier to pretend you are analyzing things rather than just creating a short straight forward thread where you can rally a bunch of your fellow vocal users on why you think something is bad."

 

If we were to be objective, everyone is using their own personal feelings one way or another. Objectively, Cena both sucks and yet he is not as bad.

 

The STFU sucks but the FU doesn't.

 

The match with x sucks but the match with y isn't in light of y's match with z.

 

Yet we generalize because it's much easier to write and get replies one way or another. We don't really use facts. We don't even try to attempt inserting facts. Everytime something factual gets inserted, we get back to the meta and stop talking about the factuals. This has been the mark of smarks for so long. It's why things went from smarks being a good thing and ended up being stereotyped as vocal internet fans who have hard-ons for certain cult level wrestlers.

[Hive]

Fact is, we all find his in-ring work to be dull and repetitive (with the exceptions pointed out). I found it the same with quite a few other's that have been in his shoe's in the past as well. Maybe it's the company trying to protect thier investment, I don't know, but I surely do agree with that.

 

Yeah The Rock really wasn't much more interesting in the ring imo... maybe the WWE are telling such top guys to take it easy to avoid injuries, maybe they just get lazy at the top, or maybe they just really can't do any better... but I'm inclined to believe that the company is telling them to take it easy, because looking back at Hogan it was kind of the same thing: he was clearly much better i the ring in Japan than in the US, and it kinda looked as if he was holding back in WWF and WCW. But then of course, the lazy explanation works here as well...

[Fantabulous]

I agree with Stennick: In a business, you find something that works... and then you milk it untill its' milk gets sour. WWE trying to outright replace Cena with Punk or Morrison or Sheamus or anyone else would kinda be like Microsoft bying Linux and having it replace Windows. You don't remove your prime moneymaker. And expecting them to do so is silly.

The problem is WWE, and virtually every wrestling company ever, don't start trying to make the new headline act until the old one has run its course. Then you get the inevitable slump because there is no headline-calibre act around to carry things, which in turn makes it harder to make a new headline act because business is down and its always harder to make new stars when business is down. Almost nobody has the foresight to recognize when their hot star is starting to cool down because they're so into him being hot that it's the safe thing to keep them on top and they don't feel the need to risk replacing him until its too late, at least as far as keeping business hot.

[Hive]

We don't really use facts. We don't even try to attempt inserting facts. Everytime something factual gets inserted, we get back to the meta and stop talking about the factuals. This has been the mark of smarks for so long. It's why things went from smarks being a good thing and ended up being stereotyped as vocal internet fans who have hard-ons for certain cult level wrestlers.

 

Uhm... but it's wrestling. It's supposed to be subjective. If we were only to discuss "facts", what would there be to discuss at all? The color of their trunks? Their birthdays? The brand of their cars? Talking about "facts" in something as clearly subjective in nature as wrestling is pretty silly. Their victories/losses and pushes does is not determined by their athletic ability (at least it really is), so whether or not someone is "good" is nearly 100 % subjective. What we see on screen is not a result of wrestlers being objectively "good" or "bad", but is a result of booking - which is furthermore often determined by things that happens backstage. So I repeat: of course these discussions are subjective, they should not be any other way and they can not be any other way.

[Hive]

The problem is WWE, and virtually every wrestling company ever, don't start trying to make the new headline act until the old one has run its course. Then you get the inevitable slump because there is no headline-calibre act around to carry things, which in turn makes it harder to make a new headline act because business is down and its always harder to make new stars when business is down. Almost nobody has the foresight to recognize when their hot star is starting to cool down because they're so into him being hot that it's the safe thing to keep them on top and they don't feel the need to risk replacing him until its too late, at least as far as keeping business hot.

 

That is probably somewhat true. Didn't Vince try to phase out Hogan and replace him with guys like Bret Hart, though? With Hogan fighting it and insisting on the silly Yokozuna thing, reportedly, because he wouldn't let Hart go over him?

[Fantabulous]

Their birthdays?

 

Happy Birthday to Jim Brunzell and Matt Hyson!!!

 

It's also four years since Brian Adams died and one-year since Lance Cade died.

[Fantabulous]

Didn't Vince try to phase out Hogan and replace him with guys like Bret Hart, though? With Hogan fighting it and insisting on the silly Yokozuna thing, reportedly, because he wouldn't let Hart go over him?

 

Yes, Hogan refused to put Bret over and would only put Yokozuna over instead.

[VTial]

I'm not saying my version is correct and I wanted to bring this up during dj's initial post but it just became too lengthy.

 

The fact is every brand has a curve. Once they get past the curve, they don't lose much from bringing in inferior products. Instead, they could even benefit from it.

 

Take this recent Cena vs. Punk feud. No perceived watered down WWE, no great feud.

 

Similar with HHH. No HHH reputation of bringing down wrestlers with one pedigree, less excitement generated during the HHH vs. Taker WM match.

 

The truth is, and this is why some can be sensitive about monopolies, is that once you get past the curve it is not only more beneficial to deliver an inferior product - it is also a way of survival and guaranteeing your place.

 

Take the Monday Night Wars where WCW got over from stealing Razor Ramon, Diesel and of course Hulk Hogan. Let's add Luger to that.

 

Why did it hurt the WWE so much? Because those were quality wrestlers. Now imagine someone like Cena bailing out to another promotion. He doesn't have that leverage. The guys with leverage are guys like Punk, Daniels and that's pretty much it.

 

The WWE even proved this with Kurt Angle. In the past this would have hurt them but now they have mastered the way of making an inferior wrestler sell more merchandise without hurting their brand.

 

Part of this process is that it brainwashes people. In the past, Hogan may have been a safety measure but it was also about accentuating the characters. Less is more therefore the 5 moves of doom in the hand of a well perceived quality wrestler is not seen as bad. It allows main eventers to do less moves but them being treated as greater moves.

 

Nowadays, since WWE has gotten past that curve, the quality can be dropped. Instead, if you get audiences used to things like the horrible STFU that even looks horrible even if kayfabe existed, the audience gets addicted to so much of this crap that even the hardcore has a lowered perception of crap and therefore can not only be more likely to be more forgiving of bad things...they could easily praise something that isn't as special.

 

Take the Punk vs. Cena match. Cena is praised almost entirely because he stopped being bad. It's not because he was good but he stopped being bad. When you know you can rephrame even the hardcore audiences' minds, you can trick them into supporting your product once you do such minor things as push CM Punk from time to time.

 

The safety mindset is only a facade. WWE knows they can reduce more injuries if they lessened their hectic schedules. They also know that painkiller addiction is more of a threat than any wrestling move. Yet like boxing they know they could fool the masses into thinking that something that's actually happening in the screen is more relevant than something that is factual.

 

Boxing does this to MMA via tricking people into giving the perception that the bigger gloves and constant punching don't lead to more deaths than something like a no holds barred eye poke or an elbow that turns things bloody. WWE knows that by combining every smokes and mirrors way of removing the threat from the screen, they can even live through making the audience forget about Owen Hart's and Chris Benoit's death in such a manner that you remember them but you don't hold it enough against the WWE to boycott them.

 

To connect this with dj's reply to me, it's not that nowadays wrestlers have higher expectations. It's that in the past, main eventers always have lowered expectations but the product has always tried to rise above expectations. Nowadays the product doesn't try to do that but trains people, even the haters, to have lowered expectations and then yanks them up a bit to retain/increase popularity and then slowly yanks them down.

 

It's not just a simple case of milking a product. It's a case of creating a delusional userbase that in time becomes like a large cult that has some pretense of holding the same values as many people in a group but has a totally skewered logic. Logic where an STFU is not objectively reviewed as "a move" that in the past wouldn't fly at all and turning this into meta concepts like Cena is decent, Cena sucks, Cena is not so bad.

 

It's even dripping into things that didn't confuse people before. This Punk-Cena feud has gotten some people to say that the WWE finally got it. Think who takes the most credit within the company for that? HHH himself has done this to his character. You could say he did the same exact thing he did as a heel and did it as a face, but he literally got over as a face because he was entertaining - and that erased every animosity he had prior to that. (This isn't talking about the 1 or 2 people that supported HHH before, this is talking about the large vocal group of haters that disappeared)

 

The unfortunate part is that this gets muddled with improved times. People who say the Rock or Hogan are just as bad, ignore that the moves that the Rock and Hogan did at that time was always great. Not in terms of spot quality but in terms of entertainment delivery. It's like comparing the crappiest mainstream cartoon nowadays with some great cartoons that didn't age well and saying those great cartoons weren't as great in hindsight. It's just wrong and the WWE knows how to produce wrong and they have the leverage to do that just like any mainstream political party. They have gotten to the point that they know something beyond controversy selling. They know how to redefine controversy. They know how to produce so into the product that they don't even realize that the more they hate, the more they watch even though kayfabe has gone away.

 

That's the real issue behind any Cena comments. People want symbols. Smarks want symbols. Everyone in the internet loves talking points. Even when a conversation rises above that, you will always have people who will make the claim that maybe WWE is doing it for safety, maybe we have too high of an expectations, maybe Cena is just Hulk Hogan, all are lies. All are wrong. Again, I'm not saying I'm correct. I'm saying when you have a version written from the perspective of apologist, when you even go down that path...you are already believing in something wrong. It is the same mindset of rationalizing that maybe a criminal politician who sends thousands and thousands of your countrymen to their deaths while they sit in their building may not be as bad because they donated to charity or they know how to kiss a baby or they believe in God. The only difference here is the level of seriousness with regards to the topic but this is why such qualities have often persevered and grew several mythologies that aren't factually based but sound like they do.

[Hive]

I'm not saying my version is correct and I wanted to bring this up during dj's initial post but it just became too lengthy.

 

Attack of the wall of text!

 

No offense, man... but half of your posts are lengthy essays. You need to learn to epxress yourself in fewer words.

[VTial]

Uhm... but it's wrestling. It's supposed to be subjective. If we were only to discuss "facts", what would there be to discuss at all? The color of their trunks? Their birthdays? The brand of their cars? Talking about "facts" in something as clearly subjective in nature as wrestling is pretty silly. Their victories/losses and pushes does is not determined by their athletic ability (at least it really is), so whether or not someone is "good" is nearly 100 % subjective. What we see on screen is not a result of wrestlers being objectively "good" or "bad", but is a result of booking - which is furthermore often determined by things that happens backstage. So I repeat: of course these discussions are subjective, they should not be any other way and they can not be any other way.

 

Well that's why my earlier post went to that route. This was a reply where someone said:

 

As I was saying earlier though, the problem with your posts is that they totally ignore facts, and try to insert personal "feelings" as if they are facts instead.

 

...and I just replied to put things into perspective.

[VTial]

Attack of the wall of text!

 

No offense, man... but half of your posts are lengthy essays. You need to learn to epxress yourself in fewer words.

 

Well, I think that's part of the problem. I don't have a sense of righteousness but I think the lesser I say things the more I become someone who parrots the same talking points.

 

Sometimes I may agree with someone but it doesn't mean we hold the same specific views. If I just wrote it short then it's just a repeat.

 

It's the same even if someone doesn't have the same point as I do.I say to them something and if they misunderstand, they still bring up something that I could have easily include to not have them bring them up at all. In this case, I just don't want my post to be lumped with simply that of a Cena hater or a Cena defender. I want to address the specific point the person I was quoting said. The post is actually shortened. Believe it or not, my original post was so lengthy even I said no one would literally read this, not even me.

 

Edit: Oh and my post was originally replying to someone else.

[lazorbeak]

Uhm... but it's wrestling. It's supposed to be subjective. If we were only to discuss "facts", what would there be to discuss at all? The color of their trunks? Their birthdays? The brand of their cars? Talking about "facts" in something as clearly subjective in nature as wrestling is pretty silly. Their victories/losses and pushes does is not determined by their athletic ability (at least it really is), so whether or not someone is "good" is nearly 100 % subjective. What we see on screen is not a result of wrestlers being objectively "good" or "bad", but is a result of booking - which is furthermore often determined by things that happens backstage. So I repeat: of course these discussions are subjective, they should not be any other way and they can not be any other way.

 

Except that when you're trying to prove any point, opinions alone don't convince anyone of anything. It may be easy and satisfying to say "Cena sucks!" but all it does is identify a person as that certain type of smark that is in the life-stage where booing the face is the bee's knees. Especially when people come back with a multitude of objective material as to why Cena is where he is and somebody else isn't, it makes a person look ridiculous to tow the line of "well, all that may be true, but *I* still think he sucks." It just shows a lack of understanding of hey, this is a business, and it doesn't cater to a minority of fans that have no clue how the business works.

 

As has been pointing out numerous times, most people's problems with John Cena, wrestler, are really problems with WWE, booking team. The sooner a smart mark discovers this, the sooner they are able to evolve out of that life-stage of "yay heel boo face" and finally throw away their NWO t-shirt.

[djthefunkchris]

...and I just replied to put things into perspective.

 

That didn't answer anything, to be honest. I liked your post, and I can agree with some of it. However, I was talking about SM, and how he was coming off. This is something he's done before, and I don't think he means it the way it comes off, so I wanted to point it out.

 

I do think you have something in your post. Here's what I think your saying in less words. The quality is set lower so that when it's needed, the quality can be raised much higher. This will ensure the perceived importance they wish to demonstrate. For example, the weekly shows will not be as good as the PPV's, and certain PPV's they will try to make better then other PPV's.

 

Something unrelated though... In this whole feud of Punk and Cena, they seem to be going off the cuff quite a bit. So much I'm almost positive HHH couldn't hold back his smile when Punk said "Same as your's, went straight to DVD" because it was funny. I don't know how good of an idea this is though, as some personal thoughts on perceived greats are being let out the bag as well... Such as the Hogan stuff. Punk comparing Cena to Hogan, and then Cena actually being offended by it. The general perceived public opinion of Hulk Hogan is NOT bad. For us sure, and the rest of the internest smart mark/smarks whatever you want to call us. However, that's not really the general view of him. The general view of him is as a living legend of the bussiness, and therefore comments like that could turn people away. Especially when the guy that's supposed to be a "good" guy is offended by being compared to him.

 

Just something I was thinking about when watching the crowd reactions during those times.

[Linsolv]

Opinions don't convince anyone of anything.

 

Logic and reasoning do.

 

We're not privy to most of business. Last I checked they don't release complete information on their merchandise sales, or ticket sales. They might make vague claims like "over 9000" but nothing in-depth or specific, so no detailed analysis can be made.

 

Some people want to say that Cena's the best because he's the best seller. There's a cause-and-effect fallacy there. He might be the actual, objectively best top guy out there, but we don't know that. You COULD BE RIGHT but there's no way to know. Not really, not without trying it in an experimental scenario, which is just a pipe dream at best.

 

What Arrows is saying is that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket--there should be some way to push two guys who are BOTH, in theory, on Cena's level, right? That seems, to me, to be what the Cena vs. Orton thing that dragged on for half a year was about. Trying to create someone who was like Cena's kyrptonite. However, it didn't work.

 

I'd suggest that the reasons it didn't work were many, but the biggest was that Orton was having matches against Cena regularly. With Vince's booking style, heels win dirty (because they're just worse than the faces) and faces win clean (because they're just better than the heels). Now, I imagine that you could probably have created a much bigger effect if you'd let Orton go on winning, sometimes clean even, over smaller names than Cena for a while. Basically, in the most literal sense, creating a Super Orton to combat Super Cena. You might even be able to do this a third time, someone who is either a face or heel who basically just doesn't lose. The only rule is that you never have your unlosing superheroes face each other, because THEN ONE OF THEM LOSES.

 

Of course, it could be that Orton can't fill those shoes. Not everyone can, that's obvious. Not only from a business standpoint, some people just don't get over with the crowd like Cena really has. So to say "well Orton couldn't!" Fine. The Miz and Sheamus are apparently now considered pretty good company men. It's not an exact science, especially when you're not privy to the only hard facts that are out there.

[Hive]

Punk comparing Cena to Hogan, and then Cena actually being offended by it. The general perceived public opinion of Hulk Hogan is NOT bad. For us sure, and the rest of the internest smart mark/smarks whatever you want to call us. However, that's not really the general view of him. The general view of him is as a living legend of the bussiness, and therefore comments like that could turn people away. Especially when the guy that's supposed to be a "good" guy is offended by being compared to him.

 

I think this is a result of Cena seeing so many people booing him and cheering Punk instead because Punk is being "cool" due to him saying stuff that appeals to the IC. So Cena's trying to introduce some of the same here and there. But I think it's a mistake for his character as it is.

[VTial]

To be honest, there's really no way to answer it in such a way that it feels like an answer.

 

For one, there isn't a question to answer really. It's an impression and what I was trying to show was that your comment applies to all of us (most of us to those who are sensitive). You may feel the poster you were referring to was coming off ...umm... let's say more juvenile but as Hive said it's all subjective. Not that saying it's all subjective explains it either.

 

Anyway the moment has gone but without countering back with a lengthy post, you can't just shorten it to things like weekly shows and certain PPVs being bigger. It may sound the same when you summarize it but that's why sometimes length is necessary.

 

There's a model that any wrestling promotion can adopt as long as they have a TV show and a PPV model. TNA for example can do what you are describing. What I'm describing is something that TNA can't do. WCW can't do. Maybe even WWF can't do despite coming close. Only the post-Attitude era WWE can do.

 

As far as Hogan, his heel turn in WCW did not disappear. As is said, kayfabe is mostly dead. Maybe there are a few kids who did some research and are scratching their head on that comment but almost everybody would know Hogan's rep by now or they will simply treat it as Cena being facetious. The comment 5 moves of doom is a much bigger controversy but really it's not that huge of a deal. It's like when someone drones on and on about political specifics, most viewers let those words fly over and try to let Bill O'Reilly or Jon Stewart spell out the nitty gritty to them.

 

Also young fans should be exposed enough to Old Hogan where the same invincible gimmick was there but Hogan was obviously too old to sell it. They've also seen Cena vs. Punk where the 5 knuckle shuffle didn't happen immediately. That whole comment about Hogan won't really impact most viewers' reaction to the feud. (Unless Cena or Punk expands further on that comment. It's the same BS with mentioning Cabana, Koslov, etc. People will boo that but there won't be an increase name value demand for those guys)

[djthefunkchris]

Opinions don't convince anyone of anything.

 

Logic and reasoning do.

 

We're not privy to most of business. Last I checked they don't release complete information on their merchandise sales, or ticket sales. They might make vague claims like "over 9000" but nothing in-depth or specific, so no detailed analysis can be made.

 

Some people want to say that Cena's the best because he's the best seller. There's a cause-and-effect fallacy there. He might be the actual, objectively best top guy out there, but we don't know that. You COULD BE RIGHT but there's no way to know. Not really, not without trying it in an experimental scenario, which is just a pipe dream at best.

 

What Arrows is saying is that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket--there should be some way to push two guys who are BOTH, in theory, on Cena's level, right? That seems, to me, to be what the Cena vs. Orton thing that dragged on for half a year was about. Trying to create someone who was like Cena's kyrptonite. However, it didn't work.

 

I'd suggest that the reasons it didn't work were many, but the biggest was that Orton was having matches against Cena regularly. With Vince's booking style, heels win dirty (because they're just worse than the faces) and faces win clean (because they're just better than the heels). Now, I imagine that you could probably have created a much bigger effect if you'd let Orton go on winning, sometimes clean even, over smaller names than Cena for a while. Basically, in the most literal sense, creating a Super Orton to combat Super Cena. You might even be able to do this a third time, someone who is either a face or heel who basically just doesn't lose. The only rule is that you never have your unlosing superheroes face each other, because THEN ONE OF THEM LOSES.

 

Of course, it could be that Orton can't fill those shoes. Not everyone can, that's obvious. Not only from a business standpoint, some people just don't get over with the crowd like Cena really has. So to say "well Orton couldn't!" Fine. The Miz and Sheamus are apparently now considered pretty good company men. It's not an exact science, especially when you're not privy to the only hard facts that are out there.

 

The only problem I have with Arrows points, is that it's obvious (at least to me), that what you just said they should do, they are trying to do. Miz and Sheamus seem to be getting groomed for it.... and this Henry thing seems to be the thing they are going to get Sheamus over with. Henry done hurt every other "Monster" type outside of Khali, that they could put him over. Now he is the "legitimate" toughest monster. Sheamus is going up against him at Summer Slam, and win or lose, if he does better then the other's against him, he's going to get over (Just my prediction because he does have the charasma for this).

 

Arrows comes straight from the chest, but misses his own points I think. Remember the point about having five people do what one does? They already have that. It's there, and if Cena was to leave it would be about as bad as it was when Kurt Angle left (a point someone else made).

 

All their eggs seem to be in John Cena, but this bussiness is hardly living off of John Cena alone. In other words, all their eggs are not on John Cena, and John Cena is just their best flavor right now.

 

It's the posts that bassically say: "I don't like Chocolate Ice Cream, so they shouldn't sell so much of it, because I'm sick of seeing it on the shelf! Why can't they have more Rocky Road? I love Rocky Road, it's the best Ice Cream in the world" Don't look at it, it's the ONLY thing you can do. You'll find if you don't look at it, it doesn't bother you half as much.

 

You have to think a little more bussiness to "get it". IF your a franchise/brand/or whatever.... Let's say your company is Frito Lay. Right now the best seller you have is BBQ potato chips. You have Cheetos and Fritos and Cracker Jack and various other products, but the one you sell the most of is BBQ Potato Chips. SO guess what your going to do? Your going to ensure that your BBQ Potato Chips has the most shelf space you can get at the stores. You will do this to the point that if you only have "X" amount of shelf space, not as much as you'd like, in the store, you would rather fill it with all BBQ Chips, then to share it with another product you sell... because you know this is going to make you the most money. Sure you would like to sell your Munchos and everything else you have in that store, but the store is only allowing you four rows for your product... So you fill it with the one that is a for sure sell. IF BBQ Potato Chips all the sudden decided to leave, possibly to another company, you can't do anything about that... However, now your going to put Cheetos in it's place, because that's now the top seller you have. Your going to go on, because you have 33 other line items you can sell to the public, no need to dwell on the Potato Chip loss.

 

When you compare this with what it was in the past... You can use a different analogy. Let's say you have only Lays Potato Chips... Then yeah, getting rid of the BBQ will definately hurt you. That was back when you were only a regional company though, but you've grown to global status, and have merged into your product lines various other regional promotions, so your not going to be hurt over ONE thing leaving.

 

Now if everyone left at the same time, that would be a different story.

[VTial]

No, even if everyone left the same time, WWE has gotten past the curve where they need to have superstar talent.

 

Remember Miz is mostly green. Cena is mostly green.

 

WWE could go full soap (opera) or full divas division if they need to and they can turn in a profit. This is not to say they are perfect but there are Potato Chips and then there's Starbucks and Mcdonald's. WWE is the latter two. They know how to do the same crap and they have reframed their audience's minds to look forward to that standard.

[Arrows]

The only problem I have with Arrows points, is that it's obvious (at least to me), that what you just said they should do, they are trying to do. Miz and Sheamus seem to be getting groomed for it.... and this Henry thing seems to be the thing they are going to get Sheamus over with. Henry done hurt every other "Monster" type outside of Khali, that they could put him over. Now he is the "legitimate" toughest monster. Sheamus is going up against him at Summer Slam, and win or lose, if he does better then the other's against him, he's going to get over (Just my prediction because he does have the charasma for this).

 

Arrows comes straight from the chest, but misses his own points I think. Remember the point about having five people do what one does? They already have that. It's there, and if Cena was to leave it would be about as bad as it was when Kurt Angle left (a point someone else made).

 

But these people's shirts would sell, quite a bit better, if not for every one of them endlessly jobbing to Cena. Every time WWE proves these guys aren't worth squat by having Cena destroy them in six moves, they crap on their merch sales in the process. Surely there's a better way to go about this.

[Teh_Showtime]

proven by the Nexus shirts right? Sales were high regardless of if they were jobbing or dominating Cena. Don't know exact numbers but I think they were selling out fast at lots of live events.