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

[milamber]

<p><a href="http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/article/exclusive-update-on-cm-punks-future-with-wwe-129397" rel="external nofollow">Update on CM Punk's Future With WWE</a></p><p> </p><p>

Not sure how accurate this article is, but it suggests that Punk is holding out on a new contract because WWE want him to sign over the rights to his name ala Bryan Danielson.</p>

[ZMAN]

I wouldn't do it if I were Punk. Sounds like a horror story in the making. Punk gives WWE rights to his name, gets fired two years later, and has to wander the indies as Brother Punk.

[LoNdOn]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ZMAN" data-cite="ZMAN" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I wouldn't do it if I were Punk. Sounds like a horror story in the making. Punk gives WWE rights to his name, gets fired two years later, and has to wander the indies as Brother Punk.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I respect Punk if that is the reason behind his decision on holding out.</p><p> </p><p> Worst case scenario, he has to call himself PB Punk <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[juggaloninjalee]

Punk is being smart by not giving up the rights to the name he has had since before the WWE signed him. He would be smart to keep the name and refuse to give it up. He could always go back to ROH and keep his name and value.

[lazorbeak]

<p>Good for Punk for holding out but at the end of the day if I were him I'd sell the name rights for a significant bonus up front, then sign a new contract with promises and guarantees that make it clear that he's going to be a top name for years to come. At the end of the day, he's making real money working with the WWE, and the difference between working as CM Punk and PJ Brooks is worth maybe what, 10K a year on the indy's, if that? On the other hand, he can make probably the equivalent of a year's salary by selling the name rights, and it sends a message that he's willing to be a "company guy" and commit to working with WWE for years to come. It's not necessarily a no-brainer decision, but unless WWE is (stupidly) unwilling to make him a generous offer for the name rights, I don't see why he wouldn't be willing to give them up.</p><p> </p><p>

And it's not like you can't buy the rights back later if you've got the cash, the way The Rock did.</p>

[cappyboy]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Good for Punk for holding out but at the end of the day if I were him I'd sell the name rights for a significant bonus up front, then sign a new contract with promises and guarantees that make it clear that he's going to be a top name for years to come. At the end of the day, he's making real money working with the WWE, and the difference between working as CM Punk and PJ Brooks is worth maybe what, 10K a year on the indy's, if that? On the other hand, he can make probably the equivalent of a year's salary by selling the name rights, and it sends a message that he's willing to be a "company guy" and commit to working with WWE for years to come. It's not necessarily a no-brainer decision, but unless WWE is (stupidly) unwilling to make him a generous offer for the name rights, I don't see why he wouldn't be willing to give them up.<p> </p><p> And it's not like you can't buy the rights back later if you've got the cash, the way The Rock did.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I do. Really it all comes down to what Brooks wants. If he's looking for career stability and wants to be that company guy, you're right on. Sell the name rights and then save some dough in the event you have seller's remorse and/or end up in a Dudley Boys/Hardcore Holly situation. The old trust but verify thing if you will.</p><p> </p><p> But if he still wants the freedom to explore other pastures, he's much better served hanging on to the name rights. Being "CM Punk" has been very good to him. It's the only name of any value he's ever had. It's not like his cult started as "PJ Brooks" and grew it when he became "CM Punk" and then WWE picked him up. The potential value to both him and the next place he went is much higher if he's still able to be Punk. If he has to resort to an alternate name, the next place might miss out on the early returns as folks who'd otherwise pay to see him fail to realize he is in fact him. Which in turn could hurt his value to the next place. Since the reports are that Brooks is fighting to retain his own name rights, it suggests to me he doesn't view WWE as a final landing place just yet. If that's true, it doesn't seem wise to me to get stuck holding an empty identity bag if you don't have to.</p>

[ampulator]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Which they were able to do be because the company was in such poor shape from being booked into the ground.<p> </p><p> I'm baffled that people are seriously claiming that a profitable WCW with strong ratings would have got canned, especially when it's a position that's never been a seriously put forward before by anyone. But it's a viewpoint I can see some people are going to stick with so I'll say no more on the matter.</p></div></blockquote><p> Actually, I never claimed that. I just want to point that out. If they hadn't booked it the ground, they probably wouldn't have given it up. I always thought that. But you have to concede, at the very least, from their point of view, they were correct to do what they did. I've seen TV executives make stupid decisions before-this is was unhappy but fair decision on their part.</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

I don't see Punk ever wrestling under a different name. He seems to me like Chris Jericho kinda. He can go do other things but the WWE would always welcome him back. He should sign the contract and make sure they take care of him for a long time.

[Fantabulous]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Actually, I never claimed that. I just want to point that out. If they hadn't booked it the ground, they probably wouldn't have given it up. I always thought that. But you have to concede, at the very least, from their point of view, they were correct to do what they did. I've seen TV executives make stupid decisions before-this is was unhappy but fair decision on their part.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Never intended to imply that you claimed that. Given the state WCW was in, yes, it was the correct decision to make. I probably would have made it myself, in his shoes. But a WCW making money and doing strong ratings? No way that gets cancelled outright.</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Never intended to imply that you claimed that. Given the state WCW was in, yes, it was the correct decision to make. I probably would have made it myself, in his shoes. But a WCW making money and doing strong ratings? No way that gets cancelled outright.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This whole WCW dieing thing comes up a lot. Many "experts" even disagree as to what would have happened.</p>

[Fantabulous]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="juggaloninjalee" data-cite="juggaloninjalee" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>This whole WCW <strong>dying</strong> thing comes up a lot. Many "experts" even disagree as to what would have happened.</div></blockquote><p> In what respect?</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>In what respect?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Every couple of weeks people seem to bring up what/who/how WCW died/killed or whatever. I loved WCW and miss it. Just tired of it coming up and being debated that's all. Not saying you can't talk about it. Just seems like a topic that is controversial when it comes to the WHAT IFs. Do you know what I am saying?</p>

[PoisonedSuperman]

<p>Okay so read the spoilers or whatever. Fine. I don't really watch smackdown but if this is the official wwe discussion and this is the only place to talk about WWE, why must we be subjected to a thread that "*may contain spoilers*"? </p><p> </p><p>

Can't there be a spoiler thread or something ?</p>

[The Shape]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PoisonedSuperman" data-cite="PoisonedSuperman" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Okay so read the spoilers or whatever. Fine. I don't really watch smackdown but if this is the official wwe discussion and this is the only place to talk about WWE, why must we be subjected to a thread that "*may contain spoilers*"? <p> </p><p> Can't there be a spoiler thread or something ?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This is like the only time it's ever happened, because of something massive on Smackdown. The last times anything of this magnitude took place it was spoiled on WWE.com itself. Hardly a need for something separate.</p>

[eayragt]

Update on CM Punk's Future With WWE

 

Not sure how accurate this article is, but it suggests that Punk is holding out on a new contract because WWE want him to sign over the rights to his name ala Bryan Danielson.

 

Good for him. But it does make you wonder why WWE had him wrestle as CM Punk in the first place - it's not as if getting wrestlers in under new names is something new (it's been what... 8 years since WWE went on it's massive trademarking campaign).

[OctoberRaven]

Probably because he agreed to using his name.

 

Really shows how confident he was that he was going to do well that the didn't use a different name. If things didn't pan out (and honestly, it did seem that way until he broke the Curse of Jobbing To Bob Holly), he might have ended up in TNA as PB Jelly right now.

[liontamer]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Fantabulous" data-cite="Fantabulous" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>No, Nitro being written by a complete idiot for three months and then six more months the following year and driving even the hardest of the hardcore fans away is why we're not watching Nitro any more.<p> </p><p> But hey; all they needed was a credible babyface on top and they'd have come up roses.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> true to an extent, but before the attitude era (long before the merger) WCW owned WWE for a good year and a half. If not for the rise of Stone Cold, the Rock and DX, I've heard numerous times that WCW may have purchased WWE or at least won the battle and have a hard time thinking they'd have been cancelled as top dog.</p><p> </p><p> It wasn't that fact that the Rock, DX, or austin won lots of matches or wrestled particularly well that got fans to turn the tide back to WWE, it was their personalities and on screen shananigans. And for the record I do think HHH is right and that WCW should have let DX into Nitro. Ratings would have gone through the roof.</p>

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="cappyboy" data-cite="cappyboy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I do. Really it all comes down to what Brooks wants. If he's looking for career stability and wants to be that company guy, you're right on. Sell the name rights and then save some dough in the event you have seller's remorse and/or end up in a Dudley Boys/Hardcore Holly situation. The old trust but verify thing if you will.<p> </p><p> But if he still wants the freedom to explore other pastures, he's much better served hanging on to the name rights. Being "CM Punk" has been very good to him. It's the only name of any value he's ever had. It's not like his cult started as "PJ Brooks" and grew it when he became "CM Punk" and then WWE picked him up. The potential value to both him and the next place he went is much higher if he's still able to be Punk. If he has to resort to an alternate name, the next place might miss out on the early returns as folks who'd otherwise pay to see him fail to realize he is in fact him. Which in turn could hurt his value to the next place. Since the reports are that Brooks is fighting to retain his own name rights, it suggests to me he doesn't view WWE as a final landing place just yet. If that's true, it doesn't seem wise to me to get stuck holding an empty identity bag if you don't have to.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Maybe I wasn't clear on this, but I already explained why the reasons you give are illusory. He can't make big money anywhere but WWE because there is nowhere else to go. He's already a main eventer in the biggest promotion in the world. And yes, he might lose some value to New Japan or TNA or whoever if he leaves without the name, but 1) he would have already been compensated up front, which will be useful while he takes a paycut to work a reduced schedule or promote his country music album, and 2) he would still make a decent payday, even if he doesn't move any needles (as TNA has proved with their big signings). I really have to question what century these fans of Punk who would buy a show if they knew he was appearing won't buy because they don't even know it's him: clearly not the 21st, where twitter, facebook and everything else make guys like Punk instantly accessible to their hardcore fanbase. It "doesn't seem wise" to take money for a name that you still get to use anyway, on the basis that you <em>might</em> want to leave one day and make far less money elsewhere, but want to remain slightly more marketable in the tiny pond you're moving to? I just don't see how that's even a competitive option. Like I said, if WWE is low-balling him or think they don't need him around (and they do, considering the age and injuries to most of their other ring general type main eventers), that's one thing, but it's naive to say "oh he should keep the name maybe he'll need it one day."</p><p> </p><p> Oh, and OctoberRaven, as far as Punk not making it? You're joking, right? He was hyped to be the big new star of ECW when it was still being treated as a major brand, then went on an 8+ month streak where he was unbeaten in singles matches (as a babyface), and was featured in a survivor series match with DX where he, HBK and Triple H were the sole survivors. But yeah, it seemed like maybe he wouldn't work out there for a minute...</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<p>Yeah... I never could see where at any time it looked like Punk wasn't going to make it. He come to WWE as a "seemingly" star without ever being on WWE programming before. He had everyone fighting over him (Join us, no Join us instead!), and he didn't lose much at all. When he left ECW he come in as a star, not as a rookie. In fact, he never was shown as a rookie at any time that I can think of.</p><p> </p><p>

IF anyone in modern WWE was given a "fair" shake, he is one of the top one's IMO. There are a couple that WWE seems determined to make stars of, one way or another, no matter what though. Drew and Vickie's boyfriend seem to have been given chance after chance, even though no one will ever take those two seriously probably.</p>

[ampulator]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah... I never could see where at any time it looked like Punk wasn't going to make it. He come to WWE as a "seemingly" star without ever being on WWE programming before. He had everyone fighting over him (Join us, no Join us instead!), and he didn't lose much at all. When he left ECW he come in as a star, not as a rookie. In fact, he never was shown as a rookie at any time that I can think of.<p> </p><p> IF anyone in modern WWE was given a "fair" shake, he is one of the top one's IMO. There are a couple that WWE seems determined to make stars of, one way or another, no matter what though. Drew and Vickie's boyfriend seem to have been given chance after chance, even though no one will ever take those two seriously probably.</p></div></blockquote><p> It's not that he wasn't given the chance. I have no doubt that WWE has given him "chances". But my frustration is due to WWE being unable to adapt to, or at the very least, hvae the right mindset that, the kind of workers they want are a dime in a dozen, needles in mutliple haystacks, and it's already hard enough as it is to attract workers that are talented, considering there are many more lucrative, and stable professions these days that compete for the a similiar base of workers. Adding onto that requirement hurts the WWE, not help it. </p><p> </p><p> I know what kind of worker they want. But they need to face the reality that those workers might be better off in Acting or regular TV-why go to the WWE for more pain, less money, and less emotionally rewarding work? </p><p> </p><p> Punk reprsent the first of the new worker these days. He's better than in every aspect, I would say, but this is what's WWE worker base is, as much as they hate to admit it. While WWE isn't always guilty of having a product that isn't a fit for the fan base, they are certainly guilty of having a product that doesn't fit their potential worker base. You work with what you have, not what you want to have. Depending skills that these workers simply don't initially have isn't going to work. </p><p> </p><p> WWE can do two things-slowly build workers to have the style and skills necessary to fit their product, and/or fit their product more in-line with the potential worker base. While WWE has made some attempts to do the first, they certainly have not done the second. They don't have to do it, but NOT doing so has actually made it harder for themselves, not easier. If you already in a front of short-wall, you can either go over it, around the sides, or try to ram head-on. Guess what the WWE is doing most of the time?</p><p> </p><p> And when it comes to building stars, WWE rushes way too much these days. Short-term booking with no real *bang* or *shock* factor. Short-term booking only works if you intend to *shock* or *swerve* people. It doesn't work if there isn't any. </p><p> </p><p> Second, any time they DO long-term booking, it's not done very well. It's almost always too obvious who's going to come out on top. In fact, they booking so many cliches, sometimes, they outright signal even who's going to win in the next match, with their booking. How am I supposed to care about a John Cena vs. *Anyone* when I have not even one shred of doubt who's going to win? Why buy a PPV when I already can guess the results, or if you signalled to me who's going to come out on top?</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It's not that he wasn't given the chance. I have no doubt that WWE has given him "chances". But my frustration is due to WWE being unable to adapt to, or at the very least, hvae the right mindset that, the kind of workers they want are a dime in a dozen, needles in mutliple haystacks, and it's already hard enough as it is to attract workers that are talented, considering there are many more lucrative, and stable professions these days that compete for the a similiar base of workers. Adding onto that requirement hurts the WWE, not help it. <p> </p><p> I know what kind of worker they want. But they need to face the reality that those workers might be better off in Acting or regular TV-why go to the WWE for more pain, less money, and less emotionally rewarding work? </p><p> </p><p> Punk reprsent the first of the new worker these days. He's better than in every aspect, I would say, but this is what's WWE worker base is, as much as they hate to admit it. While WWE isn't always guilty of having a product that isn't a fit for the fan base, they are certainly guilty of having a product that doesn't fit their potential worker base. You work with what you have, not what you want to have. Depending skills that these workers simply don't initially have isn't going to work. </p><p> </p><p> WWE can do two things-slowly build workers to have the style and skills necessary to fit their product, and/or fit their product more in-line with the potential worker base. While WWE has made some attempts to do the first, they certainly have not done the second. They don't have to do it, but NOT doing so has actually made it harder for themselves, not easier. If you already in a front of short-wall, you can either go over it, around the sides, or try to ram head-on. Guess what the WWE is doing most of the time?</p><p> </p><p> And when it comes to building stars, WWE rushes way too much these days. Short-term booking with no real *bang* or *shock* factor. Short-term booking only works if you intend to *shock* or *swerve* people. It doesn't work if there isn't any. </p><p> </p><p> Second, any time they DO long-term booking, it's not done very well. It's almost always too obvious who's going to come out on top. In fact, they booking so many cliches, sometimes, they outright signal even who's going to win in the next match, with their booking. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">How am I supposed to care about a John Cena vs. *Anyone* when I have not even one shred of doubt who's going to win? Why buy a PPV when I already can guess the results, or if you signalled to me who's going to come out on top</span>?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You know, I actually agree more then dissagree with you, but alas, the underlined. This is where I just don't believe that everything is so cut and dry to most of the fan base. Sure, to me, or you, or someone else that is as "into" wrestling as we are... We see it, heck, most of us play a game where we simulate it. That insight effects our ability to "be shocked". It effects us in a bad way IMO... especially if you desire it.</p><p> </p><p> Let me put it another way. How many times have you seen people in here complaining about something that happened on one of the shows... yet when your watching the show it seems like the WHOLE AUDIENCE was on a totally different mindframe (meaning they liked what other's hated). This is how I see most fans being. When I watch wrestling with my friends, that don't talk like we do about wrestling: Example: WOW! That was a good promo! Jeesh, he would be so much better if he would learn how to do a promo... That was botched badly! Etc.</p><p> </p><p> We watch it like that. The guys I watch it with, thier reactions are totally different. I like this though, as it helps me enjoy the show about 20 times more then if I watch it while talking about the show here. IF I missed a botch, I'm still going to know about it. That's not "normal" viewer audience. Heck, most people don't think Botch, they think "Dummie shouldn't have tried that, now look what happened!" and it's kind of like watching race car's to them.... It's alot more exciting when there is a car crash.</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You know, I actually agree more then dissagree with you, but alas, the underlined. This is where I just don't believe that everything is so cut and dry to most of the fan base. Sure, to me, or you, or someone else that is as "into" wrestling as we are... We see it, heck, most of us play a game where we simulate it. That insight effects our ability to "be shocked". It effects us in a bad way IMO... especially if you desire it.<p> </p><p> Let me put it another way. How many times have you seen people in here complaining about something that happened on one of the shows... yet when your watching the show it seems like the WHOLE AUDIENCE was on a totally different mindframe (meaning they liked what other's hated). This is how I see most fans being. When I watch wrestling with my friends, that don't talk like we do about wrestling: Example: WOW! That was a good promo! Jeesh, he would be so much better if he would learn how to do a promo... That was botched badly! Etc.</p><p> </p><p> We watch it like that. The guys I watch it with, thier reactions are totally different. I like this though, as it helps me enjoy the show about 20 times more then if I watch it while talking about the show here. IF I missed a botch, I'm still going to know about it. That's not "normal" viewer audience. Heck, most people don't think Botch, they think "Dummie shouldn't have tried that, now look what happened!" and it's kind of like watching race car's to them.... It's alot more exciting when there is a car crash.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Were we thinking this way when Austin was always winning in the late 90s and stunning everyone left and right? I sure wasn't. I loved it and still do.</p><p> </p><p> What about when Hogan was beating everyone left and right in the late 80s and early 90s? I loved that too.</p><p> </p><p> Now is Cena's turn. In 10 years it will be a new guy.</p>

[Fantabulous]

If they can make their fans want to see it or want to pay to see it, whether it's predictable or not is irrelevant. The problems start when you try to get cute and swerve people just to make things unpredictable, because it's hard to do it correctly without causing disinterest or damaging your own talent and WWE usually can't pull it off.

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You know, I actually agree more then dissagree with you, but alas, the underlined. This is where I just don't believe that everything is so cut and dry to most of the fan base. Sure, to me, or you, or someone else that is as "into" wrestling as we are... We see it, heck, most of us play a game where we simulate it. That insight effects our ability to "be shocked". It effects us in a bad way IMO... especially if you desire it.<p> </p><p> Let me put it another way. How many times have you seen people in here complaining about something that happened on one of the shows... yet when your watching the show it seems like the WHOLE AUDIENCE was on a totally different mindframe (meaning they liked what other's hated). This is how I see most fans being. When I watch wrestling with my friends, that don't talk like we do about wrestling: Example: WOW! That was a good promo! Jeesh, he would be so much better if he would learn how to do a promo... That was botched badly! Etc.</p><p> </p><p> We watch it like that. The guys I watch it with, thier reactions are totally different. I like this though, as it helps me enjoy the show about 20 times more then if I watch it while talking about the show here. IF I missed a botch, I'm still going to know about it. That's not "normal" viewer audience. Heck, most people don't think Botch, they think "Dummie shouldn't have tried that, now look what happened!" and it's kind of like watching race car's to them.... It's alot more exciting when there is a car crash.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Some good points here. Most people don't watch wrestling to make sure it's confirming a series of hypotheses they already had when the show started, then lament that things are too "predictable" because they were able to accurately predict what would happen. Most things of this nature are predictable if you look at them hard enough, even unscripted sporting events. But if you're watching to see if you're right, or, god forbid, giving out meaningless snowflakes based on some idiotic rating scale, there's a pretty good chance that you're not going to <em>enjoy the show</em>. And in the end, that's the whole point.</p>

[Tha Black Phenom]

Agreed. If anything, I think the 'predictable' review is thrown around a bit too loosely, we spend days dissecting angles from every possible window, and at times once the predictable thing doesn't happen, it may be a "letdown" because the average smark doesn't feel comfortable with something he didn't expect.