|
Post by Ryushinku on Feb 19, 2010 11:16:46 GMT -5
'Better' is always subjective though, a personal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by N E O G E O B O Y S on Feb 19, 2010 11:22:46 GMT -5
He's not, and he shouldn't be. It's only a matter of time and bullets before TNA shoots itself in the foot. TNA becoming real competition for the WWE would take a damn miracle at this point. You remember the USFL? They had the good sense not to go head to head against the NFL. TNA's taking an awful huge risk by going to Monday nights. Granted, the risk is lessened by people DVRing one show or another, and DVR ratings still count, but the point is, TNA will never beat the WWE. The USFL never put on anywhere near the product that the NFL did. TNA is better than the WWE, and not by a small margin. That's why your analogy fails. Better according who? Marketing? nah storylines? The whole abyss-hogan segment was hilarious in a bad sense. At this moment the WWE had some interesting feuds right now Wrestling match? I found them better in TNA, but at the end of the day, they somehow f*** up all. Anyway, Vince should be scared, because if I were Vince, any wrestling Company is a Risk, Hell, the lame WCW from the 95 became the great WCW from the end of 96 to 97. There is still a chance that the actual lame TNA became a great company, and somehow I had some faith
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Feb 19, 2010 11:37:43 GMT -5
The USFL never put on anywhere near the product that the NFL did. TNA is better than the WWE, and not by a small margin. That's why your analogy fails. Better according who? Marketing? nah storylines? The whole abyss-hogan segment was hilarious in a bad sense. At this moment the WWE had some interesting feuds right now Wrestling match? I found them better in TNA, but at the end of the day, they somehow f*** up all. Anyway, Vince should be scared, because if I were Vince, any wrestling Company is a Risk, Hell, the lame WCW from the 95 became the great WCW from the end of 96 to 97. There is still a chance that the actual lame TNA became a great company, and somehow I had some faith And let's not forget the other news story in this board about the Knockouts getting less screen time, despite being their highest-rated segments. If this is true, that's shooting off their pinky toe at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by jakemcclain on Feb 19, 2010 11:58:59 GMT -5
What feuds in wwe are remotely interesting?
Randy Orton is destroying Sheamus, and Sheamus is playing honky tonk man with the heavyweight title.
CM Punk is an awesome heel, and HHH destoyed his whole character by a few humorous one liners, then blowing heel momentum by pitching him out just as CM was getting over.
WWE tournaments are crap. You get Carlito vs HHH first round. In TNA you get Anderson vs Angle. You never know who wins that match.
The E has got to improve or Vince will start getting concerned.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Feb 19, 2010 12:24:39 GMT -5
What feuds in wwe are remotely interesting? Randy Orton is destroying Sheamus, and Sheamus is playing honky tonk man with the heavyweight title. CM Punk is an awesome heel, and HHH destoyed his whole character by a few humorous one liners, then blowing heel momentum by pitching him out just as CM was getting over. WWE tournaments are crap. You get Carlito vs HHH first round. In TNA you get Anderson vs Angle. You never know who wins that match. The E has got to improve or Vince will start getting concerned. CM Punk was given time to get his character to the masses during the Rumble. You must not seen the part where he tossed out 4 guys and 1 women while cutting a promo. Don't forget that one of 8 Card Stud qualifiers was Matt Morgan vs Suicide . Not a trilling matchup. Until TNA's buyrates and revenue start to bite into WWE's, Vince is not worried severely. TNA can do a 2.0 rating but if the revenue is the same as before, it's a failure. Ratings needs to translate into money. Moving merchandise, selling house shows, and ppvs matters more.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Feb 19, 2010 12:48:21 GMT -5
If I were Vince McMahon I'd be more concerned about UFC than TNA.
|
|
|
Post by jakemcclain on Feb 19, 2010 13:41:54 GMT -5
At least in a Matt Morgan vs Suicide match, Suicide will look halfway credible. Sheamus dispatches evan bourne in about a minute.
And imagine how much heat Punk could have built up if he avoided HHH, or other big names, till about the top ten, then someone catches him and pitches him out.
WWE, as a whole, has no pure idea how to generate real heat anymore. Fans sit on their hands for 90% of their matches.
|
|
|
Post by mschif420 on Feb 19, 2010 13:49:13 GMT -5
If I'm Vince McMahon I buy TNA and start a incest storyline between Hulk and Brooke.
|
|
|
Post by moonlight on Feb 19, 2010 14:54:36 GMT -5
If I'm Vince McMahon I buy TNA and start a incest storyline between Hulk and Brooke. You are bad. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Brian Suntan on Feb 19, 2010 20:24:41 GMT -5
No. Obviously I'd be curious enough to see their ratings and all, but some people are getting giddy. The difference between where the WWE are right now and where TNA is so big it's absurd. Not just in ratings, everything. The money they make, house shows, touring, buyrates, brand awareness.
Of course, the most likely scenario of this whole 'war' (at least in the short-mid term) is that it turns out both are aiming at different people and there's a big enough audience to accomodate both. TNA continue to maintain their 1-1.5 and the WWE stick in the 3s.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Feb 19, 2010 20:26:08 GMT -5
If I were Vince McMahon, I'd be out getting an Ass-cial!
(Anybody else remember that??)
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Feb 19, 2010 21:08:36 GMT -5
No. Obviously I'd be curious enough to see their ratings and all, but some people are getting giddy. The difference between where the WWE are right now and where TNA is so big it's absurd. Not just in ratings, everything. The money they make, house shows, touring, buyrates, brand awareness. Not to mention production value, and the fact that they've been doing live shows on Monday night for about 15 years now.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,304
|
Post by The Ichi on Feb 19, 2010 21:17:08 GMT -5
Any smart business man keeps an eye on any potential competition.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,122
|
Post by Mozenrath on Feb 19, 2010 21:24:06 GMT -5
Ah crap, they're on to me.
|
|
|
Post by Chilly McFreeze on Feb 19, 2010 22:34:51 GMT -5
I'm Vincent Kennedy McMahon, dammit.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Feb 19, 2010 22:40:48 GMT -5
If I'm Vince McMahon I buy TNA and start a incest storyline between Hulk and Brooke. It's been done.
|
|
|
Post by toodarkmark on Feb 20, 2010 12:47:52 GMT -5
TNA right now is as big a risk to WWE as ECW was to WWF, back in the attitude era. Their ratings are simply too low for me to get worried, if I was Vince. And seeing how poor TNA is with promoting their product (they didn't even mention they were going back to the Thursday time slot on Jan 4th) I wouldn't need to worry for a while. WWE gets 3 times the ratings of TNA. WWF got 7 times the ratings of ECW. When TNA went up against WWE on Monday they got a 1.5 and WWE got it's usual 3.6. Only 2.1 higher. What happens when TNA gets half the ratings of Raw? And since WWE LOVES to talk about how amazingly high their ratings are and better than every other cable show, what happens when a rival wrestling show is suddenly getting half their ratings? You don't think they'll start to think about it for a bit? And for those of you who are SO SURE WWE is better than TNA, that is subjective. Some people have been enjoying TNA more, some people enjoy Raw more, some people enjoy neither, some people enjoy both. So try to have some objectivity before you just proclaim that "TNA has no chance ever." And WWE has billions and a 40 year track record to promote. TNA does not have billions and even 8 years to promote. Soooo, let them spend a year trying to build something, and then see what happens. Because, BTW, this weeks episode was far better than anything I've seen on Raw in a long time. So they might have something to promote soon enough.
|
|
Psychoblue
Don Corleone
WrestleCrap #1 Kona Crush mark (probably)
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by Psychoblue on Feb 20, 2010 14:25:19 GMT -5
If I was Vince and I'd decide what to do about Impact, I'd talk to Spike about how much they want to sell their share on TNA for. Once I acquired that share, my first order of business would be to bring the entire TNA roster to RAW, line to up around the entrance ramp like children going to see Santa, and tell each and every one of them, "YOU'RRRE FIIIIIRRRRRRRED! Next!"
Then I'd sell the stock back to Spike for some extra money and continue going about running WWE.
|
|
BxB
Unicron
Only the shift key stands between him and copyright infringement.
Posts: 2,849
|
Post by BxB on Feb 20, 2010 15:37:03 GMT -5
TNA right now is as big a risk to WWE as ECW was to WWF, back in the attitude era. Their ratings are simply too low for me to get worried, if I was Vince. And seeing how poor TNA is with promoting their product (they didn't even mention they were going back to the Thursday time slot on Jan 4th) I wouldn't need to worry for a while. WWE gets 3 times the ratings of TNA. WWF got 7 times the ratings of ECW. When TNA went up against WWE on Monday they got a 1.5 and WWE got it's usual 3.6. Only 2.1 higher. What happens when TNA gets half the ratings of Raw? And since WWE LOVES to talk about how amazingly high their ratings are and better than every other cable show, what happens when a rival wrestling show is suddenly getting half their ratings? You don't think they'll start to think about it for a bit? If we're going that route, WCW was getting ratings similar to Raw gets these days in 2000 and it was still considered a failure and Russo was labeled as the anti-Christ. My point? It's not fair to compare the attitude era ratings to now. Wrestling was in it's boom period back then. The moment TNA legitimately starts cutting into WWE's ratings is when I'd personally consider them a direct competition to WWE. Until then, my comparison stands.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Feb 20, 2010 18:25:07 GMT -5
WWE gets 3 times the ratings of TNA. WWF got 7 times the ratings of ECW. When TNA went up against WWE on Monday they got a 1.5 and WWE got it's usual 3.6. Only 2.1 higher. What happens when TNA gets half the ratings of Raw? And since WWE LOVES to talk about how amazingly high their ratings are and better than every other cable show, what happens when a rival wrestling show is suddenly getting half their ratings? You don't think they'll start to think about it for a bit? If we're going that route, WCW was getting ratings similar to Raw gets these days in 2000 and it was still considered a failure and Russo was labeled as the anti-Christ. My point? It's not fair to compare the attitude era ratings to now. Wrestling was in it's boom period back then. The moment TNA legitimately starts cutting into WWE's ratings is when I'd personally consider them a direct competition to WWE. Until then, my comparison stands. Besides, TNA threw the kitchen sink at the WWE, and they got a 1.5 rating. Now, they're back down to the 1.2s doing their regular stuff. They're not going to get 1.5s just by going to Monday nights.
|
|