|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 8, 2007 23:03:20 GMT -5
A lot of you guys are really splitting hairs, "It's not a 'victory' it's an 'accomplishment!' Fine. It's an accomplishment for TNA. The bottom line is that the TNA roster work their butts off, so they deserve a little good news every now and then. Obviously all this "WE beat YOU!" stuff is silly unless you happen to be employed by one of the companies. Even if it's nothing has changed in the long run, for once the better show got the better rating so I'm grateful for that. To a young and struggling company, every accomplishment matters, just like every setback does. It can be funny either way. You can laugh that earning the same 1.1 rating they get every week is an accomplishment for TNA or you can laugh that a show produced by a multi-million dollar corporation scored even less than that. I prefer to think of it as a pleasant surprise that more people watched the better show. Except for the "pleasant surprise" part (because it was supposed to happen), I agree with everything there. It's good that they didn't lose any audience to WWE, but it's overblown for fans to think that they "won" anything and it's good for TNA guys to hear that they rated higher than ECW that night. I don't think it's a case of TNA "wooping" or that it happened solely because of TNA. WWE didn't do a whole hell of a lot to advertise, certainly far less than they'd do for either of the other two shows, and the simple status of airtimes contributed greatly. That doesn't mean that ECW would have won if they aired an hour earlier and had actual mentions of it on the air every five minutes, mind you, just that you can't really logically trivialize the impact of the same factors that will affect any show changing timeslots with the bare minimum advertisement.
|
|
|
Post by twiggy101 on Dec 8, 2007 23:08:48 GMT -5
Don't you think that ECW would have gotten the same ratings if they were on a different day but not the same as TNA?
But dang, .6 is pretty low for a show that got a 2.8 and was beating Smackdown in the ratings.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 8, 2007 23:14:02 GMT -5
Don't you think that ECW would have gotten the same ratings if they were on a different day but not the same as TNA? But dang, .6 is pretty low for a show that got a 2.8 and was beating Smackdown in the ratings. I think it might have been a few tenths of a point higher or so, because I do think there is overlap. But if it had aired on Wednesday under the exact same circumstances, it would have dropped significantly anyways.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Dec 8, 2007 23:20:18 GMT -5
Don't you think that ECW would have gotten the same ratings if they were on a different day but not the same as TNA? But dang, .6 is pretty low for a show that got a 2.8 and was beating Smackdown in the ratings. The 2.8 was an awfully long time ago, though. ECW had a very different roster then.
|
|
|
Post by twiggy101 on Dec 8, 2007 23:40:45 GMT -5
Don't you think that ECW would have gotten the same ratings if they were on a different day but not the same as TNA? But dang, .6 is pretty low for a show that got a 2.8 and was beating Smackdown in the ratings. The 2.8 was an awfully long time ago, though. ECW had a very different roster then. Yeah, that's true but still amazing how a show went from kicking Smackdown's ass with a pretty good roster and a crowd with some ECW spirit into a C-Show brand with a thin roster and dead crowds that gets a lower ratings than WWE's enemy: TNA in 1 1/2 years.
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Dec 8, 2007 23:50:59 GMT -5
The 2.8 was an awfully long time ago, though. ECW had a very different roster then. Yeah, that's true but still amazing how a show went from kicking Smackdown's ass with a pretty good roster and a crowd with some ECW spirit into a C-Show brand with a thin roster and dead crowds that gets a lower ratings than WWE's enemy: TNA in 1 1/2 years. SmackDown also was being pre-empted or just plain not seeable in over 75% of the country due to the gearing up for the CW network.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 9, 2007 0:07:27 GMT -5
Yeah, that's true but still amazing how a show went from kicking Smackdown's ass with a pretty good roster and a crowd with some ECW spirit into a C-Show brand with a thin roster and dead crowds that gets a lower ratings than WWE's enemy: TNA in 1 1/2 years. True, but really, it's scored lower once, this week, when it was pre-empted and moved directly opposed TNA's second hour without much advertisement. Other than that, it usually, at worst, equals TNA in ratings. Also, I think the unexpected events following the "draft" had a far worse impact on the show that people might have thought.
|
|
|
Post by mcmahonfan85 on Dec 9, 2007 0:10:46 GMT -5
Jesus, can we have 1 victory that doesn't get crapped on? he said on a website titled Wrestle crap
|
|
|
Post by primetime110 on Dec 9, 2007 0:18:48 GMT -5
I said it in WWE Current, I'll say it here. Congrats to TNA. They maintained their standard rating (that the conspiracy theorist in me says is fixed since it's the exact same week after week) against ECW. Now, the fact that the show they opposed featured both King Mable and Mark Henry, a combined ton of suck, does make me chuckle a bit, though. How serously can we take ECW when poor Joey and Taz are forced to put over a shirtless, suspender-wearing former Fatboy wannabe who also happens to be the single worst KOTR winner in the history of, well, humankind? Then throw in Mark Herny, a guy who's so abysmal that even his staunchest defenders can only say, after over a decade in the business, "well, he's getting better". God help me, I want to like ECW, but when I see those two, all I can do is shudder and hope the pain stops. Also featured the IWC Golden Boy CM Punk.
|
|
Limey
Unicron
It's been awhile.
Posts: 3,062
|
Post by Limey on Dec 9, 2007 10:51:24 GMT -5
I said it in WWE Current, I'll say it here. Congrats to TNA. They maintained their standard rating (that the conspiracy theorist in me says is fixed since it's the exact same week after week) against ECW. Now, the fact that the show they opposed featured both King Mable and Mark Henry, a combined ton of suck, does make me chuckle a bit, though. How serously can we take ECW when poor Joey and Taz are forced to put over a shirtless, suspender-wearing former Fatboy wannabe who also happens to be the single worst KOTR winner in the history of, well, humankind? Then throw in Mark Herny, a guy who's so abysmal that even his staunchest defenders can only say, after over a decade in the business, "well, he's getting better". God help me, I want to like ECW, but when I see those two, all I can do is shudder and hope the pain stops. Also featured the IWC Golden Boy CM Punk. True, but if you broke both your legs, tore out your fingernails and got given an ice cream, you'd still say you'd be having a bad day, right?
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Dec 9, 2007 10:54:54 GMT -5
I said it in WWE Current, I'll say it here. Congrats to TNA. They maintained their standard rating (that the conspiracy theorist in me says is fixed since it's the exact same week after week) against ECW. Now, the fact that the show they opposed featured both King Mable and Mark Henry, a combined ton of suck, does make me chuckle a bit, though. How serously can we take ECW when poor Joey and Taz are forced to put over a shirtless, suspender-wearing former Fatboy wannabe who also happens to be the single worst KOTR winner in the history of, well, humankind? Then throw in Mark Herny, a guy who's so abysmal that even his staunchest defenders can only say, after over a decade in the business, "well, he's getting better". God help me, I want to like ECW, but when I see those two, all I can do is shudder and hope the pain stops. Also featured the IWC Golden Boy CM Punk. Seeing as the IWC make up a small portion of the audience, it wouldn't be enough to get a 2.1 or anything. I like Punk, and he gets good reactions (outside of the IWC) but feuding with those two isn't exactly must-see TV.
|
|