|
|
Post by donners on Dec 20, 2009 4:06:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kroot bringing Justice on Dec 20, 2009 5:20:39 GMT -5
Maybe they can get rid of the stupid NO hitting women rule please?
|
|
|
|
Post by oafman on Dec 20, 2009 5:48:03 GMT -5
Maybe they can get rid of the stupid NO hitting women rule please? Gives me an excuse to post this! I laughed at what happened because it came out of nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by donners on Dec 20, 2009 6:13:13 GMT -5
Alexis took a hell of a beating in the Clockwork Orange match, IIRC, but that was nothing compared to Kid Kash's sick chairshots on Trinity.
If TNA had been able to have Kong against one of the men when she really had momentum, I think it could have worked really well.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Dec 20, 2009 14:35:49 GMT -5
Maybe they can get rid of the stupid NO hitting women rule please? I'm pretty sure they already did, if the Cody Deaner stuff counts. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 20, 2009 15:28:40 GMT -5
Maybe they can get rid of the stupid NO hitting women rule please? Eric Young did kick Hamada when she was coming in to attack him in the corner, but there wasn't that much male to female physical contact. Maybe Spike will end up realizing that women aren't that fragile, especially after Hamada almost won the Global Championship. |
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 20, 2009 15:32:30 GMT -5
You know they have the no male on female violence for PR purposes, right? It does no one any good to feature that unless you're Lifetime.
|
|
EJS
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,857
|
Post by EJS on Dec 20, 2009 16:10:30 GMT -5
Maybe they can get rid of the stupid NO hitting women rule please? I'm pretty sure they already did, if the Cody Deaner stuff counts. Cody never hit any woman during the matches on Impact. |
|
|
|
Post by hajimenoippo on Dec 20, 2009 16:43:48 GMT -5
If they do get behind TNA with marketing, that can only be a good thing. The reason UFC is as big as it is now is because SpikeTV got behind them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2009 16:55:43 GMT -5
You know they have the no male on female violence for PR purposes, right? It does no one any good to feature that unless you're Lifetime. That's what makes it so aggravating -- they do it for PR purposes, yet Spike TV's overall portrayal of women is, bar none, the absolute most demeaning of any network I've ever seen in my life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2009 17:06:32 GMT -5
What would be perfect is drop to 8 ppvs a year and have 4 "Monday Night Specials", that are the equivalent of a PPV card.
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Swagger on Dec 20, 2009 17:27:09 GMT -5
What would be perfect is drop to 8 ppvs a year and have 4 "Monday Night Specials", that are the equivalent of a PPV card. I think that is an excellent idea. In a time and age when I feel that wrestling needs less PPV's this would be perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 20, 2009 20:03:44 GMT -5
What would be perfect is drop to 8 ppvs a year and have 4 "Monday Night Specials", that are the equivalent of a PPV card. I like it. It's at least worth an experiment with. Many of us here have been vocal about wanting to see TNA revert to a model of less PPV's coupled with more prime time Clash of the Champion-like specials. I'd be all for it, personally. As for the comments here, the responsibilities here are two-fold. TNA had better hope they pull in a strong rating vs. Raw; even if it isn't a big ratings, then at least one that shows that they're either not losing their audience to Raw, or they even get a little bump (i.e. a 1.5 or something like that). If TNA can keep up that end of the bargain, then Spike had better be DAMNED serious about advertising/promoting it, since that's been the biggest issue facing TNA for eons now. |
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Dec 20, 2009 20:19:16 GMT -5
TNA has actually received plenty of promotion IMO. A good timeslot (Smackdown's old slot is nothing to scoff at), a 2-hour show (after this site thought it would never happen), and a deafening amount of Hogan hype over the last 3 months or so.
And yet the ratings are still pretty flat.
TNA has plenty of problems. Investment in hype is not one of them (at least since they went to 2 hours). I'm still pretty certain their last permabump in the ratings came from the Angle/Joe stuff shortly after they went to 2 hours. Since then, they've done absolutely nothing ratings-wise to justify trying to challenge RAW.
|
|
|
|
Post by donners on Dec 20, 2009 20:21:12 GMT -5
Their last big and consistent bump in ratings was early in the year when the MEM dominated the show, and they regularly hit 1.3. They have been down since the MEM finished and Sting left. Doubt that's a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by donners on Dec 31, 2009 17:28:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kropotkin on Dec 31, 2009 19:13:07 GMT -5
Interesting. If they consider it a success to get the same audience as the Thursday show, then a move to Monday Night makes a lot of sense. If you can keep your existing audience intact, then a move to Monday only makes sense--you stand to gain a much bigger audience from the people who would switch from Raw to Impact.
The big "if" though is "if they can keep their audience." I really hope they can. If a move to Monday were to happen it wouldn't exactly be a Monday Night War in the sense that TNA could put WWE out of business, but it could be a persistent competition--and that would be good for everyone involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Jan 1, 2010 16:13:01 GMT -5
1.5 million would be, dependant on the total audience of course, around the 1.0 to 1.1 mark.
So I guess that's it then from Spike TV, they'll be happy so long as Impact doesn't do worse than a 1.0.
I think that's pretty fair, they'd like to see it maintain at least...and they'll be hoping for a lot more.
|
|
