|
Post by memphis25 on Nov 28, 2012 17:25:12 GMT -5
WWE moves the title to Ryback and HIAC and puts it on Punk at TLC or the New Years show. No harm no foul and you get to see what the read deal is. Maybe Ryback takes off and you have a bigger match for Rumble with some that according to you is a bigger draw than Punk which makes you more money. WWE didn't do that because they don't feel Punk is a problem, they've said time and again 3 hours is the problem. Why would you hotshot the title twice before what you hope is a money match on a major PPV? There is too much money locked up in a Rock match, they learned from blowing last years SS on a tag match and costing themselves big profits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 17:25:39 GMT -5
Both of these are excellent points. One, if Punk was the ratings and sales killer so many want to say he is, then what's stopping Vince from stripping him and turfing him back to midcard? Sure as hell isn't Rock: Keep in mind, the whole angle was that "Rock would face the WWE Champion at Rumble," not "Rock would face CM Punk at Rumble." Tensai could be champ, and it wouldn't make a difference, so long as he faced the Rock at Royal Rumble; which, I may add, if Punk is such a ratings and sales killer, he'd be pretty low on the list for the main of Royal Rumble, wouldn't he? Why put a guaranteed sales killer against the Rock when you could put him against Cena and guarantee a high purchase? Second, let's be here; last month or so, RyBack wasn't the best choice, he was the only choice. Think about it: With Cena on injury and the title holder being a heel, who was left? Bryan? He's a tag wrestler now. Kane? Same with Bryan. Kofi? Hasn't had a solid push since 2009. They didn't choose RyBack, they were stuck with RyBack. Some people were thinking they could've put Bryan & Kane in there with Punk as a Triple Threat, which would've made sense and continued the storyline from earlier in the year sans AJ. I thought that would be a good alternative actually - but with all the hype they put behind the #1 contender's tournament for the Tag Team Titles, HellNo were already locked in to defending against who ever won. Ryback was the fall back choice, but I think it would have been an interesting time to tease out a Miz face turn instead of yet another Miz/Kofi match.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Nov 28, 2012 17:31:43 GMT -5
3 hour Raw. Viewer burnout. Third hour always lowest rated. Ratings/buyrates been dropping for years. It's not all on CM Punk. And even if he's not a ratings draw, it doesn't take away from his talent, which is why "90% of us are blindly in love" or whatever bs. I wish WWE could just get a 1.1 rating every week and these threads didn't exist. Punk is talented but outside of his loyal IWC fanbase marginally care. If the Rock or SCSA showed up in the final segment I bet those fans would magically become less burned out!
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Nov 28, 2012 17:32:23 GMT -5
If Punk was over like you guys want to claim people would stay to watch him. John Cena's not over? Third hour declines with him in the main event too. Cena isn't in the whole hour, but when he's in ME segments people watch more than they do with Punk and isn't holding down the 7th worst final segments in raw history.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Nov 28, 2012 17:34:51 GMT -5
3 hour Raw. Viewer burnout. Third hour always lowest rated. Ratings/buyrates been dropping for years. It's not all on CM Punk. And even if he's not a ratings draw, it doesn't take away from his talent, which is why "90% of us are blindly in love" or whatever bs. I wish WWE could just get a 1.1 rating every week and these threads didn't exist. Punk is talented but outside of his loyal IWC fanbase marginally care. If the Rock or SCSA showed up in the final segment I bet those fans would magically become less burned out! Okay, I'm confused. Is the low ratings in the third hour because of Punk or because of the third hour? And don't hide behind special attractions like Rock or Austin; if RyBack was the feature of the third hour, would it do better or worse? Also, if it did worse, would it be because of RyBack or because of the third hour?
|
|
|
Post by Error on Nov 28, 2012 17:35:17 GMT -5
WWE moves the title to Ryback and HIAC and puts it on Punk at TLC or the New Years show. No harm no foul and you get to see what the read deal is. Maybe Ryback takes off and you have a bigger match for Rumble with some that according to you is a bigger draw than Punk which makes you more money. WWE didn't do that because they don't feel Punk is a problem, they've said time and again 3 hours is the problem. Why would you hotshot the title twice before what you hope is a money match on a major PPV? There is too much money locked up in a Rock match, they learned from blowing last years SS on a tag match and costing themselves big profits. Because according to you, it won't be a money match because Punk cannot draw. It'd be a repeat of SS last year (which actually was successful) and wouldn't let them come close to covering Rock's cost. You'd put it on Ryback and if he takes off you have a match that makes money, that draws and if he doesn't you have the Punk stuff to fall back on. But again, WWE doesn't see Punk as the failure you're painting him as. They see Punk as their second biggest draw and one of the most important people on the roster by all accounts so this discussion is crazy to begin with.
|
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on Nov 28, 2012 17:36:55 GMT -5
3 hour Raw. Viewer burnout. Third hour always lowest rated. Ratings/buyrates been dropping for years. It's not all on CM Punk. And even if he's not a ratings draw, it doesn't take away from his talent, which is why "90% of us are blindly in love" or whatever bs. I wish WWE could just get a 1.1 rating every week and these threads didn't exist. Punk is talented but outside of his loyal IWC fanbase marginally care. If the Rock or SCSA showed up in the final segment I bet those fans would magically become less burned out! You could sub out Punk for anybody on the active roster and that would still be the case.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Nov 28, 2012 17:37:04 GMT -5
Like it or not, Ryback's been on TV in the main event scene for weeks and the numbers have barely moved one way or the other with varying margins of error. You say he moves numbers. Well, he sure did move them. DOWN when he attacked Punk in the over run. But that has more to do with the writing than the on-screen talent right now IMHO. But feel free to blame Punk if that makes you feel better. Did you see the HIAC buyrate? Dude was the highest rated segment last week, could be the same again this week ve no names and drew a big number with Brad Maddox who never even worked a match before. All 3 of the matches everyone knew the finish before the bell and they held a number.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Nov 28, 2012 17:38:38 GMT -5
Punk is talented but outside of his loyal IWC fanbase marginally care. If the Rock or SCSA showed up in the final segment I bet those fans would magically become less burned out! Okay, I'm confused. Is the low ratings in the third hour because of Punk or because of the third hour? And don't hide behind special attractions like Rock or Austin; if RyBack was the feature of the third hour, would it do better or worse? Also, if it did worse, would it be because of RyBack or because of the third hour? Why even go that deep. If Ryback was a draw people would be watching the overrun. When Rock comes back and goes to be the ME face, people will be watching the overrun, even if it's a death hour. What it tells you is that Ryback is not enough of a draw for people to come back an watch. What the heel draws is irrelevant in the WWE model of booking. If they do draw (Mark Henry)... great. But also in WWE logic that means Mark Henry should be a face and I would assume will be working as one on his return or close after.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Nov 28, 2012 17:38:42 GMT -5
If Ryback was over people would stay to watch him. Thus the logical fallacy which still hasn't been answered. First show the Rock does the overrun will be through the roof compared to what they are now. Does that mean Punk suddenly is a face draw as a heel? No. So by default you are saying Punk isn't over then right?
|
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on Nov 28, 2012 17:40:06 GMT -5
This argument is f***ing ridiculous.
Ryback is over. Punk is over. The 3rd hour sucks.
End of story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 17:40:20 GMT -5
Like it or not, Ryback's been on TV in the main event scene for weeks and the numbers have barely moved one way or the other with varying margins of error. You say he moves numbers. Well, he sure did move them. DOWN when he attacked Punk in the over run. But that has more to do with the writing than the on-screen talent right now IMHO. But feel free to blame Punk if that makes you feel better. Did you see the HIAC buyrate? Dude was the highest rated segment last week, could be the same again this week ve no names and drew a big number with Brad Maddox who never even worked a match before. All 3 of the matches everyone knew the finish before the bell and they held a number. Actually Ryback's been in nearly every segment with Punk at the end of the show, which are abysmal ratings according to you. So Ryback = bad ratings?
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Nov 28, 2012 17:41:15 GMT -5
If Ryback was over people would stay to watch him. Thus the logical fallacy which still hasn't been answered. First show the Rock does the overrun will be through the roof compared to what they are now. Does that mean Punk suddenly is a face draw as a heel? No. So by default you are saying Punk isn't over then right? No, I'm saying that buy your logic when Rock shows up, Punk is suddenly the reason why people are watching, because apparently whoever he's programmed with is irrelevant. And no, I don't think he's a big draw as a heel, it's not what the crowd wants him to be and it's lessened his heat considerably. It's not like Cena where everyone goes nuts one way or another. The reaction comes off as confused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 17:41:31 GMT -5
If Ryback was over people would stay to watch him. Thus the logical fallacy which still hasn't been answered. First show the Rock does the overrun will be through the roof compared to what they are now. Does that mean Punk suddenly is a face draw as a heel? No. Actually he's saying it doesn't matter how over someone is - unless you're a "special attraction" dude the third hour is a killer regardless of who you are - cena/ryback/punk/orton/etc So by default you are saying Punk isn't over then right?
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Nov 28, 2012 17:46:09 GMT -5
Again, I'm being sarcastic and you still haven't gotten to the logical fallacy. If Ryback was a draw people would tune into the overrun. They don't, so while he might have an amusing segment every once in awhile that people watch, no one goes out of their way to watch him. He's a curiosity that needs work, not something that should be shoved down people's throats. The Rock is a draw. In a few weeks, people will tune into the overrun. No matter what. People will watch the overrun that might have watched nothing other than the "key" segments. WWE is a face promotion and has always been with one notable exception. The heels exist as vessels to be beaten. Not actual draws. If a heel is a draw, they become a face. Its Punks advertised segment and you blame Ryback because fans are suppose to know he's going to come out. That's fine but for fun lets say Ryback isn't over, guess what Punk isn't either if nobody tunes in to see him or his year long reign as WWE champion celebration. No matter how much you want to dance around it Punk has the 7 worst rated segments to end Raw in the history of the show and has had threads about him killing the Ratings since before Ryback even came in doing this gimmick. His poor numbers date back before 3 hour Shows.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Nov 28, 2012 17:46:17 GMT -5
Actually he's saying it doesn't matter how over someone is - unless you're a "special attraction" dude the third hour is a killer regardless of who you are - cena/ryback/punk/orton/etc So by default you are saying Punk isn't over then right? Sorta, basically what I mean is the casual audience will overlook 3 hours to watch, because they don't watch 3 hours. I could never watch 3 hours of this without BSing and making fun out of things in the GDT. It's interminable. If I'm thinking "oh cool, the Rock", I know when to watch. So Ryback ain't exactly overcoming this because he's not enough of a draw to. Alot of really casual viewers probably don't even know who he IS. I think he's had good segments, the Maddox segment with the ambulance was hilarious. I thought his first segment was good this week, especially with Kofi's botchy brother crippling himself... He's just not that big of a draw. That's the point I'm trying to make when I got sidetracked. He's not someone that is going to overcome the length of the show. I dunno if they have ANYONE on the active roster that can. Basically I'd sum it up: 1) Third hour sucks and it's too long even if the 3rd hour was solid. 2) Ryback isn't over enough to get people to come back. 3) The Punk heel turn has turned him into nothing more than someone who exists for his eventual defeat. There's times when he's really "on", the Lawler skit was great when he loosened up. They've seriously damaged him with the turn. 4) Heels don't matter in the first place as the WWE goes. Supposedly they're really impressed with Claudio/Antonio. He has slightly more heat than I do. So that should tell you what a WWE heel is. 5) The Rock will pop those numbers. If he doesn't they should cancel the 3rd hour immediately. But the Rock popping them shouldn't be a fault to anyone else. He and Brock are the two most over guys on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Nov 28, 2012 17:55:54 GMT -5
Okay, I'm confused. Is the low ratings in the third hour because of Punk or because of the third hour? And don't hide behind special attractions like Rock or Austin; if RyBack was the feature of the third hour, would it do better or worse? Also, if it did worse, would it be because of RyBack or because of the third hour? Both. Ryback vs Cena would do a bigger final segment than Cena and Punk or Punk and anyone else on the roster. The highest final hour in the last 7 weeks saw Ryback do a 3.28 at the start of the final hour and the show end with Cena and Ryback having a tug-o-war with the title.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Nov 28, 2012 18:03:28 GMT -5
Because according to you, it won't be a money match because Punk cannot draw. It'd be a repeat of SS last year (which actually was successful) and wouldn't let them come close to covering Rock's cost. You'd put it on Ryback and if he takes off you have a match that makes money, that draws and if he doesn't you have the Punk stuff to fall back on. But again, WWE doesn't see Punk as the failure you're painting him as. They see Punk as their second biggest draw and one of the most important people on the roster by all accounts so this discussion is crazy to begin with. The money is in the Rock and a perceived title change after a year plus. The same match loses buys if the title gets devalued. Last year Survivor Series with the Rock wasn't a success they spent a ton for the Rock as well as advertising and came out behind what many B PPV do even with the added buys.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Nov 28, 2012 18:04:33 GMT -5
This argument is f***ing ridiculous. Ryback is over. Punk is over. The 3rd hour sucks. End of story. The story remains one guy has the 7th worst rated closing segments in Raw history.
|
|
Xifax
Trap-Jaw
keys open doors
Posts: 376
|
Post by Xifax on Nov 28, 2012 18:06:24 GMT -5
I'm confused, does someone have the 7 worst rated closing segments in history?
|
|