LET'S HELP THE WWE BOOK

[Poke]

I was just wondering while sitting at the Smackdown tapings here in Omaha about how far the mighty has fallen.

Let's put ourselves in the Booker's shoes......If you were a WWE booker.....what angles....storylines...feuds would you get going?

First thing I would do is get the Undertaker back to what he was just before Comumbine. He was super dark and had a decent stable of minions around him to keep things stirred up. He can have Mordicai (sp?!?!) as he right hand man.

Rob Van Damn...you are going back to ECW RVD..the Whole F'n show. seeing the van daminator was awesome last week.

Those are just two ideas.....What are yours?
---Poke

[PureHatred]

Back when Smackdown featured the wrestling talents of Benoit, Team Angle, Edge & Rey and Los Guerreros, Smackdown was clearly my favorite of the two shows. Now I don't even bother turning it on.

Rehashing The Ministry wouldn't do a damned thing to change that. Put as many costumes as you want on him, Mark Calloway is a 40 plus big man with very little mobility who's matches are almost always over-hyped squashes (basically because that's all he's capable of at this point.)

You want to help the WWE book? Somebody convince Vince & Co that instead of wrapping his shows around a guy like JBL ( who basically gets X-Pac heat and can't seem to put on a decent match no matter who gets sent in to carry him ) you build Smackdown around..I don't know...a guy like Kurt Frick'n Angle who is not only the best ring worker in the WWE, arguably the world, but is also absolute gold on the mic.

[wildman]

Pushing Booker T is a good idea, he is a solid worker(although he could be a little stiff). Kurt Angle should be the champ. Eddie should also be fighting for the title

[raygun]

Undertaker is much improved after dropping the "UnderBiker" persona --whatever that was supposed to be. But he only has so many more years left in him. I agree with the darker image. He ruled with all that graveyard stuff.

And speaking of mobility and pop (or lack thereof) can we PLEASE begin to phase out HHH? You know Evolution would be boring as h*ll without Flair. Add Jericho to the soon-to-be jobber list as well. For one thing, he's dwarfed by just about every midcarder and he's starting to look like a *current day* Valentine. If it weren't for his mic skills I'd tune out. I just don't buy Jericho as a real contender anymore. It's like Vince is turning him into a novelty act like Mysterio.

If Edge got a decent push he could be as big as the Rock. But he should change his music --it sounds too much like a diva theme.

Face or heel, Kurt rules. Eddie should get a shot only so I can see him get beat down.

[Big Bri]

Some quick thoughts...

I think RAW is a great show right now. Sure, it has a few minor faults here & there, but I look forward to it every week. I haven't watched Smackdown since June.

On RAW, they need to bring back the "Highlight Reel" and give Benoit the damn title back. Orton is fine, but he shouldn't be that high in the card at this point in his career. Also, Flair should leave Evolution and become Orton's manager, although, as someone mentioned, Evolution will crumble without him.

Edge should do the fans a favor and take his sorry a** to TNA. Hey, it'd make TNA more exciting to get some new blood, and I wouldn't have to see him as often. Lita, Matt Hardy, and Maven can go with him.

One way to put some kick into SD would be to put a few good tag teams together and make the tag titles mean something again. Reunite London & Kidman, put Rey & Chavo together....but give these guys actual team names, like back in the day when tag teams were tag teams. Also, give RVD & Booker title runs (because they deserve them and got shut down on RAW because of Triple H). Bring Matt Morgan back up from OVW. Give CCC a haircut. Big Show and the Dudleyz can join the other wastes of airtime and roll out to TNA as well.

[Joe]

Raygun said:

Undertaker is much improved after dropping the "UnderBiker" persona --whatever that was supposed to be. But he only has so many more years left in him. I agree with the darker image. He ruled with all that graveyard stuff.

And speaking of mobility and pop (or lack thereof) can we PLEASE begin to phase out HHH? You know Evolution would be boring as h*ll without Flair. Add Jericho to the soon-to-be jobber list as well. For one thing, he's dwarfed by just about every midcarder and he's starting to look like a *current day* Valentine. If it weren't for his mic skills I'd tune out. I just don't buy Jericho as a real contender anymore. It's like Vince is turning him into a novelty act like Mysterio.

If Edge got a decent push he could be as big as the Rock. But he should change his music --it sounds too much like a diva theme.

Face or heel, Kurt rules. Eddie should get a shot only so I can see him get beat down.

I don't normally quote someone's whole post and start blasting it, but I disagree with almost everything that is said. By the way, it is just the statements that I am faulting, not the poster. There has been far to many personal attacks by folks on here lately, and this definitely not meant to be one.

To say that Jericho is about to be relegated to jobbing because he is "dwarfed by just about every midcarder" is insane. Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart were dwarfed by damn near everyone on the roster during their major runs, and it didn't hurt them. Jericho will never be a jobber because there seem to be far too many people willing to pay to see him, in spite of his horrible hair cuts.

I agree that the combination Undertaker wasn't very good. I would have rather seen a return to the "American Bad Ass" than the Dead Man, however. Personal taste, however, because UT is a major player regardless.

Edge on the same level as the Rock. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Since the injuries, Edge is not the perfomer the Rock was when he was active, or as good as he himself was prior to the neck injury. In addition, Edge, who is good on the mic, is not in the same league as Rock, who may have the most natural charisma of any wrestler, athlete, or performing artist ever to work in front of a television camera.

I agree that Kurt Angle is arguably the best wrestler in the business. Eddie Guererro is a hell of a lot more than a whipping boy, however. I have heard others criticize people like Benoit and Guererro when they get their title runs as not being at that level, butit always seemed that just as many people griped about how they needed a better push when they were stuck on the mid-card.

Finally, I love Ric Flair and always have. Triple H, however does bring some entertainment to the table, so I would venture to say that it will be a while before he is "phased out".

[pravusdeus]

well if Triple H has to have the RAW title, lets trade everyone to smackdown.

I seriously only tune in to watch certain superstars ... Christian, Jericho, Edge, Rey Mysterio ... Angle, HBK, Guerrero and Benoit arent bad ... but I cannot stand Triple H and Taker there not the greatest wrestlers they can only cut awesome promos. Flair is one of the few that can do both (give good promos and then give good matches) I am sick of all these damn soap opera angles.

Here is how I would book RAW
Jericho (RAW Champ) vs HBK
Orton (IC Champ) vs Batista
Dudleys (tag) vs Harlem Heat 2 (Booker and Orlando)
Trish (womens) vs Molly Holly (the best fem wrestler)

Make RAW unique rules by taking out double countout rules, dq if and only if a major infraction like interference.

SMACKDOWN
Benoit (SD Champ) vs Angle
JBL (US) vs Cena
Edge and Christian (tag) vs La Resistance

Smackdown becomes the more classical style type.

Actually I consider the two seperate brands A HUGE FAILURE in my mind. I hate the idea and wish they would just merge back together. Then we can see true champs and not these excess amount of titles. But if your going to keep them seperate you have to create some division between the two make them unique.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

The biggest problem WWE has creatively is overexposure. Were I to watch something like the Sopranos 52 weeks a year, my desire to see each and every show would certainly dissipate. Familiarity does breed contempt to an extent.

Yet since television revenue is now the prime source of income for the company, I don't see this factor changing. Even the way the content is presented from say just 10 years ago is drastically different due to changes in what drives the bottom line. Vince himself states his product is an 'Action Adventure' show...not wrestling. Which makes sense in that a pure 'pro wrestling' show in the US would not be financially viable (and the sad truth is that model hasn't been for a great many years and likely never will be again).

Something like the brand split was a creative necessity even though in effect it diluted the quality of the roster and dropped house show and PPV revenue across the board. It helped to space out storylines with a different cast rotating in and out of PPV's each month. Without that, it would be even more difficult to create new stars like Brock Lesnar (who wound up leaving anyway) John Cena (who will get the mega push with his album & movie vehicle next year) and give guys lost in the shuffle a chance to run with the ball (Guerrero, Angle). Had there been no brand split, the biggest names and most powerful people backstage (HHH, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels) would be working the main slots in EVERY PPV with little room for anyone new to ever move up the card. Even worse, once the product burned out (which would happen even faster with a united brand) it would be even more difficult to rebuild as there would be no underlying credible new guys to take the place of the burned out top stars (as the established stars will NEVER willingly give up there spots).

In theory the best case scenario would be that the product gets really hot again, with BOTH brands filled with new young marketable stars replicating the type of business they did in 98-00. While it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, with time the influx of new fans (which is typical for pro wrestling when it's an 'in' fad) will know only what they see, that being two separate but equal brands with viable rosters and unique mega stars. Ideally this would create more marketing opportunities and thus more money for everyone. While domestically this has backfired, in a sense this is already happening internationally.

Overseas tours (which have a much more limited exposure to the product television wise) show the marketing approach has merit. The last tour in Europe did more revenue in a week then would be garnered in 10 weeks of US house shows. That's just a phenomenal statistic that can't be ignored. WWE has had similar success in tours of Japan & Australia. On a show for show basis the numbers WWE is putting up overseas are surpassing even that of the late 90's boom period....WITHOUT TV revenue. Which means there's tremendous growth opportunity outside the US model.

I don't see a particular angle or storyline direction changing business in the US too dramatically. Overexposure will still be the biggest hindrance here in the US. Yet internationally I see great demand with the product as is. Look to see a lot less frequent US house show tours around the loop, with a much greater emphasis where the demand is greatest with more overseas tours and non-US TV tapings and PPV's.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Dave Meltzer did an excellent article regarding WWE's creative problems, and the effects of now operating in a monopoly environment. It's long and at times meanders, but there is still some excellent insight to be found!

Courtesy of Wrestling Observer Newsletter:

In all the time I've been a fan of pro wrestling, I've never been more concerned, or more scared, about its future. Not that the business won't be around, because WWE has so much money, but that pro wrestling, unless the problems are addressed, will end up at a lower level of popularity than at any time in recent memory.

To look at the 1992-1995 period in the U.S. and say things were far worse, and in ways they were far worse, misses a major point. Yes, revenues were far lower, and about the only promoter in the U.S. running at a profit was Jerry Jarrett with the USWA. And while his company hadn't started losing money because he had guys working five nights a week for $125 per week, it eventually did and by then was already headed down the path that would end up as extinction.

But it felt like there were people interested in wrestling, and more, there were so many things about wrestling being done internationally, in particular in Japan and Mexico, that were revolutionary at the time. There were many great wrestlers around who, often because of size, had not been exposed to the U.S. fan base. There were ideas that could shake things up, such as the UWFI vs. New Japan feud in Japan that Eric Bischoff saw at a sold out Tokyo Dome which led to the NWO angle that was one of the things that started the ball rolling. There was ECW as a cult favorite, using both ideas from Japan, creating new talent, and some new ideas that started getting a cult following.

Today, the public has seen every great high flying move and due to so many injuries, WWE has shied away from "holy shit" moments, so it has not been booked as something important, and it isn't. The ECW hardcore, taken from FMW in Japan, with the table breaking and heavy usage of weapons and blood, came, was hot, but has been passé for some time.

Long-term, it becomes numbing and worse, both WWE and WCW turned it into a comedy feeling rather than a brutal deal, and naturally, that killed it dead. But what that period had was so many stars, and with new match-ups on the WWE side, and dream match-ups on the WCW side, every week, the hotness of the product enabled others pushed to become big stars. There is no new style, new angle, or new wrestlers making their mark overseas that can be imported to make things fresh.

The worst thing done by WWE over the past three years is not only not really making new stars, although they have tried and even came close with Brock Lesnar, but he was victimized by being flip-flopped from heel to face too quickly, but for reasons that sounded very good at the time, they took people who were stars to the fans, and portrayed them as being fake stars who weren't really big-time. Whether it was Rob Van Dam, Diamond Dallas Page, Booker T, or Bill Goldberg, it doesn't matter now, because the damage has long since been done and time will tell if the very expensive lessons of opportunities squandered has been learned from. In 2001, when things started declining, any fan with a halfway decent understanding of booking could have come up with money scenarios that somehow the professionals couldn't, or wouldn't, see. Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero were pushed as mid-carders for so long that it was going to be difficult, even with Benoit getting a huge booking push early this year, for them to be able to carry the top.
Others, Triple H and The Undertaker, who are portrayed the strongest, are stale from so many years at the top and people not believing in their opponents as real challengers.
Within the front office of the company, they've been told by management that Randy Orton on the Raw brand and John Cena on the Smackdown brand are being groomed, it takes time, but they'll be the new stars to turn it around, and that things are six months to a year away from turning around. That was also the line about the brand extension, a few steps back but ultimately steps forward, and now, two plus years in, there have been no steps forward. A few new stars have been made that would have been made anyway, and PPV is weakening due to less talent depth on shows and weaker and repeat main events. The only benefit is I believe it slowed up the inevitable burning out of talent by being in angles once a week instead of twice, and with two brands, allowed more people to work house shows and thus speed up their learning curve for new guys. It also has created so many titles that NOBODY knows who the champs are, NOBODY cares. All belts are meaningless, and that is not a good thing.

It's still very early in the game for Orton, and he's got a great look and for his age and experience level, is a great wrestler, but his first taste at the top and his face turn were not successful. Even the most optimistic realize there is nothing on the horizon that is going to change things, and as many have stated since the summer of 2001, the best thing to do is plan long-term (which they are doing to a degree with HHH vs. Orton's Wrestlemania rematch, and Kurt Angle vs. The Undertaker, which no hints have even been started on) and hope that brings anticipation. If you look at the company's most successful shows in the past three years, they have all involved either long-term angles or old stars returning.

Cena has not crossed over to teenagers like they expected, even though his rap skills and charisma says he should. They are taking a big gamble with Cena, and the odds are against it succeeding, but at the same time, sometimes you just have to roll the dice. Using Mike Tyson was a huge financial gamble. Wrestlemania I was an even bigger gamble, as it could have killed the company, and instead, made the company. If Cena's movie flops, it will be very difficult for him to be the superstar they want him to be. The gamble is, if it catches on, he'll be seen as a much bigger star and cooler personality.

Given WWE's track record with non-wrestling ventures (which is beyond awful), and that when wrestling was "in," Hulk Hogan, the biggest draw in wrestling, and Roddy Piper, who was near the top, both went into film careers. Hogan survived being a joke on the screen, but he was already an established super draw in wrestling. Piper maintained stardom until the end at WCW, but his movie career didn't make him a bigger star in wrestling, and his drawing power peak was all before he went to Hollywood. Neither were big stars in Hollywood, and they were the coolest wrestlers with huge followings when wrestling was in. Cena, like Kane, are stars with no drawing power within wrestling, when wrestling is cold. As far as the 2005 bottom line, the expansion into doing three movies next year has a lot of people concerned. The time is wrong to put wrestlers in movies when wrestling itself is so cold. The stars involved aren't even selling tickets when they wrestle, so how can they be expected to sell tickets in a movie theatre? And movies are a high risk venture and, while these aren't big budget movies, they are still $10 million investments that can easily be next year's version of WWF New York.

We've already seen the WCW pattern. Ratings fall. House shows fall greatly. PPV falls. Suddenly, even the live Nitros, Thunders, and PPV live events can't sell tickets. And things continue to fall. You shoot angle after angle and nobody cares. You bring back legends, but it doesn't work. Then you find good-looking muscular young guys as your new stars and even have the old stars put them over, but you're so deep in the hole that nobody cares, but the old stars know how to lose without putting people over. Morale is horrible. Long-term creative is thinking a week ahead. Angles that should draw are done with such frequency that they are killed, and nobody believes or cares about anything. Sound familiar?

Also, they are the only game in town, so there is no real PPV wrestling competition, only competition from big boxing and UFC as shows that do any real business, and neither have any affect on purchases of a wrestling PPV. The "bare minimum" of 260,000 buys has fallen to 190,000, and it won't get better until shows are of the caliber they once were. The big drops in the bottom number each took place during the period when they were promoting more than one PPV per month, over the summer (base falling to 225,000) and this month (dropping farther to 190,000). If there is one change that is really clear to me, it's that the experiment of doing two PPV shows certain months is going to be, long-term, a major mistake. Once people start skipping a show, and that is happening with sizeable numbers, it becomes easier to just save money unless something really strong is promised, and that's hard to do when you have the same headliner roster every month. You'd think with so many TV viewers, that just on a percentage basis, it will always be above the 100,000 buys range to where it's healthy, and with good TV and good shows, it probably would. But the lessons of WCW, falling to as low as 55,000 buys while still doing 2.5 ratings, tells you bad shows and bad booking can sink things quite a bit lower.

International is still strong, and it may be for a while. Even when business was weak in North America in the 90s, most of the international tours did great business, and WCW, even at the end when they were a joke, drew huge crowds in England and Australia.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

WON Article Continued

But I've never felt such a malaise and lack of interest, and saw less that could turn things around. In that bad period, there were far more stars people cared about than today. The stars created in the late-80s were far younger. And while a new group of stars was created in the late-90s, the nature of so much in the way of television main events and not protecting stars in booking and portrayal has stripped most of them of the kind of marketability needed in a star-driven business. The excuses that The Rock and Steve Austin are gone, and reality shows have cut into ratings (the latter I think is total bullshit and the former misses the point that while things would be better with Rock and Austin around, we'd still be in a decline right now because they also would be stale from so many straight years if they were around all the time) sound good to outsiders, but the reality is different.

By not elevating enough talent, and not creating enough new talent, combined with overexposure, things got stale. We're paying for not being able to follow the crazy falls and high spot oriented matches with a toned down work style. We're paying for running through so many ideas and angles so fast years ago that nobody cares about anything. We're paying for stopping people's ascension to where people stopped having an emotional attachment to them, which is needed for the top guys to do business. We're paying for people seeing so many variations of wrestling and now, when most of the variations are shunned and you only see the basic WWE style, things become too similar, even when they are done well. And wrestling, at least the North American version has always thrived on variety of characters and it's become a business of conformity. And there's always the humane reasons regarding talent that often result in declines after success.

Successful companies don't want to put the people who worked so hard and so well for them on the unemployment line, since there are no territories to ship them out to. Success and stability breed an attitude where it is hard for newcomers to break through or to drop stale performers, because the stale performers have a track record of drawing and are better performers, but a fresh business needs to constantly turn over talent anyway.

WWE is still profitable, because of increasing prices, so what is happening is a far smaller base of fans is being asked to spend far more per person, higher house show prices, higher PPV prices, and more PPV shows, to support the machine. The 24/7 project is not going to be supported by a new fan base, although it will be interesting to see if they can garner interest from the departed fan base for nostalgia. But nostalgia has a short shelf life. What is happening with the loss of popularity and decline in numbers of fans and the reasons for the decline mirror similar circumstances after great success for Jim Crockett Promotions and WCW.

The talent is largely a pat hand for years. And it's charismatic talent that was on fire during the good years. But it's the same guys against each other, and the only changes are babyface-to-heel switches, that often involve situations the public doesn't accept and don't work. Yes, Crockett ran up big debt expanding nationally and paying for so much TV time, but the crowds in the core cities were also dropping. WCW ran in even bigger debt with insane expenses, but what killed the company was revenue dropped when people stopped buying the PPVs, and going to the arenas. WCW's decline was sped up by producing horrible television, and also going against a cooler competitor with a new generation of younger stars that was blowing them away in competition. Crockett's decline came when there was a competitor that simply had more exposure and bigger stars, and the U.S. usually doesn't support what it considers a minor league brand. The fact WWE, with no competition, is losing interest every year is far more unsettling.

WWE is in no danger of disappearing with its huge war chest and well run financial side. But as WCW showed, having all the money in the world can't make a disinterested public care, or keep revenues from falling. Wall Street, which WWE has to answer to, will get very negative since it wants to see company expansion into new fields, and WWE never does well with that. They also want to see revenue growth, and doing so by adding to the number of PPV events is going to work against them in the long run. TNA is spending real money, and they can't even make 10,000 of the staunchest wrestling fans in the U.S. care. What concerns me the most is, in the past, so many people would come up with so many ideas to turn things around, and there were far more "wrestling" fans that enjoyed "pro wrestling" as opposed to simply WWE fans, losing interest in that product, and so few with any interest in anything else. While most wouldn't have worked, the fact was, some of them did.

Now, nobody is coming up with any ideas other than copying the past. When the New York audience booed the car crash angle at Unforgiven, you could see special effects is not what is wanted, and is being rejected. Well, especially when we've seen guys in car crashes many times over the years, and somehow, they survive without much more than a scratch. When great match after great match early this year on Raw didn't help ratings, you could see great wrestling matches wasn't going to turn this around, but at least people don't reject that. The company, whenever business is down, turns to big men, as we've seen by the new hiring policy, and who is being brought in. This happened in the 90s with the efforts to replace Hulk Hogan with Lex Luger, and using people like Kevin Nash, Yokozuna, King Mabel, Sid Vicious, Ludvig Borga, and Papa Shango in main event positions, none of whom drew, and with the exception of Nash, none of whom is even remembered well today, and none of whom was part of the company's turnaround (Nash was part of WCW's turnaround). The people who turned around the company were, for the most part, the great performers. They'd be better off secretly funding TNA to be a competitor, and slipping real talent to them that is stale, and helping them get real television and giving work and experience to young wrestlers, who could then be brought up having made at least a small name. They did some of that with ECW, but not in a way to help ECW much, and that's not happening today. When TNA went to McMahon a few years ago with that idea, they didn't call back. And as a public company and with a smarter fan base, it's hard to keep something like that on the down-low.

Is there a Mike Tyson or even a Dennis Rodman in sports today? No to the former, but as far as the latter, there is Shaquille O’Neal (a huge fan, like Karl Malone was), Kobe Bryant (a controversial figure who makes the news with everything he does, more than Rodman), and others just as big. Shaq & Orton vs. Kobe & HHH would be bigger than the Rodman-Malone show WCW put together and would get the public into it. But those guys aren't hurting for money, and would have to endure tremendous criticism for doing it (way more than Malone and Rodman took because wrestling was far more accepted by the public in 1998). It's not happening, but it would at least make WWE a topic of conversation again, but even that idea is a rehash of something from the past. And when they are done, it's still the same product. Rodman & Malone didn't help WCW one bit long-run. Tyson did, because Austin worked so well with him, and immediately had the program with McMahon to follow up with.

[Subvert69]

I think we can all admit that WWE has many issues that need to be dealt with. To me it's the little things that piss me off such as Benoit winning the tag titles by himself only to lose them two weeks later back to La Resistance. Again they are dumbing down the titles to promote an angle with Edge and Benoit that could have been carried out either way.

The pregancy angle is another angle that is pointless. It didn't work with Mae Young (remember the hand), Terri Runnels, or Staci Kiebler in WCW (didn't that happen).

What RAW really needs is some more heel main eventers. Triple H has gotten stale and I'm fairly sure that not many people want to see him with the title. They took the title from Benoit and have given him the Sgt. Slaughter syndrome. Remember when Slaughter won the title from Warrior...back when the title had prestige! Suddenly Slaughter loses it to Hogan and what happens to Slaughter. For two months he is the best wrestler in WWF and suddenly he's in a tag team that is going nowhere with Hacksaw Jim Duggan and later Nikolai Volkoff. Benoit has done nothing since losing the title...now he is feuding with Evolution but it took two months.

I would like to see Benoit with the title again. Give Triple H a break from tv. Give minor pushes to Jericho, Edge, and Christian to try and take the title from Benoit. Slow down the push with Orton and Batista. They might be the future but the future isn't now. It takes the stale factor away. I think they have done this fairly well with JBL. Now granted I hated it when they gave him the title but he has held it since late June, grown somewhat better in the ring (slighty) and grown on the mic. I still don't think it was the best idea but it could have been a lot worse.

They also need to stop switching heels to faces and vice versa so much. Think about how many times Booker T, the Dudley Boys, Bradshaw, even Orton to an extent have swiched in the past few years.

Go to six pay per views a year. If a feud is built right and a pay per view has more time to get hyped more people will be willing to pay $35 dollars for these. Current rate for a year of pay per view is between $400 and 500 (with 50 for Wrestlemania, and the months with Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, and Summerslam only having one PPV).

It is a lot but they can do it...I think

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Some of your ideas are logical from a creative standpoint Subvert69, but are unlikely to be executed.

Subvert69 said:

"What RAW really needs is some more heel main eventers. Triple H has gotten stale and I'm fairly sure that not many people want to see him with the title."

While I personally agree, the stark reality is this just isn't going to change.

The plan going forward for the next several years is for Triple H to break Ric Flair's record of title reigns and be portrayed as the 'Greatest of All Time'. From a business perspective this makes sense. Hunter will inherit the company and will be a part of the structure longer than any performer 'outside' the family. It's an intelligent decision to control the legacy of the company through a self contained legend who's very legacy is tied to the best interest of the company (which would never happen if the 'greatest' performer was a Hulk Hogan or Steve Austin...who negotiate for their own interests as individuals).

Over the next several years look for Hunter to continue to maintain the top heel spot, rotate the title with short reigns to other talent (ala Benoit recently) and be mythologized as an 18 time World Champion. He'll even have Ric Flair himself by his side to affirm him as the Greatest of All Time!

Subvert69 said:

"Give Triple H a break from tv."

If he ever does that movie he'll go away temporarily...but he'll still be the star of Raw. On his next hiatus I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he'll still be mentioned more heavily on the Raw shows he's not physically at than anyone else that's actually there and he'll be programmed at the top of said month's PPV like he did with Goldberg last year.

Subvert69 said:

"They also need to stop switching heels to faces and vice versa so much. Think about how many times Booker T, the Dudley Boys, Bradshaw, even Orton to an extent have swiched in the past few years."

From a character consistently standpoint that makes sense. Yet the problem of 'flip flopping' will always exist in pro wrestling similar to a soap opera (which runs its content constantly). The reality is there are only so many wrestlers fit for the investment of being pushed to the top of the card, which creates a creative glass ceiling.

Eventually wrestlers on the roster tend to be pigeon holed with-in each layer of the ceiling against a limited number of foils. You get something like Angle vs Big Show, Dudleys vs. Hardys, Rey Mysterio vs Chavo and Trish vs Jazz over and over and over again. Even when the matches are considered 'good' it eventually reaches a point where nobody cares anymore as it's already been done so many times.

The only way to circumvent burn out is switching up the roles and motivations of the characters...although even that concept comes with the consequence you mention and also leads to burn out. The solution is creating new stars...which is easier said than done, especially in todays desolate environment with little in the way of viable new talent on the horizon.

Subvert69 said:

"Give minor pushes to Jericho, Edge, and Christian to try and take the title from Benoit.

On Raw there will never be a top heel or face program absent Hunter until he retires for good. It's runs counter to the long term plans of the company. Yet even on Smackdown, the idea of finding a string of main event performers who can deliver the numbers against a strongly booked Champion just hasn't worked. Go down the line of Smackdown Champs with extended reigns since the Brand Split:

Brock Lesnar
Big Show
Kurt Angle
Eddie Guerrero

All great talent...but none of whom were able to turn around business. With each passing PPV and house show tour (domestically) the numbers go down. It's at the point where JBL can be plugged in as Champion in the old 'Honky Tonk Man face challenger is likely to win' formula and business is still static. There are no magic answers that will work other than cause small blips in interest.

Subvert69 said:

"Go to six pay per views a year. If a feud is built right and a pay per view has more time to get hyped more people will be willing to pay $35 dollars for these. Current rate for a year of pay per view is between $400 and 500 (with 50 for Wrestlemania, and the months with Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, and Summerslam only having one PPV)."

This will not happen unless the day comes when demand dries up to the point the business becomes truly devastated. As it stands today WWE makes a substantial amount of money on every PPV they run. Running less frequently in hopes of bigger buys per quarterly show just isn't feasible. While I agree storylines would be tighter if there was a more detailed build to the events, that's not the purpose of the product. The pupose is to make money...which is something these monthly (and now sporadic bi-monthly) PPV's accomplish.

Times are tough and could get a lot tougher in the not too distant future. The talent is there, but the overexposure factor is a daunting challenge. The plan for new developmental territories is a major plus for creating more/new talent, but it will be a work in progress. I honestly don't envy Vince's challenges as there are no easy solutions. Yet he's found a way to dig himself out of much bigger holes in the past..


"If we study the lives of great men and women carefully and unemotionally we find that, invariably, greatness was developed, tested and revealed through the darker periods of their lives. One of the largest tributaries of the river of greatness is always the stream of adversity."

-Cavett Robert

[Joe]

This isn't a reply so much as it is an observation dealing with the reason that people view the current state of professional wrestling as stale. While I agree that the disenchantment with the current product has to do with overexposure, I believe it is self-inflicted.

Let me say, this is the only wrestling website I visit. My reason for visiting is because I play COTG. I do check the WWE part of the board so that I can see what people are talking about and take part in interesting discussions.

Many of the people I attend college with are wrestling fans and we watch RAW on Mondays and Smackdown (sometimes) on Thursdays. Most of the time, we'll get together and watch the PPVs, laugh a little bit, shoot the bullsh*t, and feel we have gotten are money's worth. I cannot remember the last time one of them said the business has become boring or stale. I have a theory as to why this is. They don't overanalyze or obsess over it the rest of the week. They don't sit around and debate incessantly about whether Triple H having a controlling hand is bad for business. In fact, Triple H keeps many of the people watching, if for nothing else than the hopes that he will get his ass kicked by someone.

I read various posts where people mention the staleness and familiarity of feuds and matches. This was not a problem when I was growing up. I watch the Freebirds and Von Erichs beat the hell out of each other every week for what now seems like years. It never got boring. I watch Buzz Sawyer and Tommy Rich feud for an eternity. I never recall my father complaining about it becoming stale. Perhaps this was because people watched it for entertainment, then turned the TV off and really didn't spend too much time thinking about it until the following Saturday Night. There were no websites to visit all week talking about how the "workers" were using backstage politics to break through the glass ceiling.

My suggestion for those who find the current state of pro wrestling to be somehat monotonous: Find some other interests. Don't stop watching, by all means, but step away from the computer from time to time. Don't worry so much about the business end of things. Vince has faced greater obstacles than a downturn in the idustry, I am sure he can deal with the one his company is currently experiencing. Take professional wrestling for what it is, and always was meant to be-entertainment.

[Subvert69]

I think Joe has a great point. To me the main difference is when I was a kid growing up the business was totally different. I would turn on Saturday morning WWF and see Mr. Perfect vs. a jobber, Greg Valentine vs. a jobber, lot's of interviews, The Bushwhackers vs. jobbers, and the main event of The Rockers vs. The Rougeous. There wasn't continual high maintence match ups it was all squashes. There was four to five pay per views a year and a handful of Saturday Night's Main Event. I will probably always watch wrestling but hey I don't have to agree with the way it is.

I know that a lot of what I would like to see won't ever happen...but hey in my perfect world it would:)