|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 6, 2005 14:44:44 GMT -5
Smackdown's ratings haven't been low, have they? They've at least held onto the same numbers they were drawing towards the end of their Thursday night show, right? don't know. But from what I read, not a lot of people are watching. |
|
|
|
Post by ringsyde on Nov 6, 2005 15:22:17 GMT -5
What's funny, Tommy, is that the current state of RAW may lead to Smackdown getting equal or higher ratings to the WWE's flagship show.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on Nov 6, 2005 18:42:56 GMT -5
Well, as I've stated...I watch WAY more Smackdown than I do Raw.
I rarely fast forward through TNA, but I usually find myself distracted during it...so for me, it's Smackdown then TNA then Raw.
|
|
|
|
Post by GalactiKing on Nov 8, 2005 12:02:12 GMT -5
Live is TNA's best chance. Don't know if we'll see it. SD has improved quite a bit while Raw is stagnant though last nite wasn't bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by tafkaga on Nov 8, 2005 13:28:02 GMT -5
I have to agree. In order for TNA to ever really be taken seriously, it needs to be live and 2 hours. That's the standard for a wrestling show today. I think the 2 hours is even more important than it being live.
|
|
|
|
Post by floydthebarber on Nov 8, 2005 20:51:41 GMT -5
I think if TNA went live in its current state, it would be a train wreck. The WWE, who are THE standard for live wrestling broadcasts and have been doing it for YEARS still have their 'problems' with live TV. I'm all for TNA taking steps in the right direction, but going live I think would hurt the product more than help at this point. But I agree that if it 'could' go live, it should...cause a live broadcast just has a certain 'feel' to it that taped doesn't. Plus...nobody would know results. JMO though...
|
|
