Best Choices for Raw/Smackdown GMs

[ShinChan]

I don't disagree with the logic. But I don't think a heel GM would be the best thing for Raw moving forward.

Raw has had a heel authority figure for the better part of three years now. Will fans stick around to watch another indefinite period of heel characters run around Raw unchecked?

Now, normally, I wouldn't buy the "I'll stop watching" argument to pro wrestling. Most fans, especially ones that post on IWC chat boards, aren't going anywhere. We're hooked. But this time is a bit unique. Smackdown going live is a real game changer that offers a legitimate choice for fans. If one show is complete garbage, then fans will likely get their wrestling fix by just watching the other one.

That wasn't the case with the original brand split. It's tough to ask even the most hardcore wrestling fans to sit through 5 hours of wrestling every week. The reality is that with the WWE's initial brand split, most fans chose to watch one show or the other. And most chose Raw likely because of the live TV factor. How else do you explain why Smackdown had lesser ratings despite being a superior product? Fans made a conscious decision to watch Eugene, Rene Dupree, and the Spirit Squad on Raw while mostly ignoring Kurt Angle, Edge, and The Undertaker on Smackdown. Why? Because one was live, the other was taped, and wrestling fans seem to have an aversion to watching taped wrestling (even the pre-taped MNRs in London draw less than typical live MNRs.)

So if Raw's biggest advantage is thrown out the window, and both shows are now on equal footing, then Raw will have to do something different this week to keep its audience. 'Cause honestly, Smackdown having Shane McMahon (a considerably fresher character than Stephanie) already pushes it ahead of Raw in the 'must-see category.' Re-hashing the same-old heel authority regime on Raw that most fans have grown tired of these past few years could make it considerably easier for fans to choose Smackdown over Raw when deciding how to allocate their time...

That's why, of all the ideas on this board, the one I like the most so far for Raw is to have Danie Bryan somehow be named the GM of Raw. His dynamic with Stephanie McMahon would be quite intriguing...

I agree, sir.

I too am tired of heel GM and authority. The authority has been active since Summerslam 2013 until this year's Payback. Shane has surely been refreshing in his role as the heel authority has been repetitive for a long time. But I don't think that WWE would get rid of heel GM for Raw.

I am all in for a different change about Raw. It surely would help. But I doubt WWE would make such change possible.

 

[justinept]

Austin, Foley, and Shawn Michaels were all used as authority figures in the immediate aftermath of their wrestling careers ending. There is plenty of precedence to this type of situation. The fact is that the WWE needs buzz right now, and few available names have the name recognition of Daniel Bryan. Would the WWE fans want him to wrestle? Most likely. They also wanted more from Austin, Foley, and Michaels when they served in that role. But the reason people wanted them to step foot in the ring was because the people still cared about them. When somebody gets the type of reaction that Daniel Bryan received, you do whatever you can to utilize it - even if it means putting him in an authority role like GM.

When it comes to having a patsy commissioner, you make some good points. There's precedence to that type of character as well, which you pointed out. For me, though, I just don't think it's a great idea for the WWE to go the patsy route with their first GMs. The first GM needs to draw buzz. For the first time, the WWE is really trying to put these two shows on equal footing (both live), but in doing so, they're asking a lot from their audience. We're being asked to watched FIVE HOURS of wrestling every week. Most of us struggle with the three hours provided just by Raw, and then we skim spoilers to keep up with Smackdown. That's not the model that WWE wants to maintain. They want us watching both. And to do that, they need to make both shows must-see. I don't think Ryder or Otunga as the GM accomplishes that. But Daniel Bryan does...

Now you mentioned Bischoff for Smackdown, and I'm totally on board with the logic behind that idea. Shane does seem to like professionals. Additionally, his character has been against the current product, believing that the ideas of his father and his sister are outdated. He's mostly aligned himself against both Vince and Stephanie since his return, and bringing in someone like Eric Bischoff who ran a rival promotion would be an interesting way of furthering his character's belief that things be effective if done differently. That said, this same logic can be applied to Paul Heyman. And since Heyman is under contract, it wouldn't shock me if he's chosen for the same reasons you like Bischoff.

 

[justinept]

I agree, sir.

I too am tired of heel GM and authority. The authority has been active since Summerslam 2013 until this year's Payback. Shane has surely been refreshing in his role as the heel authority has been repetitive for a long time. But I don't think that WWE would get rid of heel GM for Raw.

I am all in for a different change about Raw. It surely would help. But I doubt WWE would make such change possible.

I think they'll have to, though. If not at first, then in time. I can tell you this... Five hours of wrestling each week is too much. The shows legitimately are competing for our viewership 'cause most of us do not plan on watching both. That could easily change if both shows provide must-see elements to them, but if one show comes off as stale while the other comes off as fresh, then it makes our decisions easier.

Having multiple heel authority figures on Raw would definitely be stale. That's not to say they can't have a heel voice at the top. Stephanie is eons better at being a heel than at being a face, and given that she's the Commissioner of the show, her heel voice is still going to be heard. But just add a new layer to it. That's all that's needs. If two heels are running the show, going unchecked, then the show is stale, and a lot of us are turning it off in favor of Smackdown. If a heel voice is being checked by a face voice - or even annoyed by it - then at least it doesn't feel like 2014 all over again, and perhaps a lot of us will watch both.

 

[@smarkmouth]

Essentially, what you're suggesting is that Triple H could be fired as C.O.O. to start the show, and then be re-hired three hours later as the GM. Here's the logic gap there... If Triple H is fired as C.O.O. to start the show, and he's then hired as the GM as a result, it would mean that Stephanie McMahon went to Monday Night Raw completely unprepared to announce a GM. Thank God Triple H was fired so she had someone to hire!!!

Excuse me, don't fucking put words in my mouth. I never suggested that, or any scenario. My argument is that playing with a few creative variables could bring Triple H/GM to a logical place, and this quote suggests that I pitched a specific piece of armchair booking.

How about this for a timeline on such an angle; Top of the show, Steph names her GM, the COO, Triple H. He's already flaunting the fact he's an OP GM, basically rubbing it in that he'll veto any decision the Smackdown GM makes and, by proxy, ruin Shane. By the end of the show, Vince rejects the imbalance of power, and relieves Triple H of COO duties. Triple H pleads to reverse the decision and opt out as GM, but Vince rejects it. In fact, he's annoyed by the begging. And just on one of his Vince McMahon whims, switches the GMs, separating HHH and Steph.

So there Triple H is, left with a fraction of his power. He's fuming. He's pissed at the old man. And maybe, just maybe, he blames Stephanie for all this.

Go ahead and pick apart the logic of that one. This time you have the benefit of it being something I actually said. Though after that share of disrespect, I'm unlikely to bother reading.

 

[justinept]

Essentially
Used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation.

You perceiving this acknowledgement as a level of disrespect is actually somewhat funny to me since it comes from such an obvious misunderstanding. And yes, it's a bit dick-ish to post the definition of word as I've done here. But I find it important since that word is the crux of this disagreement. It's important to understand that I was offering no specifics into things you'd said, instead focusing on the gist of the argument pertaining to your idea that Triple H could serve as the GM because his role as C.O.O. is not a 'lock.'

The basic concept of Triple H being relieved as C.O.O. in order to serve only as GM would 100% need to happen in a three-hour time frame since that's the amount of TV time remaining for this scenario to occur. We both agree on that. That's really all I was saying in that post... So, again, it's bizarre that it offended you so greatly.

Now, I did add a specific argument against one of the ways for your scenario to play out - which would be for Triple H to be fired as COO to start the show... and to then be hired as GM later in the show. I'd still be against that.

Now, your more specific argument goes a different route, and honestly, I don't half mind it. It offers a slight variable of Triple H being relieved of his COO duties AFTER taking on the role of the GM, which adds some intrigue throughout the show. It adds a unique dynamic to the Triple H and Stephanie McMahon characters moving forward since one clearly has power over the other. It also puts the heels in their place, something that rarely - maybe once? - happened to Triple H and Stephanie during their two and a half years of terror on television.

This still doesn't get me past the point of Triple H seeking power that he already holds. If Triple H's C.O.O. powers allows him to control Smackdown (as you specifically suggest they do in this scenario), then don't they technically allow him to control Raw as well? If he already controls Raw, then why does he want to be the GM? Now, that isn't to say that the WWE is above logic gaps. They constantly do things where it's best not to dig too deep into the 'why.' So I could see them doing something like you're suggesting... but I'd still annoyed by a logic gap fueling a long-term program.

To me, Triple H wanting to serve as GM of Raw while holding C.O.O. power is like the owner of a baseball team naming himself to the role of assistant general manager, thus creating a situation where he's both the boss AND the subordinate of the GM. It serves no purpose for the owner, which is why it doesn't make sense.

 

[sMark]

RAW - Eric Bischoff. Why? He and Steph have a great on screen chemistry together and both want controversy to create cash. HHH will have countless storylines with both of them through their history together back in 2002-2005.

SD - Paul Heyman - from the guy who name himself an innovator (Shane) to the real one.
Heyman can also bring in Lesnar as his problem solver which will fit Brock's shedule perfectly - he walks in, solve Heyman's problem and disappear because he is no longer needed. No pointless "quits" and comebacks