Is WWE having its WCW moment?

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I love how everyone is pointing to the stock price now as justification of the WWE's success. I'd suggest those same people go back to Yahoo Finance or wherever they are looking at the stock prices, and click the Max time frame for the chart to see where the WWE has been and where it may be going. The spike in the price has everything to do with the WWE network, or rather the promise of the WWE network.

It remains to be seen whether that network actually work to increase revenues. If it doesn't, you will see the stock price crater again.

All this is to say that whether it is Batista, or Undertaker or Cena or Orton, or Lesnar is relatively immaterial to the day in and day out of WWE's success in the short term. The problem is that the WWE's ultimate success comes down to a few, nearly once in a generation entertainers who can capture international media attention and thereby ratchet up interest in their product to a whole new level that they can sustain for awhile.

The entertainers who were able to do that: Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, The Rock. That's it. Once those guys left, revenues started falling back to the next sustainable level.

So in the end, this whole business is predicated on building up the next big superstar. The WWE Network is first chance they've had at finding a bigger audience willing to pay for their product, and that's why there's a bump.

None of this is to say that WWE is like WCW...that's just patently false. It may seem that way from a content perspective, but from a money perspective (the perspective that matters), it's night and day.

all stock prices are simply speculation. However, it's not JUST the network. It's that they resigned with their british provider for a lot more than before, their app is hugely successful, and they will probably get a massive TV deal here in the US.

I agree that this is nothing like WCW. Even some of the stuff that was said was false. DB is a new star, he's being pushed like an underdog. I swear some people here live in 1988. Wins don't get you more over, an interesting story does. Langston, Rhodes, Reigns, and Wyatt are all pretty clearly future stars and 3 of those guys are clearly being groomed to be one. Old guys always show up around Mania because they draw and you want the most eyeballs on the show.

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

Also, stop looking at ratings. Jesus Christ it's 2014. Most people I know don't even have cable.

OK. First off, I agree that cable ratings can't be analyzed the same way they were 15 years ago. There are WAY more entertainment options, including more cable CHANNELS.

But I really need to ask about this particular comment you made.

How is it possible that most people you know don't even have cable??

Do you mean that they have Satellite instead? If so, that would count the same as far as TV ratings go.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

Well, in fairness to the OP, WCW did have a ton of part time main eventers. They were paid on a full time basis, but Hogan, Flair, Savage, Nash, Warrior and Bret Hart only wrestled part time. Not even on every PPV. And definitely not on a weekly basis.

WWE is having a bit of a WCW moment. Is the situation the same? Of course not, no two situations are ever the same. But fans lost interest in WCW for a few reasons. One was the lack of a big payoff. WWE may be making this mistake with Bryan, they may not be, we don't know yet. Another reason was not promoting new stars. Flair and Hogan main evented PPV's in 1999 just like they did in 1991 in WWF and 1995 in WCW. Now, in fairness, they were always a draw. But eventually it gets stale. WWE is making this mistake with Orton and Cena, and Batista, Lesnar, Rock. They have managed to make new stars though in CM Punk and Daniel Bryan, and potentially with Sheamus, Roman Reigns and Bray Wyatt. Will they go all the way with them though? We don't know.

So, I think yea there are some similarities between the current WWE and WCW circa 99-2000. WWE may not make the same mistakes WCW did. And WWE ain't going out of business though, but the quality of their B PPVs will suffer.

 

[lil steroid meat]

WWE is WCW without the money troubles and Time Warner/AOL wanting out.

In fact, it's the opposite of WCW financially, because they are about to be at their best financially with the WWE Network and the TV rights negotiations.

But they are WCW in the sense that they have created few stars since that Cena, Orton, Tista, Edge era. And they have relied on Cena/Orton + part timers to sell tickets for the most part, Punk and Bryan being the exceptions.

That being said, the difference between WCW and WWE is that WWE has reinvented itself numerous times and has the ability to make stars and not rely on one angle. Not to mention, there are a lot of potential stars on the roster with guys like Ambrose, Rollins, Reigns, Big E, Wyatt, etc. (although there have been guys with potential before that didn't pan out for whatever reason), and I'm sure in 5-7 years, we'll be tired of seeing Reigns vs. Langston.

Considering you all watched after their dumbest decision in a while this past Sunday, and will watch next week after their biggest star left, I'd say they have nothing to worry about because they have a pretty loyal fanbase. Even if the ratings start to dip and the ticket sales slow up, they will reinvent themselves easily.

 

[shafe_41]

None of this bullshit is relevant to what you are replying to.

This is WWE nowadays-

• They only think short term
  
• Same backstage politics
  
• Talents are unhappy
  
• Top guys are quitting
  
• Same wrestlers are hogging the spotlight
  
• They depend on older stars to carry the product

You are either too fucking stupid or just another WWE apologist fanboy. Keep kissing WWE's ass. WWE is modern day WCW, sheep.

Oh ok. So Triple H ISN'T the guy from the Kliq running things?
Obviously you're backstage so you know EXACTLY what goes on back there.
CM Punk ISN'T the top guy that's quitting or is unhappy?
Triple H, Batista, Hogan, and Taker AREN'T the guys over 40 you're referring to?
So none of those things were what anybody is talking about? Oh well I must have just read everything totally wrong. And so must of everybody else on here.

Also... well done backing up your argument with cuss words and name-calling. You obviously got your well-worded intelligent argument across to everybody. I'm so glad you're here!

 

[shafe_41]

I'm just baffled by the notion that everybody says WWE has failed to create new stars since Cena, Orton, Edge, Batista, etc... and then hedge their argument by saying "oh well i don't mean Punk or Daniel Bryan, they're exceptions." No. No they aren't. They're new stars that came along after Orton, Cena, etc...

How many damn headlining stars do you people want? Seriously? And don't shit all over WWE for "not creating new stars" because it sure as hell isn't for lack of trying. Look at everybody that's been champion that nobody is bothering to mention that was put in a headlining spot but just can't sustain it because they just AREN'T AS INTERESTING.

Sheamus, Ziggler, Del Rio, Christian, Mysterio, THE MIZ, Swagger, RVD, Jeff Hardy, Kane, Mark Henry, Big Show, Booker T, Lesnar... Yes some of those guys are from the same era or before, but all of those guys have held either the WWE or WHC titles at least once. People need to learn to accept guys like Cena and Orton (whether you like them or hate them) don't come around every single year. Hell... even every five years. They just don't. Everybody isn't going to become a superstar.

Look at the state of WWE right now. Look at the guys coming up right now. Roman Reigns, Bray Wyatt, Daniel Bryan, Ambrose. At this is just the current product. In two years, how many other stars will the WWE have? There could be two or three more on the horizon. It's a slow process. Nobody is going to be Austin overnight. So stop expecting it.

 

[thebarber]

Remember Bret Hart, Ultimate Warrior???



Bret Hart a part timer????? Bahahaha he signed a three year contract and was full time, took time off when his brother died. Ultimate Warrior signed a per appearance deal, and once he put Hogan over, increased his monetary demands so they go rid of him. So again, which main event PART TIMERS did WCW purchase again???? None.

 

[Kidpolean]

I'm just baffled by the notion that everybody says WWE has failed to create new stars since Cena, Orton, Edge, Batista, etc... and then hedge their argument by saying "oh well i don't mean Punk or Daniel Bryan, they're exceptions." No. No they aren't. They're new stars that came along after Orton, Cena, etc...

How many damn headlining stars do you people want? Seriously? And don't shit all over WWE for "not creating new stars" because it sure as hell isn't for lack of trying. Look at everybody that's been champion that nobody is bothering to mention that was put in a headlining spot but just can't sustain it because they just AREN'T AS INTERESTING.

Sheamus, Ziggler, Del Rio, Christian, Mysterio, THE MIZ, Swagger, RVD, Jeff Hardy, Kane, Mark Henry, Big Show, Booker T, Lesnar... Yes some of those guys are from the same era or before, but all of those guys have held either the WWE or WHC titles at least once. People need to learn to accept guys like Cena and Orton (whether you like them or hate them) don't come around every single year. Hell... even every five years. They just don't. Everybody isn't going to become a superstar.

Look at the state of WWE right now. Look at the guys coming up right now. Roman Reigns, Bray Wyatt, Daniel Bryan, Ambrose. At this is just the current product. In two years, how many other stars will the WWE have? There could be two or three more on the horizon. It's a slow process. Nobody is going to be Austin overnight. So stop expecting it.

I 100% agree. The thing that I don't understand is that John Cena has only been the top guy for about 8 or 9 years, so how often do you want new stars created? If you look at basketball, football, or baseball, their top stars stay on toplong for a long time generally around 10-15 years.

I think fans need to stop comparing everything to the AE. The AE was a very rare moment in time were a bunch of great talents all wrestled in the same era. This happens at some point in all sports. I don't see a need for new stars, the WWE imo is fine the way it is right now. If anything, the WWE needs to build a solid midcard division instead of trying to push every good midcarder into the main event. Let Bray Wyatt hold the us title, hell give Sheamus or DB the intercontinental title instead of placing the belts on guys that either don't defend the title or don't get tv time.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I 100% agree. The thing that I don't understand is that John Cena has only been the top guy for about 8 or 9 years, so how often do you want new stars created? If you look at basketball, football, or baseball, their top stars stay on toplong for a long time generally around 10-15 years.

Because wrestling is not sports, and historically, 8 to 9 years is the average lifespan of a wrestler's stay in the WWE/WWF.

Hogan: 1984 - 1993
Austin: 1995 - 2002
Rock: 1996 - 2002 and very, very part time after that.
Bret Hart: Wrestling in WWF since 1984 BUT didn't really get the big push until 1991/1992 and was gone by 1997.

There's only so many guys who last as long as The Undertaker, or have a set up like Ric Flair did in NWA/WCW.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

The likes of Punk leaving because of the frustration over bookings..

WWE trying to sign part-timers like Hogan, Sting, Batista and so on..

Extremely Over stars like Bryan being booked pathetically..

The PPVs becoming increasingly nonsensical..

Ratings taking a plunge..

..is WWE having a WCW moment...?? or is this the start of something big..??

The part timers are coming back for short term programs and in some cases (Hogan, Warrior) not even Wrestling.

How are the PPVs becoming nonsensical? Is it because they don't end with Daniel Bryan winning the belt?

As for Daniel Bryan - The Rumble "snub" is a work. If that's the case, it's actually brilliant booking.

Ratings taking a plunge: Ratings have been very low for awhile now. This is one of the reasons the part timers keep coming back. If Daniel Bryan is so over, why are the RAW ratings still bad?

 

[shalliin]

I'm not going to counter everything since you wrote a bit much and a lot of it is dribble. Here's a few things though I just couldn't resist.

Wrestler from the Kliq? That's pure coincidence. You knew when HHH married into the family that he would one day take over. Especially with Shane distancing himself from the WWE and Vince getting older. HHH loves the business and honestly... he's responsible for NXT thriving over the past year or two and it continues to get better.

Actually the plan at the time was looking to be a trifecta, a golden trio, a trinity of HHH/Shane/Steph, but at some point Shane seemed to realise that he wanted to try and make his own way so he pulled back and started his own company and went to work. I don't have a problem with HHH/Steph stepping up and taking a larger role, but I do have a problem with them inserting themselves into the story lines and matches. HHH should either work as an an air persona/occassional wrestler or stay out of the limelight and let others try and become the stars they might be.

Three hour show? Also coincidence. Everybody dumped all over the 3 hour Raw when they announced it was coming. I said it was good. Are there always spots wasted on Raw? No. Are you bored every segment of every week? No. Is it a waste? No. Yes you have pointless segments. No TV show is perfect. Raw never will be.

And it has failed. Ratings have not increased, and at this point holding steady is a failure of the concept. With 3 hrs show, they still go over by 15min on a weekly basis, and there's less then 1hr30min of actual wrestling on the show.You have 180min to fill and you only air 90-100min of wreslting with the rest being horribly scripted interviews, badly performed promos, ridiculous skits and backstage segments that detract more then appeal to the tv audience and are missed by the live audience. Yes there are ALWAYS wasted spots on Raw. Cut back on the promos, skits, recaps and put time and thought into the actual matches, which frankly are why most of us started watching in the first place. I want to watch WRESTLING, not SOAP OPERA.

Main event slots held by stars over 40? Where? Batista, Taker and Triple H? Triple H is a presence on tv but he's not a regular in the ring during the year. Batista has been back a week. We'll see how regular he really is. No I don't love Batista in the headlining spot of Mania either... but he left a VERY over heel and was a VERY over face prior to that during his main run with the company. You can't fault him for that. Batista worked hard during his time in the WWE. He deserves it. Just because the fans don't LOVE it does not mean Batista isn't deserving of what he gets. And now that he's in a MAJOR headlining role in a Marvel movie which is attached to that Marvel Universe, that cross-promotion is going to be phenomenal for the WWE. It's a business to make money. Not to cater to every wrestling fan. As for Taker... find me 5 people that complain about Undertaker wrestling one phenomenal match every single year at his age. Exactly. And don't even start with Hogan. He will host Mania. Not wrestle there. Hogan is on the Mt. Rushmore of wrestling. The WWE you sit and enjoy to this day may not even exist without Hogan. Love it or not... it's the truth.

Batista deserves nothing. He left because he thought he was bigger then the WWE and could make more money in MMA. He wanted to be Brock, but didn't have the talent or skillset to be Brock. He blindly stumbled into movie work due to his look and while he's been in a few movies, he's never been the STAR or even a FEATURED performer in any of them. This Marvel movie you mention, it's one of the few properties Marvel owned that no one outside of COMIC geekdom had heard about. It might be a success but it might also turn out to be Marvel's version of Green Lantern. And Batista is not the Star of the movie, he is one of several characters in a group, and unlike the Avengers where there were individual movies to introduce audiences to the key members, no one outside of comic geeks or movie rumor nerds knows anything about any of the characters in this movie.

Terrible booking decisions and missed opportunities? Where? Daniel Bryan? Whether the whole thing with Bryan is actually a work or not, you're still watching. WWE wins. Batista winning the Rumble? That I give you. Again... I'm not thrilled with that decision either... but that's ONE not so great decision. Of course it's going to magnified because it's fresh in everybody's mind. Wait until after Mania comes and goes. You won't even care that Batista won the Rumble at that point. Sure the world wants Daniel Bryan to rise above and be THE guy. You can't have Superman without Lex Luthor.

Fans booing? We pay the ticket prices. We can do anything we want. Fans didn't sh*t all over the WWE on a regular basis booing big decisions other than the Rumble. That's a one-time thing. Cena and Orton had a great match. It was one of the better ones they've had with each other. It wasn't a five star match. But it wasn't a three star match either. They played off the crowd very well. Orton's heel tactics were right on during it. Sure he may have disliked the crowd, but he used it to his advantage. They had some good false finishes. I was at the Rumble and I even said to the guys beside me "This is actually a really good match." So the fans had a little fun during the beginning of it. So what? That's what they pay for. Once it got going and got into the meat of the match, the "Randy Savage" chants and "We want Divas" chants stopped. The crowd got into it. One thing nobody outside of Pittsburgh would even consider though is... what was the last PPV held in Pittsburgh? I'll tell you. Bragging Rights in '09. What was the headline match? Cena/Orton in an Iron Man Match. Pittsburgh got the same PPV main event stars twice in a row. So we did sort of get shafted there. Some of the reactions from the fans could have stemmed from that. I know that's why I was bummed going into the Rumble. I really doubt I was the only one.

Complete failure to build new stars? Did you even watch the Rumble? Three guys came out of just that PPV alone 10x bigger than they went in. Bray Wyatt. Roman Reigns. Daniel Bryan. Yes Bryan was big at this time last year... but not to the height of where he's at right now. I also recall when the WWE signed Bryan Danielson and gave him the name "Daniel Bryan." Every single person laughed at it. Said it was lazy and dull. Who's laughing now?

Wrestlers leaving out of frustration? One guy. One. Punk has always had a short fuse and marched to the beat of his own drum and told everybody he'll leave on his terms and not those of anyone else. He's a guy that loves the business and loves to wrestle. I'm sure he loves the toys and luxury the money he's made in WWE got him... but he'd be the first to tell you he'd give them all away if need be. If you watched his documentary, he wrote out a six-figure check to Joey Mercury so he could keep his house. Money doesn't seem to matter that much to him. Sure he likes it. Who doesn't? He's a red-blooded American. But he doesn't NEED any more of it.

Stone Cold, HBK, Bret, Hogan, Warrior, and so many others have left or not resigned with WWE over the years because of various levels of frustration or annoyance at creative. Sometimes it's about money, sometimes it's about not being in the spot they want and sometimes its because of not wanting to do the job, but Punk is hardly the first one, nevermind the only one to walk out on WWE because of decisions made by people in control.

There is absolutely no "WCW Moment" happening in the WWE. None. You're tuning in every single week to see what happens to your favorite talents and how they overcome the odds or take down the top guy. Not to see what Dennis Rodman or Karl Malone are doing at the next PPV or what a train wreck the show is going to be.

 

[shalliin]

I 100% agree. The thing that I don't understand is that John Cena has only been the top guy for about 8 or 9 years, so how often do you want new stars created? If you look at basketball, football, or baseball, their top stars stay on toplong for a long time generally around 10-15 years.

I think fans need to stop comparing everything to the AE. The AE was a very rare moment in time were a bunch of great talents all wrestled in the same era. This happens at some point in all sports. I don't see a need for new stars, the WWE imo is fine the way it is right now. If anything, the WWE needs to build a solid midcard division instead of trying to push every good midcarder into the main event. Let Bray Wyatt hold the us title, hell give Sheamus or DB the intercontinental title instead of placing the belts on guys that either don't defend the title or don't get tv time.

For football it's a shorter time. Quarterbacks can either stick around for a long time (Farve, Marino, Montegna) or have short but brilliant careers but rarely is one guy at the top of the pile for more then 5-6 years. Other positions are even more fractured time wise. Receivers and tight ends are lucky if they are at the top for more then 3-4 years, then they coast for another few as being among the best, but the peak is only about 3-4 years. Defensive players usually shorter times then that.

Baseball is rare to have someone truly at the top for longer then 6-7 years, mostly because most players don't reach their true peaks until late 20's and by mid 30's are starting to wear out. Sure some last until late 30's as stars, but it's the rare exception that a player maintains true superstar levels for a 10-15year period. Yes some always remain as great players even up to 40, but rarely are they considered at the peak of their sport or position for longer then 8 or 9 years. playing 162 times a year in official games, not counting the spring training, post season, daily/weekly workouts and practices, that's a lot of wear and tear on a player. In the past you could stay around longer as a top guy, but now it's rare a player makes it to 36/37 and still considered a premier player.

Basketball. Aside from the rare exception, it's rare for a basketball player to truly be a star for longer then 4 or 6 years. Yes, the top guys do hang around and are still among the top, but every other year or two you have some new guy come in and become the league and fan focus. Jordan, Shaw, Kobe, Carter, Lebron. Each eventually was or will be replaced as the top guy, although they do stretch out and remain for another few years among the best.

In all sports, the search for the next top guy, the next superstar is constantly happening. EVERY single year, you have to be on the look out for that rare talent that might burst onto the scene. If you aren't looking ahead for the future, then you are behind, even if you are currently at the top of your particular heap.

 

[pyrusane]

For football it's a shorter time. Quarterbacks can either stick around for a long time (Farve, Marino, Montegna) or have short but brilliant careers but rarely is one guy at the top of the pile for more then 5-6 years. Other positions are even more fractured time wise. Receivers and tight ends are lucky if they are at the top for more then 3-4 years, then they coast for another few as being among the best, but the peak is only about 3-4 years. Defensive players usually shorter times then that.

Let's look at a few names that aren't on your list
Tom Brady - 12 years so far
Payton Manning - 15 years so far
Jerry Rice - 17 years as a top receiver
Tony Gonzalez - 15 years a s a top TE
Ray Lewis - 16 years as a top MLB
Brian Urlacher - 12 years as a top MLB
Charles Woodson - 15 years so far

Obviously a majority of NFL players don't last long. But the point you seem to be arguing is that ten years at the top is a long time for anyone in any sport, and that players that can make it that long are almost non-existent, and with the exception of Jerry Rice every player I just listed is either active right now or retired within the last year.

I know nothing about baseball, so lets skip to basketball...

Basketball. Aside from the rare exception, it's rare for a basketball player to truly be a star for longer then 4 or 6 years. Yes, the top guys do hang around and are still among the top, but every other year or two you have some new guy come in and become the league and fan focus. Jordan, Shaw, Kobe, Carter, Lebron. Each eventually was or will be replaced as the top guy, although they do stretch out and remain for another few years among the best.

Let's look at the players you named.

Jordan - If we take out the one-year vacation to play baseball, you have fourteen years on top, culminating in his SECOND three-peat fifteen years after he entered the league.
Shaw - I assume you meant Shaq? Sixteen years as a top guy, even while sharing the spotlight with...
Kobe- Really? Seventeen years as a top guy, league MVP in his twelfth season...
Carter - fifteen years...I can give you this one...
Lebron - In his eleventh season right now...he is the current top guy, and has been that top guy for the same length of time as Cena. Who is stepping up to replace him? Carmello Anthony? They were in the same draft class, one and three respectively...

In all sports, the search for the next top guy, the next superstar is constantly happening. EVERY single year, you have to be on the look out for that rare talent that might burst onto the scene. If you aren't looking ahead for the future, then you are behind, even if you are currently at the top of your particular heap.

The funny thing is that I don't disagree with this point at all. You DO constantly have to be looking for your next top star. Where I think we all disagree is on whether the WWE is doing that or not. As several others have pointed out, they keep trying, which is why the landscape looks the way it does right now. The difference between the sports listed above and the WWE is that there is so much more involved with being the top guy in WWE. In football, you need to be able to pass, or catch, or run, or tackle, and to do it better than everyone else who does the same things. But if you have that physical skill, and some longevity, you're set. In basketball, you need to be able to protect the ball, dribble, shoot, and rebound.

In WWE, you have to be able to wrestle, sure, but not even that well. Look at Hogan. He wasn't exactly a technical master, but he could tell a story in the ring (even if it was pretty much the exact same story, every night, for years). To be a top guy, you have to have charisma, you have to capture the interest of the fans, you have to be able to promote yourself, the business, your opponent, and the guy you might be facing next year, just in case. You have to have the physical ability, the mental ability, and the acting ability, and that's just to get a push. It's not enough just to be able to perform at a high level for a long period of time, you actually have to make the fans care enough to see YOU perform. The top guys in the mainstream sports don't put the fans in the seats; the uniform takes care of that part.

When Brett Farve left the Packers (turned heel) Packers fans just turned to Aaron Rodgers and said "You're our champion now," and he replied by doing the discount double check...wow, that analogy worked out really well...the point is, fans pay to see the TEAM, they pay for the logo, the colors, the history, the game...no fan ever went to a Patriots game and said, "If Brady doesn't throw to Edelman we riot!" They go to watch the team, and they hope the team wins. If Kobe goes out and and scores 41 points, but the Lakers lose, the fans aren't happy Kobe had a big night, they're pissed their team lost.When Lebron aired The Decision, no one complimented him on his promo skills, because basketball isn't about the individual, it's about the team.

Back to the original topic, though...

Assuming Punk leaving isn't a work...so what? Don't get me wrong, I like Punk. But if he is suddenly gone from the WWE for real, I won't miss him. After a few weeks, neither will anyone else, because in the grand scheme he isn't that important. I've been watching wrestling for thirty years now, and in that time only three people leaving have ever surprised me or made a huge impact on the show...Hogan, Stone Cold, and Bret Hart. Hart surprised me more because of the way it happened than anything else. The other two were Hogan and Austin. CM Punk is good, but he is not Hogan or Austin level, nowhere close. The only person in the WWE that is at that level is Cena, like it or not.

Bryan has the potential to get to that point, if handled correctly, but he isn't there yet. Of course, if the IWC had their way, he would never get to that level because his momentum would be killed early by making the worst decision possible...giving him the title.

As far as WCW, there were many things that killed WCW, but the main thing that killed them had nothing to do with the product they were delivering each week. It was the loss of their tv deal due to the Time Warner/AOL merger that truly killed WCW. Even with all of the crap they were putting out in the final year (and I watched it all the way up to the final episode) they were still the highest rated show on the Turner networks right up to the end. To suggest that WWE = WCW in it's death-throes is ludicrous at best...

 

[H33LTurn]

The only thing that can kill WWE (and there's no guarantee it'll stay dead) is fans refusing to purchase the WWE Network. Besides that, WWE isn't taking any huge financial gambles. The product might be shit and the ratings might be abysmal, but the fans are still purchasing merch and going to events. WWE, like WCW, is too big to fail (hate to use a banking reference for something I love so much) due to the amount of money involved. Apathy from their sponsors or management/talent is the only thing that can change the company's course. Reliance on part timers means that within a generation or two (10-20) years, if WWE hasn't built credible stars or signed some from the indys then ppv buyrates will take a huge hit. Realistically, Undertaker doesn't have many more Mania's left in him. Guys like Warrior, Bret, and Hogan are not reliable long term and can't do much in the ring. Lesnar will still be around but by then will fans care? Batista has already turned off a huge portion of the fanbase. Dwayne Johnson isn't what he used to be and cares more about his acting career. WWE needs to build or sign someone Cena can pass the torch to and soon. Nonsensical booking can drive people like Punk and Bryan away, but with there being no opposition company to jump ship to, only those who have conserved their income and are passionate enough about the product will be able to stay away.

The blowback from WWE's poor booking and reliance on old talent will be nothing close to what WCW experienced, but it will be noticeable and harm the company long-term.

 

[shalliin]

Let's look at a few names that aren't on your list
Tom Brady - 12 years so far
Payton Manning - 15 years so far
Jerry Rice - 17 years as a top receiver
Tony Gonzalez - 15 years a s a top TE
Ray Lewis - 16 years as a top MLB
Brian Urlacher - 12 years as a top MLB
Charles Woodson - 15 years so far

Obviously a majority of NFL players don't last long. But the point you seem to be arguing is that ten years at the top is a long time for anyone in any sport, and that players that can make it that long are almost non-existent, and with the exception of Jerry Rice every player I just listed is either active right now or retired within the last year.

And those are exceptions more then the rule. And while they are still among the top of the pile. that doesn't mean they are THE top of the ranks or have been/were for those times you provided.
Hogan's been around since the mid 70's or so, but really he was really only THE top guy from about 83-90, a period of 7 years. He diva'd himself up for a couple of years and instead of fading or trying to adapt, he had a brief resurgence for about 2 years in the 90's once turning heel. But his best in ring work, his best wrestling was during that 83-90 period. Same for a lot of guys who've been around, they have a brief period where they are considered to be at the top of their skill in the sport, but eventually fade out.

I know nothing about baseball, so lets skip to basketball...



Let's look at the players you named.

Jordan - If we take out the one-year vacation to play baseball, you have fourteen years on top, culminating in his SECOND three-peat fifteen years after he entered the league.
Shaw - I assume you meant Shaq? Sixteen years as a top guy, even while sharing the spotlight with...
Kobe- Really? Seventeen years as a top guy, league MVP in his twelfth season...
Carter - fifteen years...I can give you this one...
Lebron - In his eleventh season right now...he is the current top guy, and has been that top guy for the same length of time as Cena. Who is stepping up to replace him? Carmello Anthony? They were in the same draft class, one and three respectively...

Again, I'm talking about the period of time when they are considered to be the absolute best and are able to physically back this up. During his first couple of years, Jordan was good, but there was still Larry Bird, Patrick Ewing, Magic Johnson that were above him. Then for he pulled even with them before continuing to grow and become the best. He was starting a downhill trend as new talent came into the league around the time of his baseball attempt, and guys like Shaq reached the top. Jordan was a great player when he returned, but he wasn't THE greatest at the time. Over all and taking in his entire career, sure an arguement could be made he was the greatest of all time (he's not: That belongs to Wilt C.) but he was no longer THE top guy. Same with the others you mentioned.

The funny thing is that I don't disagree with this point at all. You DO constantly have to be looking for your next top star. Where I think we all disagree is on whether the WWE is doing that or not. As several others have pointed out, they keep trying, which is why the landscape looks the way it does right now. The difference between the sports listed above and the WWE is that there is so much more involved with being the top guy in WWE. In football, you need to be able to pass, or catch, or run, or tackle, and to do it better than everyone else who does the same things. But if you have that physical skill, and some longevity, you're set. In basketball, you need to be able to protect the ball, dribble, shoot, and rebound.

In WWE, you have to be able to wrestle, sure, but not even that well. Look at Hogan. He wasn't exactly a technical master, but he could tell a story in the ring (even if it was pretty much the exact same story, every night, for years). To be a top guy, you have to have charisma, you have to capture the interest of the fans, you have to be able to promote yourself, the business, your opponent, and the guy you might be facing next year, just in case. You have to have the physical ability, the mental ability, and the acting ability, and that's just to get a push. It's not enough just to be able to perform at a high level for a long period of time, you actually have to make the fans care enough to see YOU perform. The top guys in the mainstream sports don't put the fans in the seats; the uniform takes care of that part.

When Brett Farve left the Packers (turned heel) Packers fans just turned to Aaron Rodgers and said "You're our champion now," and he replied by doing the discount double check...wow, that analogy worked out really well...the point is, fans pay to see the TEAM, they pay for the logo, the colors, the history, the game...no fan ever went to a Patriots game and said, "If Brady doesn't throw to Edelman we riot!" They go to watch the team, and they hope the team wins. If Kobe goes out and and scores 41 points, but the Lakers lose, the fans aren't happy Kobe had a big night, they're pissed their team lost.When Lebron aired The Decision, no one complimented him on his promo skills, because basketball isn't about the individual, it's about the team.

For a lot of fans you are right. But there are people who do go for the individual rather then the player and this is easily tracked in the last 30 years thanks to the expansion of cable and satellite channels. When a player changes teams there is a percentage of people that change their allegiance to follow that player.
take my sister. She's watched hockey most of our lives and loves the game. She's never really settled on any one team for long until 1992. What happened that year? Jaromir Jagr. Came into the league and helped Pittsburgh win a cup. He became her favorite player and she's stuck to that his entire career. Whatever team he went to became her favorite for as long as he was there and she tried to watch every game they played.
So yes the die hard fans don't necessarily turn away from their teams when a great player leaves, they also don't tune in or go to games unless they have great players to cheer for. They can only buy so many logoed items that aren't also promoting individual players. It's also part of the reason that so many teams change their logos or colors (or in the case of the Angels==California/LosAngeles/Anaheim) rebrand their team every few years.

Back to the original topic, though...

Assuming Punk leaving isn't a work...so what? Don't get me wrong, I like Punk. But if he is suddenly gone from the WWE for real, I won't miss him. After a few weeks, neither will anyone else, because in the grand scheme he isn't that important. I've been watching wrestling for thirty years now, and in that time only three people leaving have ever surprised me or made a huge impact on the show...Hogan, Stone Cold, and Bret Hart. Hart surprised me more because of the way it happened than anything else. The other two were Hogan and Austin. CM Punk is good, but he is not Hogan or Austin level, nowhere close. The only person in the WWE that is at that level is Cena, like it or not.

I've been watching for about a similar time, and honestly, I never tracked or followed the comings and goings of the wrestlers, buying into most storyline reasons for departures and the occasional article in WWE mag or PWI or Wreslting Observer to know why people weren't on TV. I didn't dig deeper or try and follow until around 92/93 when we got cable and was able to get both WWF and WCW programming and started recognizing occasional wrestlers that had been in one company showing up with the other.
You are right though. Austin's leaving and HBK's first 'loose his smile' departure were surprises, but as small as it was, I had found online and knew about Hogan showing in WCW, and Hart's leaving so there was no surprise there. The biggest for me had to be Warrior's WWF departure. Because even with the limited internet and the struggle to keep kayfabe, word got out about the type of situation that it involved.

Bryan has the potential to get to that point, if handled correctly, but he isn't there yet. Of course, if the IWC had their way, he would never get to that level because his momentum would be killed early by making the worst decision possible...giving him the title.

As far as WCW, there were many things that killed WCW, but the main thing that killed them had nothing to do with the product they were delivering each week. It was the loss of their tv deal due to the Time Warner/AOL merger that truly killed WCW. Even with all of the crap they were putting out in the final year (and I watched it all the way up to the final episode) they were still the highest rated show on the Turner networks right up to the end. To suggest that WWE = WCW in it's death-throes is ludicrous at best...

WWE is far from the end and it isn't having a WCW moment. If anything, it's have the NWA/WCW moment where it's about to change how wrestling is viewed again with the creation of their own network. The network will either succeed and secure WWE's 'permanance' or it will fail and then we'll have the WCW final moment.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

OK. First off, I agree that cable ratings can't be analyzed the same way they were 15 years ago. There are WAY more entertainment options, including more cable CHANNELS.

But I really need to ask about this particular comment you made.

How is it possible that most people you know don't even have cable??

Do you mean that they have Satellite instead? If so, that would count the same as far as TV ratings go.

I mean they have smart TVs and watch Hulu, Youtube, Netflix, etc instead. You seriously do NOT need cable. It's worthless other than live sports (and even then there are...ahem....ways around that). Everything else you can find on your own menu style and you don't have to pay for Disney, Animal Planet, or any other channel you don't want (well, to an extent).

In other words, WWE is going to rape someone on their next TV deal just like the MLB teams have been. Cable is going to be dead in 20 years. Hell, most TV the way you know it will be dead. Our generation is so tech savvy. You think we are going to pay 75 dollars a month for 3 channels and maybe 5 hours of shows we might watch? Hell no. It's going to be smart TVs and menu style viewing. That's why the WWE Network is so smart. I may not always agree with the TV content, but the WWE is a very successful business because they move forward. Vince probably doesn't give much of a shit about ratings.

 

[lil steroid meat]

Vince probably doesn't give much of a shit about ratings.

Couldn't disagree more.

From my observations and from how decision making is portrayed on dirt sheets (which for all we know could either be on the money or some bullshit made up for page clicks), they make a lot of dumb ass decisions based on ratings.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Couldn't disagree more.

From my observations and from how decision making is portrayed on dirt sheets (which for all we know could either be on the money or some bullshit made up for page clicks), they make a lot of dumb ass decisions based on ratings.

I call toilet paper the dirt sheets. You could literally predict more about what goes on backstage from trying to read my shitstains than what you read from these "journalists".

No, Vince doesn't give that much of a shit about ratings. Why? Because Vince is a successful businessman. He cares about ratings ranking. He also cares about social media and internet presence. The industry has changed, ratings don't really take that big of a piece of the pie anymore. Plus he's about to get a mega huge TV deal that everyone else is getting with the cable TV bubble.

Like I've been saying, cable will be dead in 20 years and so will TV as we know it. Everything will be menu style/on demand viewing in the future. He's going to make more money off the Network than anything else. Plus it's not like he gets compensated per ratings. Someone buys the rights to his content and pays him up front for it. Sure over the course of time his ratings matter, but most people on here have no idea how to read them. "ZOMG THEY UZT 2 B 7s NOW THEY R 2s!!! WWE GOUN UT OV BIZNIZ!" No. WWE is consistently near the top in an incredibly saturated market. This is why someone is going to be the subject of winner's curse and pay WWE waaaaay too much money for the right to broadcast Vince's content on a dying medium.