NXT is a Failure

[It's Damn Real!]

No, not because it's a WWE product, though judging from the quality of their alternative programming, that's hardly surprising at the moment – it's because it's a gag. NXT, in it's entirety, is a gag...

The popularity of the UFC in the US skyrocketed in recent years, and as a result, Dana White and the UFC created a show on SpikeTV that helped to spark, retain, regain and garner new energy for the sport when they put the finishing touches on their reality-based program The Ultimate Fighter. Is it any wonder the UFC's popularity coincides with the popularity of The Ultimate Fighter? Absolutely not, because just like the fights are based in reality, so too is the show in that it houses real life fighters going through real life training and fighting in real life fights – both in the ring, as well as out of it. In a nutshell, the drama of the show, is real. That's something NXT failed to capitalize on from it's inception.

The drama on NXT isn't based in reality at all. It's based in a childish and incredibly cartoonish false-reality where carrying beer kegs around a ring is considered a viable athletic competition under which the ability of a professional wrestler is graded – not his mic skills, not his mat skills, not his ability to win or lose matches, either. No, rather, on his "ability" to carry a beer keg... around a ring.

Instead of scripting this show (as obviously, wrestling is scripted) in a matter to determine a winner by allowing the contestants to show their own personalities through triumphs and tribulations, the program is centered around "pros", which often drowns out any potential of the "rookies" to actually shine – even in the event they'd be eliminated eventually, anyway. Even TUF doesn't do this – the fighters on that program instead of placed on teams, and each team is lead by a single pro. Had each individual fighter had his own professional fighter, the show would likely have flopped as a result, just as NXT is doing right now.

NXT is a failure. An absolute failure, and that's made no more evident than by the fact that it garners the exact same ratings on SyFy that WWECW pulled in, and WWECW was considered a failure (enough) by management to cut ties with it's programming to give way for NXT, so what does that say for NXT?

I understand the desire to cash in on the reality TV concept, and while on paper the concept of this show was a success, in reality, it fell far short of the bar in my opinion.

It's a shame, too – guys like Alex Riley, Kaval, Wade Barrett, etc. don't need this type of incredibly cheesy, incredibly gimmicky introduction into the world of pro-wrestling at all – all they needed was a reason to exist, and if WWE creative couldn't possibly think of one for any of them, I have no idea what that says for WWE creative other than "Wow".

Thoughts on NXT, it's past success and it's future potential?

 

[gd]

I'd disagree with you there, good sir. Sure, other than the very first episode it hasn't been the most entertaining show out there, but it's certainly just as entertaining as ECW was in it's dying years. That was a show that featured a Shelton/Ryder feud for about 3 straight months. Yuck.

NXT does serve a purpose, introduce new wrasslers to the WWE audience, give them a chance to get some experience without being fed directly to the wolves on Raw of Smackdown. Sure, ECW served the same purpose, but NXT just does it differently.

Not to mention 7 of the guys from the first season are currently involved in the biggest angle in the WWE. I'd say that's successful.

 

[Reddannihilation]

I agree, (now watch slowly as someone mentions TNA) I was intrigued by NXT in the beginning, seeing guys like Bryan Danielson on a major company's tv show, made me interested and for the first few weeks I enjoyed watching it. But the show really has become ridiculous, obstacle courses, stupid promo segments where they're told to speak about a random word, it's really terrible. I'll also agree with you about the "pro's" taking a lot of the spotlight away from the debuting stars, not to mention that I feel forcing people like Low-Ki and Bryan Danielson to start off as "rookies" especially when the "pro's" they're paired with are less experienced than they are is rather insulting, I'm sure some would argue that these guys aren't known outside of die-hard fans but I don't see how that warrants them being introduced as the wards of mid-carders. Same goes for the multi-generational wrestlers like Wyndham Rotunda and Joe Hennig, these guys should've been brought in as a members of Legacy or a similar "blue chipper" mid-card team/stable instead of being forced through a scripted "reality show" all the while being given terrible ring names.

So I'd agree, NXT's goal was to replace WWECW and so far it's just as bad.

 

[enterkey]

I also disagree, NXT should not be thought of as a complete failure mainly because it provided the background for the biggest heel faction since the days of Evolution and the most interesting storyline in recent history. Sure some of the challenges they do are ridiculous and I would much rather them showcase better skills and replace most of the time with worthwhile matches but it gives the new wrestlers something to do and gets them some face time with the fans without diluting the prestige of the other titles with something like the ECW title. We should give it some more time before we label it as a failure so that we can see what they do with the wrestlers from this season, how they handle the second winner, and what changes they do for any future seasons. If ECW were still around and they were on that instead I would most likely have no idea who they were, hell I didn't even know about Sheamus until he surprisingly won the WWE title from Cena.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I'd disagree with you there, good sir. Sure, other than the very first episode it hasn't been the most entertaining show out there, but it's certainly just as entertaining as ECW was in it's dying years. That was a show that featured a Shelton/Ryder feud for about 3 straight months. Yuck.

Hardly a point I think the WWE would be proud of. Having your new show that's supposed to be ground-breaking be just as good as the failing days of it's predecessor is a failure, Dis, not a success.

NXT does serve a purpose, introduce new wrasslers to the WWE audience, give them a chance to get some experience without being fed directly to the wolves on Raw of Smackdown. Sure, ECW served the same purpose, but NXT just does it differently.

So what you are saying is that it allows less talented wrestlers who probably don't deserve a job an opportunity to work because it coddles their inabilities and masks their inefficiencies by allowing them to bypass the traditional breaking-in period by having to prove to the fans you are actually worth watching?

Thanks, but I'll take tradition over this "ground-breaking" nonsense any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Kaval debuting as a rival from Mysterios past is far more interesting and far more complimenting to his abilities than parading him around with The Marginally Attractive People.

Not to mention 7 of the guys from the first season are currently involved in the biggest angle in the WWE. I'd say that's successful.

Six of which can't be named by a number of wrestling fans, because none of them matter as much as Barrett. If you discount the Danielson firing, one out of seven is a 14% success rate. That's a failure, too.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

GD nails it. You cannot seriously call NXT a "failure." It probably won't be a long-term success - unless they start having gaps between "seasons," but look at it this way:

The WWE version of ECW existed for roughly 3 years. In that time, they developed a few young stars who started off there: John Morrison, CM Punk, Seamus, Miz, um...wait, I'm out. Any others? Who am I missing?

In less than 8 months, NXT developed 7 talents who are currently the most interesting thing on Raw. Several of them (Wade Barrett) will be future superstars.

It did what it was supposed to do. It created new, young stars. Even if it does a 1.2 rating, that still places the #3 developmental WWE show on the same ratings plane with TNA's flagship show. And the outcome are 7 ready-minted new talents?

Yep, not a failure.

 

[Reddannihilation]

In less than 8 months, NXT developed 7 talents who are currently the most interesting thing on Raw. Several of them (Wade Barrett) will be future superstars.

I give you 5 months after the NXTblood ends before half of that group is gone and if anyone other than Barrett is at a level higher than mid-card I'll eat my hat.

 

[gd]

Hardly a point I think the WWE would be proud of. Having your new show that's supposed to be ground-breaking be just as good as the failing days of it's predecessor is a failure, Dis, not a success.

ECW was a success. NXT is just as good as ECW. That is a success, I'd say. It doesn't have to be light years better than anything ever created to be groudbreaking. It's a genuinely different concept that we haven't really seen in pro wrestling before.

So what you are saying is that it allows less talented wrestlers who probably don't deserve a job an opportunity to work because it coddles their inabilities and masks their inefficiencies by allowing them to bypass the traditional breaking-in period by having to prove to the fans you are actually worth watching?

I suppose. But the new guys have to debut somehow. Previously, it was on ECW where they would wrestle against people no one cared about like Armando Estrade and Tommy Dreamer. Now, they get to wrestle against each other as well as somewhat interesting WWE wrestlers and do some neat obstacle courses as well

Thanks, but I'll take tradition over this "ground-breaking" nonsense any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Kaval debuting as a rival from Mysterios past is far more interesting and far more complimenting to his abilities than parading him around with The Marginally Attractive People.

Surely just throwing Kaval right into a feud with Mysterio wouldn't be a good move. Most fans would give a "who the fuck is this guy" reaction upon seeing him. He'd be worse off than Dolph after his Mysterio feud.

Six of which can't be named by a number of wrestling fans, because none of them matter as much as Barrett. If you discount the Danielson firing, one out of seven is a 14% success rate. That's a failure, too.

The angle is not even near completion yet. I'm sure by the time it's over, more than a few of those guys will have just fine and dandy careers in the WWE. Except Slater, of course. He's shit.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The WWE version of ECW existed for roughly 3 years. In that time, they developed a few young stars who started off there: John Morrison, CM Punk, Seamus, Miz, um...wait, I'm out. Any others? Who am I missing?

All of whom will have greater success in this business (IMO) because they went the traditional route – they developed a fan base, instead of being handed one a la Nexus.

In less than 8 months, NXT developed 7 talents who are currently the most interesting thing on Raw. Several of them (Wade Barrett) will be future superstars.

Wrong. Barrett will be a superstar – the rest are marginal nobodies who's only purpose right now is serving as fodder for Barretts push. Barrett will be the only one of that group who will have truly garnered anything from this Nexus angle, and I'd imagine a number of the others (Sheffield, the Rockstar guy, etc.) are future future endeavors in the making.

It did what it was supposed to do. It created new, young stars. Even if it does a 1.2 rating, that still places the #3 developmental WWE show on the same ratings plane with TNA's flagship show. And the outcome are 7 ready-minted new talents?

TNA is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. This entire point is moot.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I give you 5 months after the NXTblood ends before half of that group is gone and if anyone other than Barrett is at a level higher than mid-card I'll eat my hat.

It's a deal. I've been wrong before.

Wait, sorry, no I haven't. Do you know why I don't own pencils? Because pencils are for people who make mistakes. I speak in permanent marker, I piss excellence, and I crap brilliance.

Wade Barrett is a rookie who is not only solid in the ring, but amazingly comfortable in the ring. The mere fact that they put Barrett over Henry clean two weeks back is a good indicator. He has the look, the skills, and he's from the UK, which creates overseas marketing opportunities for the WWE (look at all of Rey Mysterio's marketing driven artificial success as a result of the Hispanic demographic) as well as endless creative booking options.

Unlike Evan Bourne, who for a while wrestled matches where crowds were silent until the Shooting Star Press is hit, Justin Gabriel wrestles an exciting style and has a tremendous punctuation with the 450. He's a US Title contender in 3 years.

Despite being green in the ring, both David Otunga and Skip Sheffield are natural heels who would transition just fine to the big leagues. Otunga is used to success in the spotlight and will be able to parle himself into a major player within 3-4 years, provided he shores up his in-ring style.

Darren Young and Heath Slater are my question marks. I don't see much from them, unless the Light-heavyweight title returns. I don't buy Slater as a heel, but as a face he'd be as blah as Ricky Ortiz was. Darren Young is a diet-version of Orlando Jordan.

Tarver is a wild card. No clue.

But take to the bank that WWE used NXT to create future champions in Barrett, Gabriel, Sheffeild, and Otunga.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

All of whom will have greater success in this business (IMO) because they went the traditional route – they developed a fan base, instead of being handed one a la Nexus.

They've had greater success because...wait for it...they've been around longer.

Wrong. Barrett will be a superstar – the rest are marginal nobodies who's only purpose right now is serving as fodder for Barretts push.

I think you're dead wrong, but even if you were correct, even ONE main-eventer coming from just a FEW MONTHS of programming makes it worth while.

TNA is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. This entire point is moot.

You claimed NXT was a failure. I was stating that despite the low ratings, it was just as watched as the competitions main show. That's how business works, and that's what success and failure are based on in a corporation.

Your face is irrelevant to this discussion. Your entire face is moot.

 

[a0161613]

Several of them (Wade Barrett) will be future superstars.

And the outcome are 7 ready-minted new talents?

I give you 5 months after the NXTblood ends before half of that group is gone and if anyone other than Barrett is at a level higher than mid-card I'll eat my hat.

I would agree with this second point. I am not convinced about the long term future of people like Sheffield, Tarver & Young. Obviously Barrett has it. Gabriel & Slater have enough uniqueness and potential and Otunga has Jennifer Hudson. How many of them can you see ever main eventing a PPV in the next four years?

The angle is interesting and of course, a huge success. But the show was a fail to me. It only had me interested when Daniel Bryan & the Miz was involved.

NXT tried to capture The Ultimate Fighter and because WWE are obsessed with putting their own spin on it, it became dull and weak; without realism and drama. The obstacle courses and promo contests were pathetic and the voting system was unclear and unnecessary.

I want to say that they got lucky with the NXT angle but they have been determined to make it work from the start. Cena has been a huge factor in this and if they had used any random superstar, it would have failed. But because they chose Cena as the point of the attacks, it piqued so much drama and interest. In comparison the TV show has none of this brutal reality or drama.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

ECW was a success. NXT is just as good as ECW. That is a success, I'd say. It doesn't have to be light years better than anything ever created to be groudbreaking. It's a genuinely different concept that we haven't really seen in pro wrestling before.

Yes, ECW was a success during it's inception months. It grew downward from that day forth, and was an utter failure by it's last days, unless of course you're going to tell me Yoshi Tatsuo is a future superstar too?

It may be a genuinely different concept from anything we've known in pro-wrestling before, but it's failed to surpass the failing ratings of it's predecessor – how, in any conceivable way, can that be considered a success?

I suppose. But the new guys have to debut somehow. Previously, it was on ECW where they would wrestle against people no one cared about like Armando Estrade and Tommy Dreamer. Now, they get to wrestle against each other as well as somewhat interesting WWE wrestlers and do some neat obstacle courses as well

And had they debuted in the traditional route, a number would have been let go by now – namely the Rocker guy, Otunga, the Black Cena, etc. because none of them have what it takes to be competing in the WWE right now. None.

Armando Estrada was awful, but he had 100x the personality that any of these Nexus folk with the exception of Tarver or Barrett have. That alone makes him superior to the remainder.

Surely just throwing Kaval right into a feud with Mysterio wouldn't be a good move. Most fans would give a "who the fuck is this guy" reaction upon seeing him. He'd be worse off than Dolph after his Mysterio feud.

So I suppose those same fans had the same reaction with Kane/Undertaker, DDP/Undertaker, etc., then?

The angle is not even near completion yet. I'm sure by the time it's over, more than a few of those guys will have just fine and dandy careers in the WWE. Except Slater, of course. He's shit.

Doesn't need to be complete to have been a failure – I'm speculating, obviously, that the lack of personality in the others will ultimately lead to their future endeavorment.

 

[Ferbian]

The popularity of the UFC in the US skyrocketed in recent years, and as a result, Dana White and the UFC created a show on SpikeTV that helped to spark, retain, regain and garner new energy for the sport when they put the finishing touches on their reality-based program The Ultimate Fighter. Is it any wonder the UFC's popularity coincides with the popularity of The Ultimate Fighter? Absolutely not, because just like the fights are based in reality, so too is the show in that it houses real life fighters going through real life training and fighting in real life fights – both in the ring, as well as out of it. In a nutshell, the drama of the show, is real. That's something NXT failed to capitalize on from it's inception.

Just because NXT screamed somewhat of a reality show. It remains to be professional wrestling, a thing that needs to be booked in some manner. Because in the end of the day WWE has to think of their future. If they do not believe in someone, why in the world would they want him on their main roster? This is simply a show to get the person over with the crowd, and a show that will build future stars. It's working as well. Hence not a failure.

The drama on NXT isn't based in reality at all. It's based in a childish and incredibly cartoonish false-reality where carrying beer kegs around a ring is considered a viable athletic competition under which the ability of a professional wrestler is graded – not his mic skills, not his mat skills, not his ability to win or lose matches, either. No, rather, on his "ability" to carry a beer keg... around a ring.

The drama doesn't always have to be based around reality to create a proper product. There's been material on there that people have found to be garbage. But there's certainly also stuff that the people on this forum have liked. There were reality introduced in the way that Bryan Danielson spoke the truth of how WWE functions basically. There has been kayfabe walls broken down (As D-man so nicely put it).

If that's not reality and tension building in some manner. I really would just love for you to show me what is IDR.

Sure the challenges might be bullshit. But it's a way to bring a twist to the product that can very well create a bit of reality to a product. It's rather hard to book anything of that manner except someone perhaps tripping. But to book a time on how someone performs. Or to book how someone gets a reaction from the crowd. That's something I would love to see a script on.

Instead of scripting this show (as obviously, wrestling is scripted) in a matter to determine a winner by allowing the contestants to show their own personalities through triumphs and tribulations, the program is centered around "pros", which often drowns out any potential of the "rookies" to actually shine – even in the event they'd be eliminated eventually, anyway. Even TUF doesn't do this – the fighters on that program instead of placed on teams, and each team is lead by a single pro. Had each individual fighter had his own professional fighter, the show would likely have flopped as a result, just as NXT is doing right now.

The show is partially centered around the professional wrestlers that have experience because, guess what. It draws ratings. In the end of the day that is all that matters to a product, the ratings. Not whether a wrestling program can come off realistic because we've already determined that the common wrestling fan knows deep down, it's fake. So why shouldn't they try to build the winner around the script, and not who can wrestle someone to the ground in what would end up becoming more of an amateur wrestling match. Because let's face it, if you know how to sell it enough to stay fresh and not too hurt, then how the hell are you gonna stay down? Amateur wrestling would be the only way it functions. And guess what? a large portion of those people most likely wouldn't be able to hold a candle to an amateur wrestler.

Also the show does focus around the rookie more than the professional. All in all they are the product, and the professional is only there for the sake of teaching, and to pull the ratings. As well as to help establish someone, because in the end what would you get the most out of? Fighting a former world champion? Or fighting a guy who's been wrestling in front of 100 people for the majority of his career? A guy nobody knows of.

NXT is a failure. An absolute failure, and that's made no more evident than by the fact that it garners the exact same ratings on SyFy that WWECW pulled in, and WWECW was considered a failure (enough) by management to cut ties with it's programming to give way for NXT, so what does that say for NXT?

False. NXT has been doing just fine, they've build arguably one of the biggest heel associations in WWE right now. The Nexus, they are over, and they're over rather well. That's a failure? Not a chance.

They have put these guys on the map. The Nexus storyline, from a bunch of guys that have been competing on NXT, has managed to up the ratings just a little bit on RAW. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me. And it's because people know of them.

The ratings may be the same. But the product is still just fine, all in all it is still rookies and a few pros (Where the majority of them aren't even the biggest names worth watching). To say that a few unknown guys and a few pros that obviously aren't the top draws, still manage to pull the same ratings averagely as TNA iMPACT. That's not a failure. Or are we gonna have to call iMPACT a failure too now IDR? I'm sure you wouldn't wanna do that.

I understand the desire to cash in on the reality TV concept, and while on paper the concept of this show was a success, in reality, it fell far short of the bar in my opinion.

The reality television concept has worked before. Not in professional wrestling perhaps, but in the overall television product. It has managed to keep people watching, I mean why would Big Brother 2009 have pulled bigger ratings than RAW if it wasn't because it was a successful concept?

It's a shame, too – guys like Alex Riley, Kaval, Wade Barrett, etc. don't need this type of incredibly cheesy, incredibly gimmicky introduction into the world of pro-wrestling at all – all they needed was a reason to exist, and if WWE creative couldn't possibly think of one for any of them, I have no idea what that says for WWE creative other than "Wow".

Cheesy and gimmicky introduction? What in the world makes you say that? At least it got us to know about them, at least it garnered a bit of interest around them. It gives us a time to make an opinion about them. If we're gonna be watching them in the future, why not hype it a bit? Or are you gonna tell me that Vignittes have never worked before?

Thoughts on NXT, it's past success and it's future potential?

It still has a potential for a good future. I'm not sure whether WWE is gonna continue the concept, but thus far it has been just fine. It has managed to pull the ratings, create stars, and keep people buzzing about it. There's actually people becoming fans of these wrestlers as we write this. I liked Alex Riley rather quickly, I grew on Wade Barrett. I lost interest in Bryan Danielson. How is that not creating an opinion, and making a success out of a product?

Hell Wade Barrett thanks to NXT is now one of my top 5 favorite wrestlers currently active. That's not a failure.

 

[Reddannihilation]

Unlike Evan Bourne, who for a while wrestled matches where crowds were silent until the Shooting Star Press is hit, Justin Gabriel wrestles an exciting style and has a tremendous punctuation with the 450. He's a US Title contender in 3 years.

Hell no, Justin Gabriel, like Evan Bourne, is a WWE-ized version of a ROH spot-monkey. He'll be exactly like Bourne, thrown around as the ultimate under-dog, used as a jobber like Bourne was and maybe if he somehow manages to please someone like John Cena he might get the mid-card push Evan Bourne is getting. But considering that both Bourne and Gabriel have zero personality and Bourne's stuff in ROH was better than Gabriel's NXT and FCW stuff combined I'm quite comfortable in saying that Justin Gabriel will more than likely spend his entire career a mid-card jobber.

Despite being green in the ring, both David Otunga and Skip Sheffield are natural heels who would transition just fine to the big leagues. Otunga is used to success in the spotlight and will be able to parle himself into a major player within 3-4 years, provided he shores up his in-ring style.

I can possibly see Otunga getting the Batista push, he's shitty in the ring but he's able to talk around some of it. That being said Batista was slightly better in ring and had the extra help of being on the good side of HHH, unless Otunga can rope himself some backstage support he won't be going anywhere fast. Sheffield will go the way of Gene Snitsky, Heidenreich and Mike Knox.

Darren Young and Heath Slater are my question marks. I don't see much from them, unless the Light-heavyweight title returns. I don't buy Slater as a heel, but as a face he'd be as blah as Ricky Ortiz was. Darren Young is a diet-version of Orlando Jordan.

These two are more or less locks for failure.

Tarver is a wild card. No clue.

Maybe the WWE can strike up a deal with Capcom and turn Tarver into Balrog, they could even change Dolph Ziggler into Ken and Yoshi Tatsu into Ryu, nothing like a flash paper hadouken for the 3 count.

But take to the bank that WWE used NXT to create future champions in Barrett, Gabriel, Sheffeild, and Otunga.

Hell no.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

They've had greater success because...wait for it...they've been around longer.

And? What's wrong with that? It's called cutting your teeth – something the Nexus group has failed to do.

I think you're dead wrong, but even if you were correct, even ONE main-eventer coming from just a FEW MONTHS of programming makes it worth while.

Time will tell, but that same superstardom could have been achieved via a debut just as it was with guys like Kane. Who a guy debuts against has a huge affect on their future in the event they're debuted in a long-term program.

One successful contestant from the show still doesn't make the program itself a success, either.

You claimed NXT was a failure. I was stating that despite the low ratings, it was just as watched as the competitions main show. That's how business works, and that's what success and failure are based on in a corporation.

It's a cop out, IC, and you know it – TNA has no bearing on the success or failure of NXT – they're hardly even in direct competition. TNA's flagship show is iMPACT!, and WWE's is RAW – those two can be compared easily, but to use TNA as a marker for NXT's success is a cop out.

 

[Chill]

Say what you will, but I've enjoyed NXT thus far (give or take one or two things), especially NXT Season 2. When I'm judging whether something has been a success or failure, I tend to ask the question, 'do I enjoy it?' and to be honest, I've found NXT to be an entertaining concept and that's all I can ask for at the end of the day.

WWECW needed to go, I don't know what it was (in fact I do, it was nothing to do with the original ECW and it largely featured low card acts who couldn't quite cut it on Raw or Smackdown, so ECW was their last hope before they received the pink slip. Perhaps that's why I disliked WWECW, as it felt like a burial ground for the WWE midcarders before they were fired....that's just what the show felt like to me, obviously you could say at least the mid carders (e.g. Matt Hardy, Kane, Henry etc) were given something to do on ECW but to me, the show just felt lethargic, as if it needed a good kick up the arse and thankfully it would receive one) but near the end, despite the good work of Christian and a few others, it was floundering....the show was in my opinion, in need of a fairly serious revamp and thankfully, that's what it got.

While NXT might not exactly be drawing more impressive ratings than the WWECW, I still find it to be a better concept. At least with NXT, WWE have managed to create a brand dedicated to discovering younger talents...when I think NXT, I think 'Right, I'm going to be tuning in to see the new guys', I know I wont be seeing the regulars of Raw and SD (save the WWE Pros) and that is refreshing. At the end of the day, yes, WWE probably could have run a series of vignettes and brought guys like Barrett and Kaval up to Raw and Smackdown the traditional way but at the same time, they needed a new show to replace ECW and NXT is the perfect replacement I feel. Will they keep NXT? Who knows, they'll need to find a cable company who will air the show obviously but I do think NXT has been more successful than ECW, despite the ratings, certainly it has been a success in my eyes.

 

[FightOwensFight]

Let me get this straight. Just because a TNA fan starts a post talking about their perceived failure of a WWE program the WWE fans aren't within their right to then bring up the ratings of TNA's only show? How does that make any sense? If you are using ratings as a portion of the basis for your arguement than using them as a counter-arguement it just as valid. And before anyone attacks me, I do enjoy TNA as well as WWE, so I am not a mark for either company.

Getting that out of the way, I don't see how you can suggest that NXT is a failure. It is a show that is at least 75% centered around the rookies (yes the pro's are there), but the rookies are involved in some way in each match as well as all the "challenges", and it has the same ratings as a show full of nothing but established WWE talent (with the occasional introduction of someone new).

As others have pointed out, this show has already produced one main-event level performer in Barrett and has numerous others that could easily be slotted into the mid to upper-midcard scene if not higher (McGillicutty, Riley, Kaval, Danielson if he comes back). It seems to me that NXT is a good way to allow the next generation of WWE "Superstars" to be introduced to the WWE fans without them being drowned out by the current ones.

Is this a different way of doing it? Of course. But when all is said and done, I don't see how a show that could inject new blood into the various strata of superstardom could be considered a failure.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Just because NXT screamed somewhat of a reality show. It remains to be professional wrestling, a thing that needs to be booked in some manner. Because in the end of the day WWE has to think of their future. If they do not believe in someone, why in the world would they want him on their main roster? This is simply a show to get the person over with the crowd, and a show that will build future stars. It's working as well. Hence not a failure.

So a reality based concept can't be contrived or scripted, is what you're saying? I disagree, whole-heartedly. If WWE knew they wanted Riley to win, he could be booked to do so by beating all his competitors, and the other competition could beat other competition on the program in the same effect that's accomplished on TUF. Hell, you could even seed the winners/losers – once someone loses twice, for example, they're off the show entirely. Works for me. Better than carrying fucking beer kegs, Ferbian – I'm sorry, but that's downright pathetic. I don't watch wrestling to see that garbage, I watch to see wrestling. Most importantly, I watch to see personality.

Again, it's failed to surpass the ratings it's failure of a predecessor was raking in in it's dying days – the show is a failure.

The drama doesn't always have to be based around reality to create a proper product. There's been material on there that people have found to be garbage. But there's certainly also stuff that the people on this forum have liked. There were reality introduced in the way that Bryan Danielson spoke the truth of how WWE functions basically. There has been kayfabe walls broken down (As D-man so nicely put it).

If that's not reality and tension building in some manner. I really would just love for you to show me what is IDR.

Yeah, and how far did that go, exactly? Lead to his firing – outside of that, it's back to status quo for NXT. Breaking the walls of kayfabe doesn't make the programming great, either – they still muddy the water every time they force them to perform mundane and irrelevant tasks like that beer-keg carry.

Sure the challenges might be bullshit. But it's a way to bring a twist to the product that can very well create a bit of reality to a product. It's rather hard to book anything of that manner except someone perhaps tripping. But to book a time on how someone performs. Or to book how someone gets a reaction from the crowd. That's something I would love to see a script on.

...and it's failing, because it's failing to capitalize on the market share available to it. Raw pulls 3.1's, NXT fails to even meet half of that, so how is this a success? Oh right, it created Wade Barrett... so it's OK to ignore the fact that 85% of the show is inconsequential garbage?

As for booking the show to be better than it is – that's not my problem, but I guarantee it can be done.

The show is partially centered around the professional wrestlers that have experience because, guess what. It draws ratings. In the end of the day that is all that matters to a product, the ratings. Not whether a wrestling program can come off realistic because we've already determined that the common wrestling fan knows deep down, it's fake. So why shouldn't they try to build the winner around the script, and not who can wrestle someone to the ground in what would end up becoming more of an amateur wrestling match. Because let's face it, if you know how to sell it enough to stay fresh and not too hurt, then how the hell are you gonna stay down? Amateur wrestling would be the only way it functions. And guess what? a large portion of those people most likely wouldn't be able to hold a candle to an amateur wrestler.

Also the show does focus around the rookie more than the professional. All in all they are the product, and the professional is only there for the sake of teaching, and to pull the ratings. As well as to help establish someone, because in the end what would you get the most out of? Fighting a former world champion? Or fighting a guy who's been wrestling in front of 100 people for the majority of his career? A guy nobody knows of.

Wrong, the show is centered around professional wrestlers the WWE perceives as "rookies", a number of which are not – Danielson, Kaval, etc. have all toured the world before. Only in the fabulous bubble that is WWE does this get dragged through the mud as to mean nothing, because apparently if you've never wrestled for the WWE before, you've never wrestled, and you are a nobody.

It also does not draw ratings, Ferb – it draws the same ratings as it's failure of a predecessor in it's dying days – that is in no conceivable way consideration for success to me. None. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how you can call this anything but a spade, seeing as it's just that – a spade.

False. NXT has been doing just fine, they've build arguably one of the biggest heel associations in WWE right now. The Nexus, they are over, and they're over rather well. That's a failure? Not a chance.

Yeah, and? Says nothing of NXT – says something of what happened as a result of it, but the NXT program itself gained nothing from Nexus, as the ratings for Group 2 are no better than they were for Group 1. Again, failure.

I'd also contend that something like Nexus could have been accomplished through alternative means just fine. Had each of those members jobbed repeatedly to a star, or stars, who subsequently disrespected them publicly in the ring, and ran them down verbally for the world to hear, them all returning angry and pissed for this very reason would have worked, and none of us would have had to suffer through the childish nonsense put forth by NXT in the process.

They have put these guys on the map. The Nexus storyline, from a bunch of guys that have been competing on NXT, has managed to up the ratings just a little bit on RAW. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me. And it's because people know of them.

See above.

The ratings may be the same. But the product is still just fine, all in all it is still rookies and a few pros (Where the majority of them aren't even the biggest names worth watching). To say that a few unknown guys and a few pros that obviously aren't the top draws, still manage to pull the same ratings averagely as TNA iMPACT. That's not a failure. Or are we gonna have to call iMPACT a failure too now IDR? I'm sure you wouldn't wanna do that.

Again, iMPACT! is irrelevant to this discussion. This is little more than a cop out argument from WWE apologists who refuse to see the wrong in their own product.

It still has a potential for a good future. I'm not sure whether WWE is gonna continue the concept, but thus far it has been just fine. It has managed to pull the ratings, create stars, and keep people buzzing about it. There's actually people becoming fans of these wrestlers as we write this. I liked Alex Riley rather quickly, I grew on Wade Barrett. I lost interest in Bryan Danielson. How is that not creating an opinion, and making a success out of a product?

Hell Wade Barrett thanks to NXT is now one of my top 5 favorite wrestlers currently active. That's not a failure.

Again, wrong – it's pulled marginal ratings. That's hardly a success.

Are you telling me had any of the aforementioned stars debuted elsewhere, you'd never have supported them? What if Riley debuted a la Truth via vignettes? Pretty sure, just as I noted before, had it been done, you'd have been just as OK with it, and just as big a fan, and never have had to suffer through NXT in the process.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Let me get this straight. Just because a TNA fan starts a post talking about their perceived failure of a WWE program the WWE fans aren't within their right to then bring up the ratings of TNA's only show? How does that make any sense? If you are using ratings as a portion of the basis for your arguement than using them as a counter-arguement it just as valid. And before anyone attacks me, I do enjoy TNA as well as WWE, so I am not a mark for either company.

TNA's ratings have absolutely no bearing on the success or failure of NXT for a couple of reasons:

1. They are not in direct competition with each other. iMPACT! is TNA's flagship show, and RAW is WWE's – to compare those two is one thing, but to compare the WWE's C or D-show to TNA's A show simply to try to somehow discredit TNA and deflect blame where said C or D-show fails to reach the same success as the A or B-show (or in this case, the previous C or D-show) is a cop out.

2. The discussion is about whether or not NXT – it's concept and execution – is a success or failure, not about whether or not it's better than the perceived competition in TNA.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

IDR, do I need to educate you on marketing 101 again?

DIRECT competition isn't the only type of competition out there. There are three types of competition. Direct, indirect, and monetary.

Direct competition is what Raw was to Impact when they went head to head. It's coke vs pepsi. Similar products, choose one or the other.

Indirect competition involves the fulfillment of a similar need. THAT is what NXT can be to TNA. A lot of people tout TNA's ability to showcase 'young' talent, but if NXT can do that, why watch TNA? And you don't think the fact that NXT's ratings have been on par with the flagship show of WWE's #1 competitor is a barometer of success? You're dreaming.

The last type of competition is monetary, or "dollar competition." It states that each person only has a certain amount of discretionary income and discretionary time to spend in total, and even products that are unrelated compete for limited dollars and moments.

Don't dismiss my argument because you think TNA isn't in competition with NXT, because it is. Maybe not direct competition, but if I only budget 3 hours per week to watch pro wrestling (a fact in the case of yours truly) and I choose Raw and NXT instead of Raw and Impact, you can see how that would have an effect, no?

Class dismissed.

 

[Ferbian]

So a reality based concept can't be contrived or scripted, is what you're saying? I disagree, whole-heartedly. If WWE knew they wanted Riley to win, he could be booked to do so by beating all his competitors, and the other competition could beat other competition on the program in the same effect that's accomplished on TUF. Hell, you could even seed the winners/losers – once someone loses twice, for example, they're off the show entirely. Works for me. Better than carrying fucking beer kegs, Ferbian – I'm sorry, but that's downright pathetic. I don't watch wrestling to see that garbage, I watch to see wrestling. Most importantly, I watch to see personality.

All in all professional wrestling cannot go without being scripted. Therefore a complete reality show based around wrestling cannot happen. A reality show basically should be drifting by itself to create a product that is conceived as completely real. Wrestling is not completely real, and the common fan knows it. Why try to make it so?

I've said it before, NXT is not completely reality show. I said it in this very argument IDR, so of course WWE can go around and script it completely like they want to, creating the stars they want to. Which is the purpose of NXT, creating the stars of the future that WWE can benefit from.

And the competition things is awful, I agree whole-heartedly with that. But it doesn't change the fact that it at least puts the reality basic just a little bit more forward. While remaining somewhat scripted in the way that you can tell Bryan Danielson to fuck around and act like stupid while he's loosing completely.

Again, it's failed to surpass the ratings it's failure of a predecessor was raking in in it's dying days – the show is a failure.

The show is not a failure if it keeps pulling proper ratings enough to make sense to keep alive. WWE is selling tickets to this show, they're creating new stars, which is the whole purpose of it. How is that so hard to understand. It's fulfilling the very thing it was created to do. How is that a failure?

Yeah, and how far did that go, exactly? Lead to his firing – outside of that, it's back to status quo for NXT. Breaking the walls of kayfabe doesn't make the programming great, either – they still muddy the water every time they force them to perform mundane and irrelevant tasks like that beer-keg carry.

Bryan Danielson was fired for fucking up. He wasn't fired for breaking down the walls of Kayfabe. That has been done before, need I introduce you to Michael Tarver?

Sure breaking down kayfabe is not exactly what's gonna make the show great. And I'm not calling it great, I'm saying it does what it's intended purpose is. Getting newer stars over, and creating a future main event talent. Someone in here (I believe it was Redannihalation that said it (Sorry if I misspelled ya name dude) said that he'd eat his hat if Wade Barrett was more than a mid-carder at best after The Nexus breaking up, well guess what IDR. Buy the kid a hat, and bring him a fork and a knife. Wade is here to stay, and he's definitely gonna become a world champion in the future. WWE is letting him feud with John Cena alongside the faction for the love of god.

...and it's failing, because it's failing to capitalize on the market share available to it. Raw pulls 3.1's, NXT fails to even meet half of that, so how is this a success? Oh right, it created Wade Barrett... so it's OK to ignore the fact that 85% of the show is inconsequential garbage?

The fact that the whole roster of season 1 is now a part of a very successful storyline in terms of pulling better ratings. That couldn't possibly be a failure in that manner. The ratings might be one thing, but it still remains to be the 3rd rate brand after all. I'm certain if they made John Cena, Randy Orton, Triple H or Shawn Michaels when he was around, a pro. Then the ratings would be better.

As for booking the show to be better than it is – that's not my problem, but I guarantee it can be done.

Every show can be booked better. There's no possibility of reaching the top and breaking the glass roof.

Wrong, the show is centered around professional wrestlers the WWE perceives as "rookies", a number of which are not – Danielson, Kaval, etc. have all toured the world before. Only in the fabulous bubble that is WWE does this get dragged through the mud as to mean nothing, because apparently if you've never wrestled for the WWE before, you've never wrestled, and you are a nobody.

They're rookies in performing in front of such large crowds. Justin Gabriel was probably just fine around the FCW roster, but he's insecure around the WWE Universe. How is that not a rookie in a professionals world? They all have to adapt to something new, hos is that not being a rookie around a bunch of professional people's world?

Of course you're not a nobody if you haven't wrestled for the WWE before. WWE just does not credit anything done out of their company. In some manner it's a smart thing because promoting something else (*COUGH* Like TNA does *COUGH*) creates the potential of people tuning away.

It also does not draw ratings, Ferb – it draws the same ratings as it's failure of a predecessor in it's dying days – that is in no conceivable way consideration for success to me. None. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how you can call this anything but a spade, seeing as it's just that – a spade.

It does draw ratings. How is a 1.0 not a rating ? It may not be drawing the better ratings compared to the other show. But it is still drawing the ratings. The fact that ECW was a failure is because it was build on hardcore wrestling. NXT is build on creating future stars. Something it is doing just great at, as opposed to what ECW managed to do in it's dying days.

Yeah, and? Says nothing of NXT – says something of what happened as a result of it, but the NXT program itself gained nothing from Nexus, as the ratings for Group 2 are no better than they were for Group 1. Again, failure.

How does that not say anything of NXT? People learned of them. They became something through the period of time that NXT was on, and therefore it makes a way for the WWE Universe easier to connect together with the faction when they know of them, rather than some nobodies that they have to learn of with time. Did you not see that they got instant heat? Heat they have been building through NXT.

I'd also contend that something like Nexus could have been accomplished through alternative means just fine. Had each of those members jobbed repeatedly to a star, or stars, who subsequently disrespected them publicly in the ring, and ran them down verbally for the world to hear, them all returning angry and pissed for this very reason would have worked, and none of us would have had to suffer through the childish nonsense put forth by NXT in the process.

Of course it could've been accomplished through something else. But would they really have gotten over in the same manner that they did through NXT? I doubt it, I mean it took Sheamus a while to get over even after he started feuding with John Cena. But it didn't take very long for The Nexus to get over through John Cena, it was practically instant.

Again, iMPACT! is irrelevant to this discussion. This is little more than a cop out argument from WWE apologists who refuse to see the wrong in their own product.

You know damn well I'm no WWE apologist. I'm just fine with all TNA is doing. I've said that numerous times, even if something is shit and obvious at that, in the end of the day, I don't care. The fact that NXT, a 3rd brand show, is pulling the same ratings averagely as the premiere show of WWE's supposed competition. That's impressive, real impressive.

Again, wrong – it's pulled marginal ratings. That's hardly a success.

Again, they're accomplishing what the product is created to do. That is a success.

Are you telling me had any of the aforementioned stars debuted elsewhere, you'd never have supported them? What if Riley debuted a la Truth via vignettes? Pretty sure, just as I noted before, had it been done, you'd have been just as OK with it, and just as big a fan, and never have had to suffer through NXT in the process.

Of course I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that NXT helped with it all. In the end of the day the vignittes as well as the slow introduction for them to build themselves against equals and not jobbers (THANK GOD). That has helped with it all. Rather than watching a guy bashing against a jobber for 3 minutes to fail to look dominant, because guess what. He got no competition doing that, and he didn't get over. Vignittes as well as equal competition has worked in the past. And NXT proves that it works now.

 

[FightOwensFight]

TNA's ratings have absolutely no bearing on the success or failure of NXT for a couple of reasons:

1. They are not in direct competition with each other. iMPACT! is TNA's flagship show, and RAW is WWE's – to compare those two is one thing, but to compare the WWE's C or D-show to TNA's A show simply to try to somehow discredit TNA and deflect blame where said C or D-show fails to reach the same success as the A or B-show (or in this case, the previous C or D-show) is a cop out.

2. The discussion is about whether or not NXT – it's concept and execution – is a success or failure, not about whether or not it's better than the perceived competition in TNA.

I understand that. But, the fact remains that you reference NXT's ratings as one portion of your argument that it has failed. By doing that, you made ratings germaine to the argument. To then say "NXT's ratings suck and therefore they failed" on one hand (I know, a gross oversimplification of your argument) and then say "TNA's ratings which are basically the same are irrelevant" seems a tad contradictory. Either the ratings of a show indicate (to some degree) it's level of success or they don't.

I know I am harping on one aspect of your argument but it just seems to me that a lot of the TNA fans put down WWE programming for one reason or another and then say it isn't appropriate to use the same criteria when judging the TNA product. And yes, I do understand that your post wasn't about whether NXT was better or worse than TNA Impact!

 

[gd]

Yes, ECW was a success during it's inception months. It grew downward from that day forth, and was an utter failure by it's last days, unless of course you're going to tell me Yoshi Tatsuo is a future superstar too?

Of course Yoshi is a star. He won the dark match battle royal at WM 26. Huge step for him. But anyways, ECW was a show that really helped bring new guys along, (Punk, Swagger, etc.) and also was a place for veterans to revitilze their careers somewhat (Hardy, Henry, etc.) All around, good stuff.

It may be a genuinely different concept from anything we've known in pro-wrestling before, but it's failed to surpass the failing ratings of it's predecessor – how, in any conceivable way, can that be considered a success?

I believe it's one of the highest rated shows on SyFy, or something like that. Alos, it's predecessor was a success, so if it matches it in ratings and is just as entertaining, but puts a different twist on things, that's a success.

And had they debuted in the traditional route, a number would have been let go by now – namely the Rocker guy, Otunga, the Black Cena, etc. because none of them have what it takes to be competing in the WWE right now. None.

But thanks to NXT, they were able to be involved in one of the biggest angles in the company. Their chances of making it now are better than ever thanks to the manner in which they debuted. Plus for NXT.

Armando Estrada was awful, but he had 100x the personality that any of these Nexus folk with the exception of Tarver or Barrett have. That alone makes him superior to the remainder.

He's no Skip Sheffield.

So I suppose those same fans had the same reaction with Kane/Undertaker, DDP/Undertaker, etc., then?

If Kaval debuted as a feaky looking seven footer in the late 80s/early 90s, he'd do just fine.

Doesn't need to be complete to have been a failure – I'm speculating, obviously, that the lack of personality in the others will ultimately lead to their future endeavorment.

I'd say at least 4 of them will have a future with the company in the long run. Anytime you can create 4 new stars within a 6 month period, you're doing just fine. Even if only 2 or 3 of them make it, it should be considered a success.

 

[HBKevin]

WWECW outlived its purpose and needed to be replaced. Only for the first little while of new ECW did it have any resemblance to old ECW. It then just became a standard show for the developmental call-ups. Nothing extreme about it and rather than just renaming it, they decided to try a reality or training concept. I think NXT is about the best way they can introduce FCW guys in groups to WWE programming.

It's based around elimination, which is scripted I'm sure, no matter what they say about the Universe and pros having half the vote. That means, WWE creative/talent relations cuts the weakest links as the show goes on over the weeks. With Nexus, they decided to use them all for an angle, which won't go on past a certain point. Then Barrett and a couple others will remain on the main roster. The purpose of a C show, whether it be WWECW, NXT or whatever, is simply to gradually introduce FCW call-ups who are still sort of green and not used to working on WWE TV, instead of bringing them directly to SmackDown or Raw, and then releasing half of them within a very short time period to go back to FCW or leave the WWE system entirely.

It makes sense, not to waste time and hype on debuting wrestlers on the two main shows, who are released shortly after. There are exceptions, like Alberto Del Rio, because he's Dos Caras Jr., and they know exactly how good he is in the ring, even if his promos annoy people.