Hopefully this isnt going to turn into an attempt to sweep those arguments he didnt have time to respond to under the carpet.
Oh man, PLEASE don't flatter yourself. I don't sweep any arguments, and if you're actually calling them arguments then it's a stretch.
Im going to try and steer this away from quoting massive chunks of text. Im not convinced that it makes things easier to follow, and anyone whos got this far into the debate has presumably already read all of the above posts, so Im just going to highlight the key points and be done with it.
Well, Gelgarin seems pretty determined to go after the clarity points, tuh-huh.
He then goes on to demonstrate this depth by providing a list that included Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, X-Pac, The Dudley Boys, Kane, Rikishi and Scott Steiner.
Hall, Nash, and X-Pac were the nWo in WWE, which at the time was a big deal. I don't expect you to understand that, since you yourself admitted to not having watched wrestling during the brand split. If you were to look at these names in terms of TODAY, sure, it wouldn't be much, but the nWo was still a big deal in wrestling, even in 2002-2003, especially with Hogan's face turn following Wrestlemania X8.
The Dudley Boyz were one MAJOR part of the three headed monster of terrific tag team wrestling that was the early '00's, and save for a brief split during which D-Von was asked to mentor Dave Batista, they are the only team that truly stayed in tact, whereas the Hardys and Edge & Christian were split up. Having the top tag team on your show was a HUGE deal during the brand split.
Scott Steiner had just recently been WCW World Champion on a few occassions and one of their top heels. He would come over to WWE, tip the brand split scales in Eric Bischoff's favor until Brock Lesnar signed exclusively with Smackdown, and feuded with Triple H for the World Heavyweight Title.
It's an amazing hypocrisy that you accuse ME of invalidating my argument after stating that you never even watched the original brand split years and clearly displaying zero research or knowledge on the topic. It's ok if you don't know, just don't throw punches and then expect not to be called on it.
2008
Gelgarin posted the main events of the PPV's in 2008 in an attempt to prove that the roster is actually somehow DEEPER than it was during the brand split era PPV's. I appreciate Gelgarin doing my leg work for me.
# of times HHH/Orton, HHH/Cena, or Orton/Cena appears in some form = 6
This is the type of thing that has wrestling fans complaining about PPV main events getting stale and repetitive, and yet here you are, wanting to further segregate the two rosters without the possibility of inter-brand PPV matches outside of "The Big 4."
Now call me mister crazy if you like, but I think that, taken in isolation, at least two thirds of the matches presented there are strong enough to headline a PPV. Especially in comparison to matches such as Triple H against Kevin Nash (twice!), or Undertaker against The Dudley Body. Hell, they had to resort to giving Hardcore Holly a title match.
1. HHH vs Nash was a big deal at the time, because it was a match pitting two former "kliq" members against each other, and the champions of two different eras against each other. Again, you weren't watching when it originally happened, but it was a big deal because it hadn't happened yet. Just like HHH / Steiner and HHH / Goldberg.
2. Undertaker vs The Dudleyz is the single match that actually does the MOST damage to YOUR argument, so I'm shocked you'd bring it up. That abortion of a main event at the Great American Bash was the direct result of the brand-split PPV's not working because it exposed the sickening lack of depth a singe-branded PPV card had.
Not having a deep enough roster (which the WWE do) is not a long term threat.
Having a repetitive and stale roster that cannot elevate fresh talent is.
I get accused of using the term "smoke and mirrors" a lot, so I'll avoid it. What I will call this, however, is you blatantly arguing the entirely wrong debate. We're not talking about ending the brand-split itself. You're supposed to be arguing brand-specific PPV's. CM Punk, John Morrison, The Miz, Kofi Kingston, Sheamus, Drew McIntyre, MVP, Legacy, Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, Eric Escobar, Evan Bourne. That's a list of quasi main event and mid-card "stars" that have been created as of late. ALL of them were created AFTER the WWE abandonned the brand-specific PPV's because there is enough time on TV to do it. WWE can elevate fresh talent on television and these guys have the chance to EARN their way onto the tri-branded PPV's.
Another point I'd like to make is that
brand specific PPV's make it easier for lower level talent to make it onto the PPV, thus tarnishing the accomplishment. When 8-9 matches have to be split between 3 brands, a spot on the PPV is more coveted. It's a damn fine accomplishment. A brand-specific PPV is nothing more than a glorified 3-hour version of a TV show.
Irish claims that people wouldnt want to buy brand exclusive PPVs, because it would be like paying to watch RAW or Smackdown. He claims that brand exclusive PPVs would cause buy-rates to tank, and bring the WWE trouble with its networks.
Not quite.
Yes, I feel that the brand-specific PPV's are so dilluted and so similar to weekly TV shows that charging $30-$40 for each one, each month, is an insult to fans and a poor business decision. I feel that further dilluting the cards for 8 of the 12 PPV's would lower buy rates as the numbers I provided proved. The difference certainly existed.
My assertion of the drop in TV ratings was a response to the idea that the WWE could improve buyrates by lowering the quality of the RAW and Smackdown programs to make the brand-specific PPV's look better by comparison.
Since you had some trouble with it, I'll simplify it here:
IF WWE returns to brand-specific PPV's, they will be asking fans to pay $40 for a 3-hour version of the weekly TV show.
IF WWE wants to make the PPV's seem worth the additional $40, they would have to lower the quality of the weekly TV show, which would put off the executives at UPN and USA, which in turn would anger stockholders.
I know that history isnt your strong suit, but I dont think the revelation that the WWE sold PPVs prior to 1999 should come as any great surprise.
Nice little dig there.
Just because I haven't read every book that's come out on Lou Thesz doesn't make history a weak point for me. The stark raving hypocricy that you continue to perpetuate, however, is that fact that you attack me for a lack of historical knowledge, once again, not even a day after stating quite clearly that you weren't even watching wrestling during this era. So not only was your dig petty and desperate, it was a hypocritical load of mastadon dung.
Lets take a look at the average buy rates for each year shall we?
2003 ~ 375,000
2004 ~ 325,000
2005 ~ 375,000
2006 ~ 330,000
2007 ~ 330,000
2008 ~ 330,000
Yes, lets.
I did some math as well. Let's remove Wrestlemania from each year:
2003 - Average without Wrestlemania = 358,181
2004 = 295,272
2005 = 319,636
2006 = 275,272
2007 = 316,363
2008 = 321,818
You said yourself, Wrestlemania is a draw no matter what.
We'll take 2005 as an example:
New Year's Revolution (Raw) - 272,000 buys
Royal Rumble (Co) - 332,000 buys
No Way Out (SD) - 236,000 buys
Wrestlemania 21 (Co) - 984,000 buys (highest since 1991)*
Backlash (Raw) - 324,000 buys
Judgement Day (SD) - 264,000 buys
ECW One Night Stand (Co) - 324,000 buys (pre- ECW Brand)
Vengeance (Raw) - 368,000 buys
Great American Bash (SD) - 232,000 buys
SummerSlam (Co) - 536,000 buys
Unforgiven (Raw) - 224,000 buys
No Mercy (SD) - 220,000 buys
Taboo Tuesday (Raw) - 220,000 buys (Tuesday Night PPV)*
Survivor Series (Co) - 376,000 buys
Armageddon (SD) - 292,000 buys
Average buy rate for the non-Wrestlemania co-branded shows (4) = 392,000
Average buy rate for the brand-specific shows (10) = 265,200
126,800 FEWER people purchased the brand-specific shows, on average.
And that's not being "creative" with numbers. That's just me stating what the numbers are. There are obviously other factors, but you cannot deny the fact that the brand-specific shows lagged behind the co-branded shows SIGNIFICANTLY. People can't be expected to shell out $40 to watch something they can catch on a weeknight for free.
Irish apparently cares about ECW looking legitimate.
No, I do not. But I understand business, and the fact is that WWE has a contract with the SciFi channel to run ECW, and if the show doesn't have at least a minor degree of relevance, that contract will not be renwed, business will suffer, and the stock will drop. I understand business, Gelgarin.
Irish posted a long list of numbers. During the impending exchange I hope that I can find out why.
Funny, everyone else I've spoken to who's read my post has a terrific grasp on what those numbers mean.
Now, Irish got some way through countering my last post, but because he's evidently focused upon the scoring system over the debate as a whole, he elected not to finish.
Again, don't flatter yourself. I am in my office every day from 8:00 am - 6:00 pm, and I didn't feel the final half of your "argument" was worth being in the office until 7:00 pm. I'd rather give it the time I am able to give it now.
Gelgarin said:
Splitting the PPVs had approximately no effect on the numbers drawn, but did allow the WWE elevate more talent, and keep the cards far more fluid than is the case under the present day.
Except that...
IC25 said:
CM Punk, John Morrison, The Miz, Kofi Kingston, Sheamus, Drew McIntyre, MVP, Legacy, Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, Eric Escobar, Evan Bourne. That's a list of quasi main event and mid-card "stars" that have been created as of late. ALL of them were created AFTER the WWE abandonned the brand-specific PPV's because there is enough time on TV to do it.
On we go...
You see, now you're falling into the typical IWC folly of assuming that anyone not at the top of the card lacks the potential to get over.
For your benefit then, I'll present two different examples that you will find harder to brush off. Benoit and Punk.
You're comparing Mike Knox, Jimmy Wang Yang, and Carlito to Chris Benoit and CM Punk? I hope you're kidding.
Under the brand extension Chris Benoit was able to get over enough to actually win the world title and Wrestlemania. He remained at the top of the card throughout the entire time. Once the exclusive PPVs drew to a close, there was no longer room to keep him over, so he was relegated to mid-card fueds over the US title, before finally being drafted to ECW.
It's statements like these that still have me wondering exactly how you'd feel qualified to question MY grasp on history.
The brand-exclusive PPV's had NOTHING to do with Benoit's success. He was already a major player, had already won a World Title, and had already had several top notch feuds with Chris Jericho and others. He won the Royal Rumble - a co branded event - to earn a title shot at Wrestlemania - a co branded event.
As a result of the brand-specific PPV's, Benoit only had ONE successful PPV title defense - Bad Blood 2004 against Kane - in a night where, because of dilluted talent pools, he had to wrestle TWICE. He and Edge faced La Resistance for the Tag Titles in the opener, and then he beat Kane. Incidentally, that PPV also featured an 8-minute confrontation between Eugene and Jonathan Coachman.
Benoit dropped the title at SummerSlam 2004. The brand-specific PPV's didn't end until 2007 - more than 2 years after Benoit dropped the World Title. So you're assertion that the lack of room for Benoit at the top was a result of the end of the brand-specific PPV's is so far off base it's hard to believe someone with your reputation would have ever posted it.
Under the current system, CM Punk has twice been pushed to world championship gold. During both of his title reigns he has managed to get over with the crowd, and as soon as both of his title reigns have come to a close he has found himself shunted back into meaningless mid-card programs. These include being a part of a meritless tag team with Kofi Kingston, and feuding with stars such as R-Truth and a god-damn referee.
Punk never worked a brand-exclusive PPV. He made his PPV debut at December to Dismember 2006, which featured all three brands. He was at Survivor Series as part of team DX, the Rumble, and then the Money in the Bank match at Wrestlemania. He was on ECW until well after the brand-specific PPV's ended.
Point - The Brand split itself helped to elevate Punk, but he didn't become a star until WELL after the brand-specific PPV's ended. We're not debating the merits of the brand split itself, just the brand-specific PPV's, which Punk had no involvement in. Please try to stay on topic!
Right now the WWE's bulbous mass of stale main eventers means that they simply do not have space to maintain much of their roster.
Tell that to Kofi Kingston, who defeated CM Punk AND Randy Orton at the tri-branded Survivor Series, AND to WWE Title #1 Contender Seamus, who earned a shot at John Cena last night on Raw. There's two elevations to Main Event status that didn't require brand-specific PPV's!
The WWE has been trying to create stars on TV for a couple of years now. Hasn't worked. The only thing close to success they've achieved was with Jeff Hardy, and he didn't start getting taken seriously until they started letting him main event PPVs.
But, but, you just claimed that Punk was a created star, too. Now you're crossing messages. See:
Gelgarin said:
Under the current system, CM Punk has twice been pushed to world championship gold. During both of his title reigns he has managed to get over with the crowd...
Strange.
Now, before I place a dagger in your side with this debate, let me hit the points I didn't have time to respond to last night.
Im a realistic man. I recognise that, when the brand split was last attempted it wasnt perfect, and one of the reasons for that was because the two shows were never truly allowed to compete with one another. It was always made very clear that RAW was the A show, and as such Smackdown! PPVs often felt somewhat limp by comparison.
So you realize that, because Raw is live AND on a Monday Night AND on cable, it's going to be a higher quality product than Smackdown, which is taped and aired on a Friday Night on Network TV. The TV contract with USA is worth so much money to the WWE right now, Raw is going to continue to be the "A" show.
Right now Smackdown and RAW are offering noticeably different products, with the former offering a more traditional wrestling product, whilst the latter focuses on
some kind of celebrity based crash TV with extra Hornswoggle(sp?). If the two shows are going to take such different paths, it only makes sense to have them promote different pay of shows.
Now this is actually an interesting point on your part. But here's the thing - the PPV's are about blowing off feuds and occassionally a major event to build up towards future shows. And yes, the products are different with Raw using more storyline-based TV and Smackdown using more wrestling. You've described their TV differences perfectly.
But having co-branded and tri-branded PPV's forces the brands to save their major storylines for the PPV's and not waste time on the PPV's with the stuff they do on free TV. This speaks to my point that a Raw- or Smackdown-specific PPV would feel just like the TV show. A Raw PPV would feature the same types of skits and vignettes as the Monday Night show does. Hornswoggle and all, God help us.
There is a certain level of prestige to making an appearance on a major, co-branded or tri-branded PPV, because the way things are now, it's harder to do. Take away that exclusivity? Take away the acheivement.
Or, rather than having half the fans watch half the PPV's, and the other half watch the other half of the PPV's, and some fans just outright refuse to spend the $40 for a show they can see for free during the week, the WWE chose to once again run ALL PPV's with ALL talent to attract ALL fans to the PPV. A HUGE reason I like to watch WWE PPV's now is because it keeps me in touch with the Smackdown talents I don't get to see each week because I am out Friday Nights.
And this leads me to my final, massive research point:
http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_03_14.jsp said:
March 14, 2007 STAMFORD, Conn., March 14, 2007 - In the spirit that has made WrestleMania the premier brand in the pay-per-view industry, every future World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-views will feature talent and storylines from all three WWE programs: -- Monday Night RAW®, Friday Night SmackDown®, and ECW®: Extreme Championship Wrestling.
Starting with Backlash® on April 29, WWE fans will see all their favorite Superstars on every pay-per-view. This is a change from 2005 and 2006, when only four of WWEs 16 pay-per-views featured talent from more than one WWE brand.
We have seen over the past two years that WWE pay-per-views have significantly better buy rates when more than one WWE brand is involved, said Kurt Schneider, Executive Vice President, Marketing. WrestleMania, with an average of one million buys per event over the past three years, is the perfect example. This new direction will give our fans more of what they want in every one of our pay-per-views.
The floor is yours. I hope you come with more substance and fewer childish digs.