WWE House Shows are an absolute Ripoff to the fans

[DirtyJosé]

I would just say that going to a house show, you should know what you are getting into. However, if you are paying as much as TV live/tapings would be there is obviously a problem.

I wonder how much of the production differences between a show like Raw and a house show are there because of the funding Raw may/may not receive from USA Networks/Advertisement to produce.

In any case, while many of the OP's suggestions would do wonders for the product, I don't believe all of them could be done at a reasonable expense on the part of WWE. Perhaps the reason many of the past house shows were so fulfilling because WWE wasn't spreading its attention and its funding between 4 weekly TV shows and monthly PPVs at the same time. It seems they have switched their focus to TV, and sadly the house show scene suffers for it.

 

[XgringolocoX]

I think both sides here have valid points. I've stated that my latest experience at a house show was poor. It was not worth the 6o bucks per head. If the price reflected the show quality I'd have no complaint.

It seems those that have had a great experience were in a large market, close to a big PPv, or both. I would think that in preperation for a big show the house shows leading up to it would have more to them as a natural preparation for said event. Oh, and please don't use meeting wrestlers at some restaurant after the event in your arguement. As cool as that was, it was not part of the house show. Irrelevant to the topic.

What I think Lord Sid is getting at is that if small house shows aren't going to bring the A game, have the price reflect that. I wouldn't expect cell matches, pyro or the tron but some story and interaction with the crowd shouldn't be a question.

If you paid 40-60 bucks to see your favorite band and they played for 20 minutes, you'd feel ripped off and be pissed as well.

 

[gd]

I agree with some stuff Sid said, but certainly not all of it.

You are basically paying the same or probably LESS to go to TV than to go to a House Show, where you get MORE ... MUCH MORE ... for your money. Superior production values, more talent, a longer show, the glitz and the glamor of TV, and the big names.

This is one of the biggest things wrong with House Shows, there is no reason they should cost anywhere near as much as regular TV tapings or PPVs. They are obviously a 2nd rate show, so them costing as much as the big shows simply doesn't make sense.



Seriously, if you are a casual fan, why bother wasting your money?

1) Do occasional title changes at House Shows.

That sends a clear message to the audience that ANYTHING can happen at a WWE event.

And for all the people who bitch and whine about not seeing it on TV, TOO FUCKING BAD. Maybe this will encourage you to go to the next House Show when it hits your market, and maybe you will see something new happen, as well. The Unpredictability and feeling that "Anything can Happen at ANYTIME" factor is MORE important to me than you seeing EVERY title change on TV.


Announce the title change on TV and if a camera is there, show some of the footage on Raw, Smackdown, or ECW.

This seems just stupid to me. Why would you have a title change, which is a big event, occur at a house show? How can you just say that it's "TOO FUCKING BAD" for the people that weren't there? If there is a house show in California, am I supposed to go all the way out there to see a title change? All title changes at House Shows will do is cheapen the title and the champion.

2) Start preparing the cards in advance and make it mandatory to have the cards POSTED on the WWE website, at least 2 months in advance.

Maybe that way, it shows the audience that the WWE actually cares about their House Shows, and aren't treating them like the second-rate events they are today. And if a title changes, then there is always the CARD SUBJECT TO CHANGE rule which can be enforced.

2 months in advance? When PPVs are only made a few weeks in advance, this seems a bit ridiculous to suggest. I agree that they shouldn't simply announce the card the day of, but a week in advance would be just fine.

3) Even though we know not to expect the full lighting rig and stage/ramp setup brought to TV, at least consistently put up the miniature stage setup used at all the International tours which features a lighted up entranceway.

At least do SOME effects for the audience in exchange for not bringing any pyro or the regular entrance lights. The least you can do is have some lights at the gateway around the entrance.

Agree here, WWE certainly has the resources to put on some type of production at each show, it's obviously just a lack of caring/effort.

4) Work actual interview segments onto the shows.

People cutting some promos before their matches are no longer sufficient. Put the Abraham Washington Show on the Smackdown/ECW House Show circuit while sending Josh Matthews to Raw. Have interviewers interview talent AS THEY ARE COMING TO THE RING to hype the match even more.

Instead of getting talent to JUST practice for their matches, here is an opportunity for talent to "practice" their mic skills, as well.

I completely agree here, but from what people have said in this thread, there have been promos at House Shows.

5) Plan for some special entrances for talents

Same thing as the production value idea.

6) Hype the House Show cards on television

Each and every week, Raw should run down their events, and Smackdown should run down their events on TV ... instead of refusing to acknowledge them ... instead of just flashing them up on a screen. What is more effective? Doing that or having an announcer quickly run them down?

This would only take like 20 seconds and should certainly be done. TNA usually promotes it's House Shows on TV.

It is HIGH TIME that WWE stop worrying about taking people for their money, and offering NOTHING in return ... and start turning House Shows into actual events-- events in which unpredictable THINGS ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

Even though I agree with some things you've said here, I definetly don't think you're completely right. Judging from posts in this thread, it seems like a fair share of people have had great times at House Shows. It's not about titles changes or furthering storylines, that's what weekly shows are for, it's about giving the fans a chance to see their favorite stars live. For those people who are huge WWE fans, simply going to an event is enough for them.

I'm sure that there are some people like you who wouldn't be satisfied with simply going to an event, but what more do you expect? Sure, there are a few little things WWE can do to improve their House Shows like putting in a little more time and effort, but there is not going to be a complete transformation and there shouldn't be. House Shows are different now than they were in the 80s and 90s. Title changes won't and shouldn't happen there as 99% of the audience won't be able to see this. It's a different time in wrestling and you can't expect House Shows to experience a "Golden Era" again.

 

[Coco]

Random thoughts coming up.

-I'm not one to complain about lack-luster staging at all. I think what we see on TV is far too gaudy, and while a black curtain is the other extreme, it's more intimate and makes you feel closer to the wrester's. Not everything needs to be about lights and pyro, etc. The show should speak for itself. The European staging might be a nice step up, but it's still not a hill I'm willing to die on. If the show is good, then I'll forget about the staging. I don't pay to see the tron.

-Title changes wouldn't be my answer for anything. We have enough changes as it is, and all another unimportant title change done at a house show does is further devalue the belts. If anything, I think title matches at house shows should be done away with for the most part. Have maybe one title match a month at a house show while building the titles back up on TV. When a title match is announced for a show in your area, it should scream "must see." This, of course, is in an ideal world where title belts are given some serious thought by creative.

-Angles should be worked into house shows. Remember Eddie's mother having a hard attack during a confrontation with JBL? There should be more stuff like that. Instead of pointless title changes, how about advancing stories? Now that seems like a selling point to me and it doesn't give us another pointless title change involving belts that currently mean very little.

-Novel matches, please. One night, Cena vs. Swagger. The next, Cena vs. Orton. The next, Cena & R-Truth vs. Jerishow. Announce different matches for different shows. Make each one feel as unique as possible so that you feel your town isn't just another town.

-Mic work should be a must. Many guys need to brush up on their promo skills. Best give them a chance in front of an audience but at a show where it won't matter if they fuck up.

-Matches shouldn't all be your typical "face gets beat down, face comes back, que end-game" style encounter. Of course WWE's rigid style is a problem on more than just their house shows. In general, there should be focus on telling different stories.

-Definately hype the cards on television. 30 seconds of air time won't kill them considering how little they normally do with their weekly shows anyway.

-Cards should be announced in advance, but not two months. Like GD said, not even PPVs get that kind of TLC.

-I don't have the books in front of me so I can't tell you what the ticket price situation is. All I know is that if the product is worth it, you'll want to pay for it.

The end.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

One of the main things that concerns me ... although I shouldn't be surprised given some of the posters who are saying it .... is people advocating for NO TITLE CHANGES on House Shows.

Really?

So in other words, when you go to a House Show, and you see 4 title matches on a card ... you take satisfaction in already knowing in advance that not ONE of those titles are going to change?

Damn me to Hell for advocating unpredictability at all WWE events and trying to preserve the feeling that "Anything can happen in WWE ... even at House Shows".

I consider it a SOLID investment in WWE's House Show business in giving fans a reason to attend those shows, other than predictable match outcomes, and rewarding fans who attend those shows. Like I said, there can be a camera on hand to show the people on TV what happened at the House Show where a title changed.

Just for the record, I advocate about 4 title changes a year to be done at House Shows, with ONE of those titles being the WWE OR World Heavyweight title ... but not both. That title probably should be at a major market given the importance of the title.

But changing titles at these shows, I consider to be a solid investment in the shows and a major part of giving them the important feel that they need. Nobody likes attending a show where you already know what's going to happen before it actually does, and I am really surprised .... but then again, not really .... at people who are supposedly "fans" advocating the current WWE position on the matter.

 

[gd]

If you want House Shows to be unpredictable, I think getting rid of most title matches would be better than actual title changes. Title changes are supposed to be a big event, but if you get a world title change at an event where nearly all of your viewing audience doesn't have an oppurtunity to see it, that'd be just silly. I'm sure all of the fans who didn't have a chance to see it would be rather confused and possibly angry when they discover John Cena just lost his title to Randy Orton at a house show in Florida.

I don't want to go all "Shareholder" on you, but that's also stupid business practice as well. Throughout the history of the WWE, the goal was to have all of the big events at the PPVs and all other shows should be used to build for those PPVs. That's what House Shows should do, build for the PPVs, not try to become PPVs by having title changes or trying to imitate PPVs by having title matches for the sake of having title matches. They should be treated more like weekly TV shows, except for possibly more fan interactive.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

If you want House Shows to be unpredictable, I think getting rid of most title matches would be better than actual title changes. Title changes are supposed to be a big event, but if you get a world title change at an event where nearly all of your viewing audience doesn't have an oppurtunity to see it, that'd be just silly. I'm sure all of the fans who didn't have a chance to see it would be rather confused and possibly angry when they discover John Cena just lost his title to Randy Orton at a house show in Florida.

I don't want to go all "Shareholder" on you, but that's also stupid business practice as well. Throughout the history of the WWE, the goal was to have all of the big events at the PPVs and all other shows should be used to build for those PPVs. That's what House Shows should do, build for the PPVs, not try to become PPVs by having title changes or trying to imitate PPVs by having title matches for the sake of having title matches. They should be treated more like weekly TV shows, except for possibly more fan interactive.

How is it a stupid business practice? By investing in your House Show business, to increase attendance? They already have a business model in place with them. All they need to do is to alter it and invest in it a little more, for the good of the business.

As far as the PPV's, how is doing title changes at House Shows take away from PPV business? Yes, if a title change occurs at a House Show on the Saturday prior ... then yes it can change on the PPV the week after on Sunday, too.

Unpredictability is what I am getting at, in which I want to see driven back into the product again. It creates a form of "pandemonium" and "pandemonium" stimulates interest in the product all around. Things are Waaaaaaaay too formulaic as it is right now, and that is why things are in a rut.

There is absolutely NO REASON why doing title changes at a House Show should have ANY detrimental effect on PPV business whatsoever. Quite frankly, I would actually argue to the contrary in that it could actually stimulate interest in PPV's.

 

[gd]

I'd say that it just cheapens the title as a whole. There are already too many frequent title changes as it is, there shouldn't be anymore. PPVs are supposed to be where the big events happen, which is why people pay for them. If big events like title changes are constantly happening not on PPV, people will be less inclined to buy because it's not considered a big event anymore.

Of course, even if my argument about the business practice may not bee completely correct, which I am beginning to suspect it isn't, my other argument is the main reason title changes shouldn't happen at house shows. You're trying to make it better for the fans by promoting these title changes, but what about the other 99% that don't have the chance to go to the House Show where these things happen? The whole idea of titles changing hands on shows that most people don't even know about is just plain dumb.

I agree that House Shows are rather predictable and somewhat pointless, but title changes aren't the solution

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I'd say that it just cheapens the title as a whole. There are already too many frequent title changes as it is, there shouldn't be anymore. PPVs are supposed to be where the big events happen, which is why people pay for them. If big events like title changes are constantly happening not on PPV, people will be less inclined to buy because it's not considered a big event anymore.

Of course, even if my argument about the business practice may not bee completely correct, which I am beginning to suspect it isn't, my other argument is the main reason title changes shouldn't happen at house shows. You're trying to make it better for the fans by promoting these title changes, but what about the other 99% that don't have the chance to go to the House Show where these things happen? The whole idea of titles changing hands on shows that most people don't even know about is just plain dumb.

I agree that House Shows are rather predictable and somewhat pointless, but title changes aren't the solution

But again, this all goes back to "Unpredictability". And I think there can be a mixture of both in today's WWE. You can have a mixture of BOTH short title reigns as well as lengthier title reigns.

You don't need to have ALL short reigns and nor do you need to have ALL lengthier reigns, either.

Unpredictability in this day and age is what I hear the fans absolutely starving for. That is the biggest factor I hear from fans in today's wrestling climate. You can't necessarily have BOT Unpredictability and All lengthy title changes. The two don't really coincide.

And where I see fans complaining about "cheap title wins" and see them complaining also about "lack of unpredictability", I just shake my head. You can't have both.

When I listen to fans and I put myself in the mindset of a Casual fan who wants to constantly be entertained and aren't necessarily for the rules the IWC Smarks think they know about wrestling, this is what I hear from them is the bigger issue.

And the House Show business is a key critical component in people being able to retrieve that Unpredictability factor in WWE once again. Being that they are cheap to produce, this is nothing more than a Win/Win for WWE. Instead of seeing PPV's and House Show business being in competition with each other, I think we need to change our perceptive and see them both as supporting EACH OTHER. And they can do just that, if booked and invested in properly.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I think that in theory what the Lord says is probably true, but the logistics of it would be a little difficult. Hyping house shows to the same extent as PPV's may sound good, but would be difficult. And we all know that changing titles at house shows, where the vast majority of the audience wouldn't see the changes occur would get the Chronic Complainers, present company included, up in arms.

If the titles changed hands at a small house show and no one saw it, the Chronic Complainers would be uspet; it would be cheapening the significance of the titles by having them change hands to virtually no audience. So I guess they could just change them back again and then the Chronic Complainers would be complaining that title reigns are too short and that the title belts have lost their meaning. Guys like Edge would have about 30 title reigns if titles were changing hands at house shows.

I live in an area where the population would never be able to support a PPV or even an episode of Raw or Smackdown. So house shows offer me the opportunity to see these shows, with my kids, to see the superstars that we would otherwise never be able to see live, unless we travelled to see them. Such house show are infrequent, so we look forward to seeing them, and don't really expect to see the pomp and pagentry of a typical televised show, or to see any significant storyline development, let alone any title changes. We are content to just go to a show to see the superstars that we otherwise don't get the opportunity to see. Perhaps if we lived in an area that was closer to some of the larger venues, I would share LORDSIDIOUS's views. But quite honestly I never really thought about it until I read his post. I don't feel the house shows are a rip-off and if I did, I simply wouldn't go.

Now, what I would like to see appoaches the point that I think Sid is trying to make, and that is, that we need more unpredictability in the WWE, and that is to see more changes on typical episodes of Raw or SD. While I don't think major developments should occur at house shows for the reasons stated above, it has come to develop that few title changes (not counting injuries or suspensions) occur on regular weekly TV. In other words, if Cena wrestles Sheamus on a regular episode of Raw, most people don't care because they know Cena isn't dropping the title to Sheamus on free TV. He's probably not losing to Sheamus on PPV either, but he's definitely not losing on Raw. So people lose interest in the weekly programming, adversely affecting ratings, because they know nothing such as a title change is likely to occur.

So, as much as I hate to admit it, I at least partially agree with Sid on this point, but with respect to weekly TV episodes rather than house shows (I hope this doesn't mean I'm starting to become overly negative and critical about the WWE product these days as well).

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Again, I just want to re-iterate that I advocate showing the actual title changes at House Shows on television. I think they should have a TV camera record the footage, and have the footage played on Raw or Smackdown. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that because you are going to see the title change anyway.

So that really solves the problem of that, and I don't consider it to be an issue.

That will reinforce in everyone's minds that ANYTHING can happen at the House Shows, and will likely encourage fans to attend House Shows knowing that titles are now changing at House Shows. That, and of course, I advocate throwing other things into the House Shows as well, to make the fans who attend them feel like they are getting their money's worth ... with an Unpredictability factor attached with it.

Again, there is nothing more that I hate than fans who attend shows when TV cameras aren't present, who know damn well that nothing is ever going to happen of interest there. It is just a huge letdown to people, and one I certainly wouldn't tolerate as booker. Plus, the things that I advocate are not necessarily major investments into these shows. It just requires (*gasp*) a little more effort on the part of a producer when putting the shows together.

Plus, I would think that seeing some House Show footage on Raw or Smackdown ... or ECW, would be a refreshing change from the normal boring stuff.

 

[hatehabsforever]

That's actually an excellent point, LORDSIDIOUS. I guess recording the event, such as an unexpected title change at a house show, and showing it on Raw or SD, would overcome some of my criticisms. To play devil's advocate, though, some of the house shows are pretty small, with no pyro or flashiness whatsoever, so I don't know how great that would look when re-broadcast on Raw or SD. Plus, there's still the issue of titles changing hands too frequently and having such guys as Edge who are good, but not great, becoming 30 time champions. I guess if such title changes at house shows was pretty infrequent it wouldn't be an issue, but I would be concerned that there would be such legendary wrestlers as Mr. Perfect, for example, to have never held a title, while guys like CM Punk would have a disproportionately high number of title reigns, albeit very short ones.

 

[theviolentmessiah]

I actually preferred the house show I went to than the TV taping, the TV taping saw endless looking at screen as they played me adverts for their latest DVD to fill the advert break would take up the TV, then interview after interview that I'm sure on TV with an advert break wouldnt feel too much but I found most of the money I'd paid was to look at the screen anyway, not to mention that the view was less than perfect in a much bigger building than the house. The house show gave me what I came for, wrestling, live. Most of the interviews played at the TV Taping seemed pre recorded anyway, and there were times when things were redone or people brought back out for editing purposes. Honestly the house show is possibly more entertaining in my opinion.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I've been to a few house shows, and I've enjoyed them. I think you're naive if you go into them expecting them to be as good as Raw or Smackdown, which I think is a reason people say they 'dislike' them. People see all the lights, sounds, cameras, signs etc on their TV and don't realise that these are solely for the purpose of the television - a house show isn't the same. I don't think this refers to many people on this forum, but it is an issue. People go in with high expectations and are going to be disappointed no matter how good the show is.

 

[Chill]

Obviously I can only speak from personal experience, I have been to quite a few house shows now and not once have I ever felt ripped off by what they put on. I can honestly say that since my first house show in 2001, that I have come away having had a great time and never once have I thought "I need my X amount of pounds back for that". I just haven't ever felt that way.

When I go to a house show, I'm not expecting to see a PPV or a TV taping and there's something refreshing about just a ring and the talent performing. Don't get me wrong, the pyro and lighting all add to the excitement (and I wouldn't object to WWE including more of this into the House shows, and admittedly in some cases a lack of pyro detracts from the individual wrestler, cough cough KANE) but their absence wont mean I'm not going to enjoy myself because at the end of the day I'm still getting to see all the main people perform, work the mic, play to the crowd and what not.

As for title changes occuring more at these events, that's all well and good but if you think how many of these shows they're putting out on a weekly basis then you may begin to question that idea...it's not like they can afford to have a title change at every house show just for the sake of non-televised events. If the odd change were to happen, then showing it on a RAW and Smackdown wouldn't be a bad idea as Lord Sidious suggested, because it would play to the idea that House Shows are important formats where things happen. While we are on the subject, I think Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch may have won the tag titles a few years back at a house show and the subsequent pictures of that victory were aired on Raw (or some televised program anyway).

Again, I can only speak for myself but I do not need to see a title change hands to enjoy the show, and I've never felt ripped off becuase of never having seen a title change at a your standard live event. My experiences at these shows have only ever been positive and I've had a great time at each one, honestly. I would even go as far as saying it was money well spent each time...yes indeed.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I will say that production values at these events are far better overseas and in Mexico than they are for the United States and Canada. What I mean by that, of course, is by having a lighted up entranceway with some LED lights above the ring and a LED gateway for the superstars to walk through ... as opposed to having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but a black curtain for talent to walk through with NO LED lighting at the shows in the United States and Canada.

And being that they do overseas tours a couple times a year now, I can only imagine that some buildings are visited probably as often as those same building are toured in the United States each year.

There is NO reason why a show in Europe should get a better quality House Show than a market in the United States or Canada. NO reason at all. The PPV argument that Europe and Australia don't get PPV's and that is why they get better quality House Shows IS NOT an acceptable excuse.

1) We can't help the fact that the majority of WWE PPV customers are inside the U.S. and Canada. That is just the way it goes because we are more populated.

2) We can't adjust the time zone difference to make PPV's overseas a possibility. The primary markets with the MOST business will be catered to first.


The House Shows should be of consistent quality EVERYWHERE because of it.

And that doesn't even take into consideration the other proposals discussed which wouldn't really cost more money as bringing the LED lighting, as it simply requires more effort put into the Creative design of the show. There is no reason why that can't be done either, as it costs next to nothing doing some of the other suggestions I made previously.

 

[Jack Tunney's Ghost]

I keep seeing the argument "if you're a TRUE wrestling fan..."

Uhm, if you're a "true wrestling fan" wouldn't you be going to see the actual wrestling matches and not so much for the entrance way and the lighting?

Don't get me wrong, I'm about as the biggest mark for things that contribute to the overall production of wrestling shows (not limited to just WWE but even indie shows as well) and I always look for things like entrance ways, right down to the logos on the ring apron, but at the end of the day, it's really the wrestling, not the lighting grid or ring ropes colors, that puts asses in the seats.

And really, it's only really the smarks that take a vested interest in overall production. The typical, non-smark, "true" wrestling fan, more or less, buys tickets to house shows because they want to see their favorite "superstar" or they're intrigued by a match (or matches) on the card that they may want to see.

Sure, they may notice that Kane really doesn't set the ring posts on fire during his entrance, or there's no hi-def TitanTron set and they may be disappointed by it, but just so long as they get to see DX or John Cena or whoever wrestle "in person," and are able to buy T-Shirts and foam hands of their favorite superstar at the show, thats usually just enough for them to be happy and they'll more than likely to buy tickets to the next house show when that promotion makes its next stop in town.

Their mentality is easily proven and noticeable at any houseshow by simply looking at the crowd in the arena. How? Just look at those who hold up signs up or wear the T-shirts of their favorite wrestlers. For the most part, I think they know that they're not going to be seen on television. They hold the signs up for THE WRESTLERS to see. They wear the t-shirts of their favorite wrestlers to show their support for that wrestler for the other fans to see. The "true wrestling fans" are there to have a good time for the show. If they walk away knowing Cena saw and acknowledged their sign, no TitanTron or pyro is going to compare for them.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I keep seeing the argument "if you're a TRUE wrestling fan..."

Uhm, if you're a "true wrestling fan" wouldn't you be going to see the actual wrestling matches and not so much for the entrance way and the lighting?

Don't get me wrong, I'm about as the biggest mark for things that contribute to the overall production of wrestling shows (not limited to just WWE but even indie shows as well) and I always look for things like entrance ways, right down to the logos on the ring apron, but at the end of the day, it's really the wrestling, not the lighting grid or ring ropes colors, that puts asses in the seats.

And really, it's only really the smarks that take a vested interest in overall production. The typical, non-smark, "true" wrestling fan, more or less, buys tickets to house shows because they want to see their favorite "superstar" or they're intrigued by a match (or matches) on the card that they may want to see.

Sure, they may notice that Kane really doesn't set the ring posts on fire during his entrance, or there's no hi-def TitanTron set and they may be disappointed by it, but just so long as they get to see DX or John Cena or whoever wrestle "in person," and are able to buy T-Shirts and foam hands of their favorite superstar at the show, thats usually just enough for them to be happy and they'll more than likely to buy tickets to the next house show when that promotion makes its next stop in town.

Their mentality is easily proven and noticeable at any houseshow by simply looking at the crowd in the arena. How? Just look at those who hold up signs up or wear the T-shirts of their favorite wrestlers. For the most part, I think they know that they're not going to be seen on television. They hold the signs up for THE WRESTLERS to see. They wear the t-shirts of their favorite wrestlers to show their support for that wrestler for the other fans to see. The "true wrestling fans" are there to have a good time for the show. If they walk away because Cena saw and acknowledged their sign, no TitanTron or pyro is going to compare for them.

Where as you mention my position in a negative light, I certainly don't ever go around saying "If you are a REAL wrestling fan ........". That is the ROH-botz mentality, as they are exclusively fans of technical wrestling, and DO NOT have an appreciation for all the other production aspects of wrestling.

I am a fan of Sports Entertainment. Not that I consider wrestling a sport by any means, as many technical wrestling fans do, but that is what it has traditionally been referred to as. I am a fan of all the action as well as the hype, drama, character development, storylines, and so forth that go into the product referred to as professional wrestling.

All I am saying is that I would advocate more of those elements be incorporated into the WWE House Show operation, to add something to what could be construed as very lackluster shows. I want to see the hype you see on TV each night, put somewhat to a degree into these shows, as well. I think the more effort you put into the show, the more likely you will see fans opt to return in greater numbers.

 

[Jack Tunney's Ghost]

Oh, I understand what you're saying, Sidious, and I'm not really arguing against your thoughts.

But, there IS a certain reality, where even a non-WWE "shareholder" would see, there are certain logistics that houseshows can't deliever the same quality production as TV tapings (which I know you're not saying they should be).

But, there is that thing called "costs" that plays a big role into why we're not going to see an overhaul overall with WWE houseshows.

First, the biggest expense for WWE, next to talent and crew, is building rental fees and insurance fees... and they are pretty steep for most arenas and take quite a bite out of profits. Then there's travel expenses and so forth. To put it into perspective, at WrestleMania 19 in Seattle, I sat next to the head athletic commissioner of The State of Washington at the time and he explained to me that WWE lost a TON of money by booking and setting up in SafeCo Field for the various costs and so forth. But, WWE would be making all that money back (and of course then some) through Pay-Per-View buys. If WWE didn't have PPV profit, they would've been in some financial trouble if they were depending on the gate alone.

Of course, houseshows aren't on the SafeCo field level, but, they DO cost money to produce. So, "cheaping out" on houseshows by holding back on production is an unfortunate reality. Remember, houseshows don't have PPV or even TV profits to fall back on. Just merchandise sales. The gates USUALLY just pay for the show presentation (building, etc) and talent/crew salaries all the while merchandise makes the profit (and a cut of THAT goes to the talent). Don't forget, WWE doesn't pay for just the pyro materials itself, they contract out their pyro to a company meaning that WWE has pay for the guys who set up and operate pyro on top of that as well. For houseshows averaging around 8,000 people, it's hardly worth it. If the WWE pays for the building for a certain amount of time (say 8 hours for example) the set up for lighting grids as well as the ring and sound system all take time to set up and may not be a luxury available (depends on the building and their arrangements etc...) without costing more.

As far as title changes and airing them on TV... if the building is half-empty or ticket sales are poor, it may look like crap on TV with empty seats in frame. With a TV taping, WWE fills in all the seats in the lower level and doesn't light the upper levels IF there empty seats in the building. But, at houseshows, with the simple lighting and limited TV quality production (again to save costs) it's harder to make it seem like a really big deal enough to air on Raw if a row of seats are empty in frame... or just the overal poor quality of the camera work could work against the moment as well.

Again, WWE books on the fly these days, basically hours before going on air, as everything "book" revolves PPVs and TV tapings so it's hard to announce matches that far in advance... and that maybe a reason too why we don't see title changes so much (if at all) at houseshows... I'm just guessing here.

But, yeah, if the majority of "wrestling fans" walk away from a houseshow happy with their T-shirts, and more importantly, with tickets to the next show, there's hardly any incentive for WWE to spend more money into houseshows if they're seeing profits (or ANY profit) from what they're doing already.

Again, just pointing out some certain realities here.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Oh, I understand what you're saying, Sidious, and I'm not really arguing against your thoughts.

But, there IS a certain reality, where even a non-WWE "shareholder" would see, there are certain logistics that houseshows can't deliever the same quality production as TV tapings (which I know you're not saying they should be).

But, there is that thing called "costs" that plays a big role into why we're not going to see an overhaul overall with WWE houseshows.

First, the biggest expense for WWE, next to talent and crew, is building rental fees and insurance fees... and they are pretty steep for most arenas and take quite a bite out of profits. Then there's travel expenses and so forth. To put it into perspective, at WrestleMania 19 in Seattle, I sat next to the head athletic commissioner of The State of Washington at the time and he explained to me that WWE lost a TON of money by booking and setting up in SafeCo Field for the various costs and so forth. But, WWE would be making all that money back (and of course then some) through Pay-Per-View buys. If WWE didn't have PPV profit, they would've been in some financial trouble if they were depending on the gate alone.

Of course, houseshows aren't on the SafeCo field level, but, they DO cost money to produce. So, "cheaping out" on houseshows by holding back on production is an unfortunate reality. Remember, houseshows don't have PPV or even TV profits to fall back on. Just merchandise sales. The gates USUALLY just pay for the show presentation (building, etc) and talent/crew salaries all the while merchandise makes the profit (and a cut of THAT goes to the talent). Don't forget, WWE doesn't pay for just the pyro materials itself, they contract out their pyro to a company meaning that WWE has pay for the guys who set up and operate pyro on top of that as well. For houseshows averaging around 8,000 people, it's hardly worth it. If the WWE pays for the building for a certain amount of time (say 8 hours for example) the set up for lighting grids as well as the ring and sound system all take time to set up and may not be a luxury available (depends on the building and their arrangements etc...) without costing more.

As far as title changes and airing them on TV... if the building is half-empty or ticket sales are poor, it may look like crap on TV with empty seats in frame. With a TV taping, WWE fills in all the seats in the lower level and doesn't light the upper levels IF there empty seats in the building. But, at houseshows, with the simple lighting and limited TV quality production (again to save costs) it's harder to make it seem like a really big deal enough to air on Raw if a row of seats are empty in frame... or just the overal poor quality of the camera work could work against the moment as well.

Again, WWE books on the fly these days, basically hours before going on air, as everything "book" revolves PPVs and TV tapings so it's hard to announce matches that far in advance... and that maybe a reason too why we don't see title changes so much (if at all) at houseshows... I'm just guessing here.

But, yeah, if the majority of "wrestling fans" walk away from a houseshow happy with their T-shirts, and more importantly, with tickets to the next show, there's hardly any incentive for WWE to spend more money into houseshows if they're seeing profits (or ANY profit) from what they're doing already.

Again, just pointing out some certain realities here.

And none of what you said is NEWS to me at all, or things that I have not considered. However, my mentality is for "growing the House Show business" ... not being satisfied with what they are currently doing. Because I am absolutely convinced that attendance could be higher IF they invested.

And they don't have to invest that much. I never brought up that they had to do pyro. I never said that they MUST do the over-the-ring LED lights for wrestler entrances. Are you honestly suggesting that it costs sooo much more money to do something like this, that is done at all the overseas shows?

All I advocated was in the very least, they use a lighted up entranceway like that, for entrances ... because that is better than a black curtain. And if WWE can't manage to set that up on their own, with their own staff and with little difficulty, then there are a bunch of dunces.

So at least that way, you have some sort of entrance with some color ... as opposed to a wrestler coming through a cheap black curtain. Like I said, if even Indy promotions can do this, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for WWE not to spruce up their entrance quality a little.

Doing title changes ... again ... people know that it is not a full blown television event. However, they now and have been for several years, bringing the lighting grid with the ring lights to the House Shows, so it should be sufficiently lighted inside the ring to air that footage on television. Again, what that essentially is, is an advertisement to the audience that BIG THINGS can happen at House Shows and that is why you should go to them.

Having someone to interview the talent .... how much more can it really cost to send someone to interview the talent on the road? One person for each brand? Abraham Washington for ECW/Smackdown and Josh Matthews for Raw? They would could do one interview segment per show ... as well as get thoughts from superstars for big matches right before they head to ringside for the big match. That is even more hype for the match, and makes the matches seem more important to the audience.

Doing these little things are designed to be of relatively low to some cases ... no expenditure, but designed to invest in the overall quality of the shows with the goal of stronger crowds in mind for future business.

 

[y2empleh]

Ok, now I haven't gone to a WWE house show in like 15 years so take my words with a grain of salt. It's a matter of your expectations going into the show. True that you'll likely never see the world title change hands at a house show. Last time I believe that happened was when Kevin Nash beat Bob Backlund for the title in 8 seconds then you'd have to go back to Bret Hart beating Ric Flair for his first world title. Even though I've never been to a house show (nor have I been to a televised show aside from the armageddon ppv from 2006) had I gone to a house show, my expectations would be different based on the actual product as well as the cost. I'll get more into that in a little bit.

As far as the original comments on not getting a stage or pyro or anything beyond the wrestler coming through a curtain. Those things cost money and the tickets for those things cost more money. When WWE held Armaggeddon in Richmond in 2006, a front row seat cost 150 bucks. Bigger production. Bigger money. The last Raw to take place in Richmond I believe was during the "who blew up Vince McMahon" storyline. Front Row for that show were right at 100. Now earlier this year, they held a Live event at Richmond, front row tickets ran the 60 bucks you suggested. That's 90 bucks cheaper then the PPV and 40 bucks cheaper then the Raw telecast. There is a reason they were much cheaper. They didn't have to pay for Pyro or for people to set up an elaborate stage or entrance. You get what you pay for.

Now like we've both agreed, the main matches, you can usually predict. A title will not change hands. However you do get a lot of things that you don't normally get at a TV show. One thing is you actually get lengthy matches. With there being no commercials or backstage skits, the matches can go an extra 5-10 minutes. While I haven't been to one in years, I've talked to some who have, and they've all said it also has an intimate feel to it. The wrestlers aren't there for TV audiences and live audience. They are there simply for the live audience. Another bonus that a few have hinted at in this post are the locations. A lot of times they will do House shows at smaller venues that wouldn't normally get a TV show. So maybe it's a 30 minute ride to a show opposed to a 2 hour ride to the bigger city for the TV show.

 

[The Roid Rage]

I have to totally disagree with pretty much anything said by Lord Sidious in his opening post. The only good point was making light of the fact that now you don't quite have that "anything can happen feel" going on. Outside of that I would say his interpretation of the House Show is skewed and fragile at best.

I live in Iowa ok. And for those of you who don't know Iowa is a pretty historic place for Pro and amateur wrestling. As a matter of fact it was here in Iowa that the NWA was originally formed, and those of us educated to the history of professional wrestling know what a big deal that was. There is one big problem with living here in Iowa though, and that is that we don't really have many venues that are big enough, or that can sell enough to bring more than a house show here once or twice a year.

In the event that we do get one here in the capital city Des Moines, it isn't a rip off to the people who go to the shows. It is a treat, it is special, and it is an event that people wait for to come around every year. If we want to go to a live Smack Down, Raw, or pay-per-view we have to travel to either Minneapolis/St.Paul, Kansas City, Missouri or Kansas, St. Louis, Omaha, or Chicago. Most people don't have the money to do that and so when we get to see WWE in any capacity it is very special.

I have been to a ton of house shows, and every time it is a different experience, we see a different show, and we get a lot out of the wrestlers as we are an energetic crowd which you will all get to see on Feb 15th as Monday Night Raw finally makes it's way to Des Moines, Iowa at Wells Fargo Arena. Getting back on track though, I have never seen one person walking out of a WWE show here dissatisfied.

I have always thought that the house shows were even better than the live events. There is something about it that makes it seem a little more special. It is like a show just for you, no one else in the world gets to see it, only the lucky few who paid to be there on that night get to see what goes on, and what these performers do in the ring. At our last house show we also got to see a title change hands, it was never acknowledged on t.v. but the outcome came to fruition as we witnessed The Miz beat Kofi Kingston for his U.S. Title, right here in Des Moines, before it ever happened on pay-per-view. That to me is special. We got a sneak peak of what was to come, and got to see it before most others did.

Going to a house show is not some lame, lack luster, money pit. It's an event. It's like going to any big sports event, there is an aura to it, a vibe in the air, excitement. Everything is apart of the experience from making your signs, strapping on your favorite wrestlers gear, grabbing your belts to bring with you, trying to find decent parking, to waiting behind the arena for autographs, buying a hot dog and a beer, cheering for your favorites, and booing your most hated. A lot of times we can also wait until after the show and people will sign autographs for us then as well. The WWE is really good to Iowa, and specifically Des Moines when they come here. One of the last times they were here, John Cena showed up extra early and hand signed tons and tons of pictures that were to be sold at the kiosks for just $25 so everyone had the opportunity to have his autograph, that is special. I know they also charged for it, but it was the fairest way to do it, and Cena didn't have to either, so that was pretty nice. They also had the Bella Twins sneak out into the crowd to do a small trivia game with people and give out prizes. As a matter of fact they often times throw out merchandise to the fans too. I've seen them throw out shirts, and dvd's, and other stuff which is nice of them as well.

Before and after shows here, the wrestlers often take the time to come out back of the arena and sign a lot of autographs and interact a lot with the fans. I myself have got the autographs of Kofi Kingston, C.M. Punk, Matt Hardy, Shad and JTG, Kelly Kelly, Brie Bella, Mick Foley, Tommy Dreamer, MVP, and Batista. None of them had to, none of them had to take their time and sign autographs for me or anyone else. Matt Hardy often takes the time to do pictures and everything, so does C.M. Punk when not heel. I can't tell you what that means to the fans here. I also think that the absence of all the flashy entrance ways, lighting rigs, and all that stuff make it a little more special as well. All you see is the light on the ring, and the spotlight that follows them as they walk from a dark curtain, and that adds a little mystique to it and a more personalized feel. It seems more authentic and genuine because it's not on t.v. or pay-per-view.

I also have yet to see a bad match at any of our house shows. As a matter of fact some of the better matches I have seen have been at house shows. Back in 2006 I remember the Wrestlemania Revenge tour came through Des Moines, and the main event was Triple H vs John Cena for the title and that was a crazy match, but the match I remembered the most when I left was Carlito vs Shelton Benjamin. By no means was anyone really there to see those guys, but they put on a match I remember seeing to this day it was so good. The house show definitely has it's own charm, and brings a lot with it. They could easily bypass little places like Des Moines, and a million other towns they stop in, and give a hell of a show at, but they go there. Whether it's simply to rake up more profits or not is of no concern to the fans in the seats, they are getting something that they don't get to see that often, and it is worth it to them to pay and see it, so no harm no foul.

Maybe Lord Sidious and other like him have forgotten some of those things, that have made house shows so special to folks like me and many others. Or have set their standards too high? It is not mine to judge. All I can tell you, is that they best experiences I have ever had at wrestling events were at house shows, some of the best matches I have ever seen were at house shows, and I never had to break the bank to go to one. It was special and unique every time, and the wrestlers gave us a good show every time. They interact with the crowd here a lot, but that's also because we respond very good to their interactions. I think this is one of the best ways to enjoy a wrestling event and is worth every penny. Don't let someone else's negative view of a good thing deter you, go find out for yourself.

 

[TheTruNoLimit]

I can only vouch for the few house shows I've been to, and maybe my opinion isn't quite as relevant because I live in NY and I've been to a few house shows at MSG, but they've always been great.

Sure, there's no huge stage or titan tron, but the MSG show I went to in '04 which was Raw brand was held just a few weeks before the Vengeance PPV. It ran Benoit and HHH for the title and you certainly knew HHH wasn't coming out on top, but they went at it for a good 25 minutes and had a FANTASTIC match that easily obliterated their televised PPV match a few weeks later.

Edge and Orton had a match just as good as their Vengeance match over the IC Title. Jericho wrestled a strong match against Batista that was significantly better than it's Vengeance counterpart.

Lita came out to cut a promo about the Matt and Kane thing, when Matt interrupted and joined the promo. A few minutes in, the pyro shoots off the turnbuckles and Kane comes out as Lita clears the ring and Kane and Matt have a match better than their Vengeance counterpart.

This is just one example. Their have been others. At a House Show in '03 at MSG I saw HBK vs. Flair go a full 20 minutes in a 20 minute time limit match which was solid and memorable. And at the Nassau Coliseum, I saw Edge and Cena tear the house down in front of a jam packed arena. I was at the Coliseum for the Great American Bash in '08 and a house show in '06 that featured Cena vs. Edge and the crowd was more lively for this house show main event than anything on a PPV line up.

So it can go both ways.

 

[FanSince99]

Well I guess I am going to have to go with the minority of everyone here and say I actually enjoy house shows. Yes they are practice matches but there is still wrestling going on, and if you are a fan of wrestling you would enjoy it. I’ve gone to several house shows at the Garden and yes a few have been hit or miss but it’s just the fact of hearing some wrestler’s music play and actually see them perform that makes it worth the $60.

I actually remember my first house show it was the Saturday before the 200 King of the Ring and they basically ran all the matches that were going to be on the King of the Ring (little did I know I saw the same show live for half the price people at the arena paid minus the actual title changes of course). Sitting there watching the pay-per view I was still content and didn’t feel cheated one bit, because it was still a live show that I got to experience (and mark out for the Rock’s entrance)

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I have to totally disagree with pretty much anything said by Lord Sidious in his opening post. The only good point was making light of the fact that now you don't quite have that "anything can happen feel" going on. Outside of that I would say his interpretation of the House Show is skewed and fragile at best.

Actually, no. My view was right on the money, and anyone that does not put themselves in the mindset of a blind WWE loyalist smark ... and who is impartial enough to simply soak in what you truly see, will realize that the points I covered are the absolute truth.

Although since you want to play the role of an "Apologist Shareholder", who defends Vince giving less than stellar, half-ass shows , let's go through some of your comments.

I live in Iowa ok.

And for those of you who don't know Iowa is a pretty historic place for Pro and amateur wrestling. As a matter of fact it was here in Iowa that the NWA was originally formed, and those of us educated to the history of professional wrestling know what a big deal that was. There is one big problem with living here in Iowa though, and that is that we don't really have many venues that are big enough, or that can sell enough to bring more than a house show here once or twice a year.

So in other words, you are in a market in the US that isn't very populated, so you are pretty much happy to take whatever you can get?

And because Vince knows you should be satisfied getting whatever the WWE gives you, you are actually advocating him providing you with a lesser quality show than what it could be?

You make it so easy for Vince to take advantage of you. You really do.

In the event that we do get one here in the capital city Des Moines, it isn't a rip off to the people who go to the shows. It is a treat, it is special, and it is an event that people wait for to come around every year. If we want to go to a live Smack Down, Raw, or pay-per-view we have to travel to either Minneapolis/St.Paul, Kansas City, Missouri or Kansas, St. Louis, Omaha, or Chicago. Most people don't have the money to do that and so when we get to see WWE in any capacity it is very special.

So just because Iowa is a C market, everyone else in the country should have to settle for less, just because you are willing to settle for less?

You standing up for WWE giving you a sub-par show, just because you are in a less populated area and advocating being taken advantage of is just mind-blowing.

I have been to a ton of house shows, and every time it is a different experience, we see a different show,

You may see different matches, but it is essentially the same show, same format, every single time. Nothing changes.

and we get a lot out of the wrestlers as we are an energetic crowd which you will all get to see on Feb 15th as Monday Night Raw finally makes it's way to Des Moines, Iowa at Wells Fargo Arena. Getting back on track though,

I have never seen one person walking out of a WWE show here dissatisfied.

So you go up and interview people after the show and participate in satisfaction surveys?

I have always thought that the house shows were even better than the live events. There is something about it that makes it seem a little more special.

So getting less for your money, with no lights, and the absolute bare minimum, where even Indy shows put forth more of an effort into than what you see at a WWE House Show makes you feel "special"?

It is like a show just for you, no one else in the world gets to see it, only the lucky few who paid to be there on that night get to see what goes on, and what these performers do in the ring.

And the only problem is that nothing further could be from the truth. Everyone on the road that week, or for several weeks, even ... gets pretty much the exact same show.

At our last house show we also got to see a title change hands, it was never acknowledged on t.v. but the outcome came to fruition as we witnessed The Miz beat Kofi Kingston for his U.S. Title, right here in Des Moines, before it ever happened on pay-per-view. That to me is special. We got a sneak peak of what was to come, and got to see it before most others did.

You are misleading the posters. What happened after that match was over? Did the title stay with The Miz?

Going to a house show is not some lame, lack luster, money pit. It's an event. It's like going to any big sports event, there is an aura to it, a vibe in the air, excitement.

100% bullshit. Absolutely nothing compared to going to a TV or PPV event.

And by the time the show is over, I doubt very seriously that fans are all that thrilled with what they got.

House Shows are very mediocre shows. Again, no effort goes into them on the part of WWE, at all.

Everything is apart of the experience from making your signs,

Half of which are confiscated.

strapping on your favorite wrestlers gear, grabbing your belts to bring with you,

Well, be my guest if you do that stuff. How is that any different from what fans do at any WWE event? Can fans only do this when they go to House Shows?

trying to find decent parking, to waiting behind the arena for autographs, buying a hot dog and a beer, cheering for your favorites, and booing your most hated.

How is that any different from attending any other WWE event?

A lot of times we can also wait until after the show and people will sign autographs for us then as well. The WWE is really good to Iowa, and specifically Des Moines when they come here. One of the last times they were here, John Cena showed up extra early and hand signed tons and tons of pictures that were to be sold at the kiosks for just $25 so everyone had the opportunity to have his autograph, that is special.

And the autographs and free time superstars have for that stuff is at least one good thing that comes from House Shows. The environment is more loose. Although, a lot of this depends on the Superstars' moods at the time.

They also had the Bella Twins sneak out into the crowd to do a small trivia game with people and give out prizes. As a matter of fact they often times throw out merchandise to the fans too. I've seen them throw out shirts, and dvd's, and other stuff which is nice of them as well.

They do this at all House Shows. So what you are getting is no special than what everyone else gets.

The Trivia thing is nice, but it happens all the time, and is really nothing new.

Before and after shows here, the wrestlers often take the time to come out back of the arena and sign a lot of autographs and interact a lot with the fans. I myself have got the autographs of Kofi Kingston, C.M. Punk, Matt Hardy, Shad and JTG, Kelly Kelly, Brie Bella, Mick Foley, Tommy Dreamer, MVP, and Batista. None of them had to, none of them had to take their time and sign autographs for me or anyone else. Matt Hardy often takes the time to do pictures and everything, so does C.M. Punk when not heel. I can't tell you what that means to the fans here.

Okay, so they take pictures and all that stuff out back. They do autographs, pics, and all that stuff frequently ... airports, restaurants (when they are not eating), etc. Granted, it is less likely to happen at TV as things are more rushed, but it still happens there as well.

I also think that the absence of all the flashy entrance ways, lighting rigs, and all that stuff make it a little more special as well. All you see is the light on the ring, and the spotlight that follows them as they walk from a dark curtain, and that adds a little mystique to it and a more personalized feel. It seems more authentic and genuine because it's not on t.v. or pay-per-view.

You are justifying a complete lack of effort on WWE's part here ... amazing. It's sad when Indy groups make more of an effort at providing lighting effects than WWE, "the recognized leader in sports entertainment" does.

You don't need a stage, nor all the LED lights above the ring, necessarily. But at least spruce up the entranceway, if nothing else. That isn't too much to ask.

I also have yet to see a bad match at any of our house shows.

Now I know you are a WWE mark and are simply lying. Not a single bad match, ever? Give me a break.

As a matter of fact some of the better matches I have seen have been at house shows. Back in 2006 I remember the Wrestlemania Revenge tour came through Des Moines, and the main event was Triple H vs John Cena for the title and that was a crazy match,

I'm guessing you didn't see a title change in that match, and kind of new well in advance not to even come close to expecting one either.

That is what I am getting at ... the predictability factor.

Yeah, the Main Event usually delivers, but the whole show on average, does NOT deliver. As I stated, the things I advocate either don't cost much extra to do, or cost nothing at all to do. So why would you not advocate it?

You are simply making excuses for WWE not putting forth the effort they could be putting forth, and this is a classic "WWE Shareholder"-like mentality. If you are offered a better quality show, you are arguing right now that you wouldn't want it? Gotta love them "Shareholders".

but the match I remembered the most when I left was Carlito vs Shelton Benjamin. By no means was anyone really there to see those guys, but they put on a match I remember seeing to this day it was so good. The house show definitely has it's own charm, and brings a lot with it. They could easily bypass little places like Des Moines, and a million other towns they stop in, and give a hell of a show at, but they go there.

And nobody is arguing that House Shows don't put on their share of good matches. But they also have lousy matches, as well. But usually the bigger matches on the card deliver, which is obviously a good thing.

I am talking about giving the show a more important feel, and an "Anything can happen at anytime" feel. That is what I want to see instilled in House Shows. They need to be part of the WWE creative operation, instead of simply a money-making opportunity to invest nothing in the show, and reap all the profits. What I advocate is WWE making an investment in these shows, because I feel if they do, it will payoff not only in the form of increased attendance for future House Show business, but also would be good for the entire WWE business, as it will OVERALL stimulate more interest in the product.

Whether it's simply to rake up more profits or not is of no concern to the fans in the seats, they are getting something that they don't get to see that often, and it is worth it to them to pay and see it, so no harm no foul.

Again, so you think just because fans in Iowa don't get TV often, and are willing to settle for a bare bones minimal show ... you think everyone else in the country should settle for exactly what you are willing to settle for?

Maybe Lord Sidious and other like him have forgotten some of those things, that have made house shows so special to folks like me and many others.

I've attended House Shows for almost 20 years. And still to this day, I look at the situation from the eyes of the casual fan in what I feel they would want to see and what they would expect out of a WWE House Show when they attend.

Everyone has a threshold level for what they are willing to tolerate. Because you are in a B market, you are willing to tolerate a lot more then perhaps what fans in a better-rated market is willing to tolerate.

You are also a member of the IWC, so therefore many within the IWC (more than Casual Fans) at some point develop the mentality that their interest should be "about the wrestling, and ONLY about the wrestling).

Where as I am a member of the IWC as well, I feel who I look out for are the Casual Fans, when I formulate my opinions about what the WWE should and should not do. They are the majority, not the IWC. And that takes me back in many respects to the kind of things I looked for when I was a kid, and some of the things I would have liked to have seen at House Shows, as well.

So I feel I put myself in the mindset of a Casual Fan, that advocates putting on a first class show ... and the SHOW is what I focus on, more so than solely the quality of wrestling. I'd like good quality wrestling on the show, but there needs to be more to give the fans a much better impression that they take away from the show.

Or have set their standards too high? It is not mine to judge.

I do have high standards. But then again, many would argue that your standards are simply too low.

All I can tell you, is that they best experiences I have ever had at wrestling events were at house shows, some of the best matches I have ever seen were at house shows, and I never had to break the bank to go to one. It was special and unique every time, and the wrestlers gave us a good show every time. They interact with the crowd here a lot, but that's also because we respond very good to their interactions. I think this is one of the best ways to enjoy a wrestling event and is worth every penny. Don't let someone else's negative view of a good thing deter you, go find out for yourself.

And I agree that people should find out for themselves and be the judge.

But essentially what I derive out of you is that the only thing you expect from House Shows are:

- Good matches
- Wrestler Interactions before/after the shows


And that is not what I consider to be enough in terms of "putting on a good, lasting impression in regards to an actual Show or Event for the patrons.