Gohan6425: Vince amint what I already know! PG SUCK! Cena can't draw! Raw can't beat NBA! Video

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Super Saiyan Goku, Jun 13, 2013.

  1. THE TRUE!

  2. Maybe you should just wipe your ass with the paper then they'll know you're a whackjob
  3. Goahn, you mak way many thred u pis of seabs he get crayo to beat the shit out u
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I actually got to say, WWE isn't as bad as you say it is. Just last Raw was actually pretty good. Ratings aren't everything, it doesn't determine whether a show is good or not, the quality of the show is what counts.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Ratings ranked with punk as champ next.
  6. Sorry I dont understand this thread, The title is un readable.
  7. Thread title translation: Vince admits what Gohan(thinks) he knows. WWE can't beat NBA in ratings, thus meaning that Cena can't draw and that the PG era sucks.
  8. To tackle a few of your points:

    -Raw can't beat NBA: WWE is behind the times. Their show can be watched easily over the internet whereas basketball can't, so unless you're completely apathetic towards the NBA you'll watch the basketball over Raw.

    -Cena isn't a draw: Yeah he is, there's plenty of kids who just watch the show for Cena whereas plenty of Punk fan adults watch the show regardless like you have the past month. There's plenty of things that WWE teased last night (secret admirer, McMahon family soap opera, etc) so there's plenty of blame to be shared. Personally I blame the "death theory" where the show is ass for so long that people have just tuned out altogether, despite the improvements.

    -You can't blame Punk for last year's ratings: Correct, but that means you can't blame Cena and Ryback for this year's either. I don't think they're going to draw for Payback though, but the return of Punk should get more people ordering that show.

    -PG: Lets open up the PG debate again. Mentioned in another thread that some casual fans turned on WWE and were completely turned off by the PG product, and how their "extreme" show wasn't hardcore at all. They're moving on to TNA after Gail/Taryn had more hardcore action (don't take that out of context) than all of Extreme Rules, and Crayo mentioned that TNA is outdrawing WWE in the UK because of their more Attitude-Era-esque content. Then again, TNA can't draw a line with a box of crayons. So how much of a draw is TV-14?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Well the thing about the NBA as oppose the WWE, is that this is something big. This is only once a year that the finals are happening, and the Finals gets overly hyped virtually everywhere you go. WWE on a weekly basis doesn't get anywhere near that exposure. So NBA just seems like a bigger deal and something more exciting to watch then WWE.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Gohan, what language do you speak?
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Yeah. NBA finals are the Wrestlemania of NBA. Does NBA have a higher rating during WM week? No. So you can't expect Raw to have a higher rating during the finals.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Cena IS a draw but it's been proven in the past the show can also draw without him. When Edge won the WWE Title in 2006, I remember reading that ratings went up a certain percentage and then went down pretty much the same percentage when he lost the title right back. Edge also constantly drew the biggest rated segments on the show, I believe. When Cena was injured for a few months in 2008, the ratings remained pretty consistent. When Punk was a heel champion last year and the show wasn't just revolved around Cena, the show still drew. I believe the total averages in terms of viewership from about July to November/December listed Punk at #2 behind Vince, followed by Big Show at #3 and Cena at #4. Hell In A Cell, which had Punk and newcomer Ryback but not Cena, did good numbers, and TLC 2011, which had Punk but not Cena, did better than TLC 2012, which had Cena but not Punk. (Some might make the argument that Cena was up against an unproven draw like Ziggler, but then the same can be said about Punk the previous year being up against Miz and Del Rio. Don't forget WWE even blamed Miz the month before for Survivor Series 2011 doing not-as-high-as-hoped numbers.)

    Obviously, if you took Cena off the show completely, it would probably show up in the long run, certainly in terms of merchandise sells. But I guess my point is that it's enough reason for WWE not to have strong fears with shifting gear with another top face for awhile. Not likely to happen since Cena just came off a big win with The Rock but still, WWE needs some fresh blood in the main event that to hopefully help make viewers tune in more. CM Punk was (and still is) kind of a person to fill that void and at the moment, Daniel Bryan is the best guy to put in that position as well (it becomes all null and void if they turn Bryan heel this Sunday, which would just be crazy.)

    Also, PG isn't the issue, the writing is. Going back to TV-14 wouldn't automatically solve the problem, just like going from TV-14 to PG didn't.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. in tv-14 the shit writer can get away with more shit that they can't do without it being tv-14. as for bryan turning heel I don't think so. I think there going to turn orton heel or not turn anyone heel. or that could turn Y2J heel with paul dubale crosting cm punk!? thorn turning cm punk face sand starting the feud between brock l.
  14. They can get away with more but I'm just not convinced that the shift to TV-14 is gonna suddenly cause a change in business because it won't. It's a knee jerk reaction some people have thinking that just because something goes through a change, the quality of the product will somehow magically improve. Take Raw going to three hours last year for example. People thought just because Raw added an extra hour that somehow they were gonna pull a magic rabbit out of their hat and turn the quality of the show around. I remember reading in a couple different places that "Maybe they're gonna use this extra hour to make the show good again!?" Of course, they didn't, as we've seen.

    The show's overall rating would be no different. Unless WWE has some brilliant angle or a whole strew of ideas already cooked up that for some reason can't be executed in a PG environment, then we'd see no change. The only difference you'd likely see is watering the show down again with a bunch of (fake) tits and ass with a bunch of striptease and bra and panties matches, and the overuse of blood capsules.

    They don't need a mature rating to put on a good/great wrestling show, end of story. Just look at some of the story lines over the past few years and how we didn't need the TV-14 rating for them - The Nexus, The Summer Of Punk, CM Punk's record title reign, Punk/Cena, Cena/Rock, The Shield's debut, Orton vs The McMahons, CM Punk's Straight Edge Society, etc. (Yeah, a couple of these ended up disappointing, but those at least had the potential to be great. You get the point, either way.)
  15. Uh? orton vs. mcmahons fuckin suck! and was garage of storyline. tv14 can help b/c that can do think u can't do in pg. and I know 3 hour of raw would suck I don't who u heard from that though it would be good. b/c everyone I talk to though it would suck like I did and it did and still does.
  20. Lulz you've admitted you love old women, I bet you loved the meat gimmick too.
    • Like Like x 1