What will Sheamus vs. Reigns do to the ratings?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Swing Car, Nov 22, 2015.

  1. they are both of the most hated wrestlers right now lol

    this feud can't be good for business

    wrestlemania is going to being the memedaddy of them all
  2. Reigns was actually getting better with the fans, WWE fucked it even more with Sheamus
  3. Ratings will be stay around the same. Cena and Lesnar are coming back so theres that. Sheamus will only hold the title for a month or 2. Reigns will win it back at TLC or Royal Rumble. Lesnar is gonna win the Rumble and it will set up Lesnar vs Reigns part II at WM32
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. what a shitty fucking idea

    good prediction though
  5. This is like everything else they do, nothing new there.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Skyrocket the company's viewership to 50 million a week. :otunga:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. To the ratings? If anything, they'll stay the same or drop. So prob nothing. I really hated WWEs move on this. Such a lack of creativity and we've seen the same shit so many times. This just happened this year with Seth and the same thing with randy orton. It's gay. Sheamus can suck some dick.
  8. Honestly now that there is only one World Title, I think the MITB match needs to be dropped. It almost guarantees a cheap and easy win of the one major title in the company. It becomes somewhat predictable and I think it's an awkward wild card that almost feels like it HAS to be played. And it's run its course.

    I have no problem with Sheamus and I have no problem with him as champion, but having him cash at the end of the tournament and win just completely shit on the entire concept of the tournament. As long as there is a money in the bank contract outstanding, whenever there is a title tournament, it provides an ample opportunity for the contract holder to cash in, thus negating the point and effort of the entire tournament. Plus it leaves us with a feud that we likely don't even want to see because although it was mildly exciting when it happened, now I don't think I really care to see the match.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. It would be more exciting if the title hopped around more, but typically when someone wins they hold it for around 5-6 months, so theres usually only about 2-3 title holders a year. It seems like the only time a title changes is either Summerslam, Wrestlemania, or a MITB cash in
  10. #10 Jacob Fox, Nov 24, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2015
    I disagree. Longer title reigns are more interesting to me. When the title hops around more, it degrades the worth of the title. It makes the champions look weak when they can't hold onto a belt for more than a couple months. Go watch the 23 WCW World Title changes in the year 2000 and see what that did to destroy the belt.

    Edit: Not being rude and saying you're wrong, I just see it different :emoji_slight_smile:
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  11. They'll remain about the same. Sheamus is the worst WWE Champion of this decade and his title reign won't do shit to draw viewers, but I also don't think it'll be bad or boring enough to make the ratings drop any lower than they already have either.
  12. I agree. Playing hot potatoes with championships doesn't do anyone any favors.

    It's exactly what's pissing me off with what NJPW's doing with their Jr. division.
  13. Look back in 1999/2000 and you see guys like Mankind, The Rock, and Triple H switching titles every month, losing the belt on RAW and it didn't hinder their careers or degrade the title 1 bit. Not saying it should be done all the time, but when its properly done it adds a lot of excitement because you never know when anything like that can happen and a new person becomes champion
  14. Yes but that's because you had guys like Mankind, the Rock and Triple H switching titles every month. The caliber of guys right now is not the same. One exception doesn't disprove the rule.

    You can have the same kind of excitement and never knowing when someone new will become champion by having solid matches between competitors who put on brilliant back and forths. You can have exciting matches when you have a strong champion that seems impossible to beat. Brock Lesnar's entire run was great because he was so dominant that you wanted to see if someone COULD beat him. That added a lot more excitement than the belt changing hands a lot.
  15. It still adds to the element of surprise though, if the unexpected happens. Now the only time its unexpected is with a money in the bank cash in.
  16. The problem with your thinking here is that if the belt changes hands more often, then it's not unexpected. If the belt is changing hands more often, then we expect it to change hands and when it does it loses that excitement. It's not unexpected if it happens every couple months.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. >Babyface scratching and clawing torwards title
    >Finally gets it
    >Le wild MITB holder appears
    >Tomfoolery ensues

    Really, I would like to say it's the same thing as the Daniel Bryan/Randy Orton, and then proceed to insult wwe for recycling a feud so soon. But in reality its not the same thing, it is just a shittier version.

    I love MITB and don't want it gone, but it was used in the least creative way possible this time around. Such a wasted opportunity.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Zing! Zing! x 1
  18. MITB is still a good idea and gives people the opportunity for a guaranteed shot at the title. What WWE should do with this, to make it interesting, is allow the superstar to pick the PPV of their choosing to use their title match. It may sound silly but it would leave curiosity as the MITB winner now must pick a PPV within the coming year and he won't know who will be champion or what the stakes may be.

    That may be a "bad" idea, but the point is that they can try things to make it more interesting and allow superstars to now always cash in at random. They can actually challenge the superstar and let them know ahead of time. Like cena and RVD did.
Draft saved Draft deleted