WWE, to me, is in the biggest slump that I can remember for as long as I have been watching. There are so many things that irk me about the current product, that I struggle to even watch the free shows anymore. I missed RAW last week. Usually, if I miss a show, it leads to me downloading it afterward to check it out. Instead, I just read a recap and felt that that was good enough. I have not watched Smackdown in a couple of weeks, despite liking some things about it (RE: Mark Henry) recently. When you factor in the start/stop booking, the parity booking, the Triple H stuff, the Michael Cole commentary, the weekly Diva abomination and all the other "same old, same old" that goes into the week-to-week programming, it never really feels like you miss something. I have no doubt in my mind that I could skip an entire month of WWE shows and be completely caught up from one 10-15 minute pre-PPV recap. Or at least be caught up on the stuff that WWE seems to think is important.

This last Monday, despite having company over to watch wrestling (as per usual), we decided to watch a Nasty Boyz shoot interview instead of RAW, while the TV was on Monday Night Football. Yes, we chose the Nasty Boyz talking over the current flagship show of WWE.

Wrestling wise, lately I have been watching 80's Mid-South and NWA, thanks to Justin.TV. It's a lot more interesting to me and it still fills that void that I have where I want to follow more than just the matches. I like the television format. I want to see the weekly shows; the continuity. I like watching the natural progression. Of course, I also want to see at least semi-competent booking/writing. I don't ask for a lot, I just want a beginning, middle & an end to a story. The end should always be a blow-off match. WWE lately seems to have a lot of beginnings, then nonsensical middles and about five or six consecutive ends. Ask Randy Orton and Christian. Or Randy Orton and Mark Henry. Or Triple H and C.M. Punk. Or John Cena and Alberto Del Rio.

I'm genuinely excited for the Muppet Show this coming Monday. I am a huge fan of The Muppets, always have been, and even plan on going to watch the new movie in the theater. The question I have to ask myself though is am I just setting myself up for another fall? Are WWE going to make me cringe when even seeing The Muppets?? I can speculate about a lot of things that seem like they would be funny: Statler & Waldorf on commentary, a Sheamus & Beeker confrontation, Miss Piggy with the Divas, Triple H & Gonzo in a nose-to-nose confrontation, The Swedish Chef trying to put Hornswoggle into a pie...but will any of it happen?

Another thing that has me extremely weary lately is Linda McMahon running for senate in Connecticut again. The last thing I want to sit through is more of WWE trying to shove their Republican bullshit down my throat using their white-trash programming as a means to do so. Can anyone forget this nonsense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=289YFguwRG0. To me, those are the type of segments that make me embarrassed to be a wrestling fan. I always think back to the Paul Heyman promo where he said Vince McMahon made wrestling a dirty word...

Anyway, there's another issue that I wanted to address. Throughout the years that I have been reading the internet to discuss wrestling, a few questions constantly reoccur. Questions such as "Why does WWE seem to be against making money?" or "Why does WWE never push someone when they're hot?" or "Why does WWE seem to never have more than one or two guys at top and are afraid to make more stars?" Usually the questions were just rhetorical as there wasn't a logical way to answer them. Or at least so I thought. About a month ago, on DVDVR, someone posed an answer that made a lot of sense, logically. So I thought I would give credit where credit is due:

If you establish twelve guys as main event stars, then you have to PAY twelve guys as main event stars. They hold leverage when they become stars. So instead of making twelve stars, you make a handful, and you make sure you own every facet of everything everyone does, so that you control how much they make, and hinder their ability to make money and be in a better position by going elsewhere.

Quoted post in context

I think the conversation could serve as its own thread, for sure, and be an interesting debate. I had never looked at it from that perspective before. I am not sure how valid it is, but it certainly seems like it could be plausible. WWE as of now, seem to have Cena on top of RAW and Orton on top of Smackdown. Even when they're not the champion. WWE is a publicly traded company but how many of the people that own stock in the company care about the on-screen product? As long as they see gains, regardless of how they happen, or if they could be bigger, I'm sure that the stockholders are satisfied. Maybe WWE becoming publicly traded is the worst thing that could have ever happened to them. Maybe it is not and it just becomes a talking point scapegoat. I am not even sure anymore. One thing is for sure, at 30-years old, I definitely appear to not be the target demographic anymore. Especially as a 30-year old that has watched wrestling for twenty years and has internet access.