Marty

The fact that I can delete my vote here is really cool, because obviously things can change. But I went with the technically correct answer, which is that I'm outside the US. I'm in Canada and with Rogers, so getting the "Best of" WWE Network (rather than that bloated one the Americans have! ) is simply a phone call away. I may still do it, but not until the new year come Royal Rumble time. I see the On Demand content on Rogers actually is improving, and yes, the PPVs alone are worth compared to the price before. Just that right now, with my enjoyment of football and hockey and both those sports in full swing, coupled with my lack of enjoyment of the current product, I'm in no rush right now, but it'll happen.

I picked up the book yesterday and have only glanced a little at it like Loss, but it does seem entertaining, even if it is a bit of a drop-off. I find Chris flip flops between self-aware and not so much (as mentioned). He's very upfront about how stale his old act was upon returning, but glancing ahead, acts like the program with Michaels was this huge money-drawing angle (was it really?). The Rourke story was awesome and I look forward to more thoroughly reading the book to take in more stories like that.

Yes, up until 7 days, like any other channel. Although, admittedly, it hasn't been consistent. Recently, starting at 6 am on some Tuesday I think, all it had said was "WWE Network Programming". Some other changes to Rogers prompted a reboot and that got fixed. It also went through a stretch of unupdated programming. Again, a reboot fixed that, as some other changes were happening as well with Rogers (new channels, IIRC). I imagine DVRing (or, as we call it in Canada, PVRing ) wouldn't be an issue. (I say all this as a non-subscriber (at present), as IPGs can be seen whether you're subscribed to the channel or not. I have no idea what On Demand changes exist, OTOH.)

I'll argue when they ended the original lineage, and then rebooted it. It wasn't the same title to me, and it hasn't been booked nearly as effectively as the original one. The original one had some bruises towards the end (Austin tossing into a river, Chyna as "co-champion"), but it still perservered. You wouldn't know the same title Rock and HHH fought tooth and nail over was the same one Austin tossed away some 9 months earlier. You wouldn't know the battles between Benoit and Jericho, or the stunning win by Jeff Hardy over HHH was for the title once held by Chyna. Once the title got merged with a title designed to be HHH's vanity world title at the time, that was it. There may have been some instances the new one had where it was treated properly (some battles between RVD and Jericho, Punk chasing Regal, etc.), but it, for the most part, died when the original lineage died. No different than the "World Heavyweight Championship". Never had the same meaning as the original NWA/WCW gold in my book, especially since it got merged with the WWE title anyway for a relatively short 12 year run.

Being a 10-year old at the time, the Rockers never struck me as a being a threat to most teams. They debuted as a young, exciting team, and their first real program was against Arn and Tully. As a kid, Arn and Tully simply felt more superior to me. Even when they feuded with the Rougeaus, the Rougeaus felt superior. I started buying into the idea that the team may be a threat once they started a program with the Powers Of Pain, but even after that, they still lost to the Orient Express at Mania 6. Wasn't until the summer that I started to believe in them more strongly, but point is that, for most of two years, they were never a strongly pushed tag team. In fact, very bottom-rung, Young Stallions-level babyface team. Losing to the Conquistadors wouldn't have been out of the question. (Side story: A group of friends and I were doing the "play wrestling" thing at school (much to the school's chagrin) and decided to do a tag tourney, based off of WWF tag teams. Two of us got last pick and all the good ones were taken. Demolition, Powers of Pain, Brain Busters, Harts, even the Rougeaus and Bushwhackers were taken. Some teams that left (Bulldogs) were also chosen. We started thinking who to be and finally, he suggested the Rockers. It was literally the last option there. As hard as it is to believe with where Michaels wound up, they were that low on the totem pole.)

Compiled a list of all 8 wins from Graham's site. Does Denver count as a "small town"? I know it wasn't MSG, Philly, etc., but still. Plus, Savage and Andre were on that show, as well as Warrior and Honky, and that match vs. Rockers, if the result is accurate, was given a lot of time. That Lacrosse, WI Prime Time Wrestling match looks like it also could've been a hidden gem of sorts given who's involved. WWF @ Toronto, Ontario - Maple Leaf Gardens - January 10, 1988 The Conquistadors defeated Jacques & Raymond Rougeau WWF @ Salisbury, MD - Wicomico Youth & Civic Center - January 27, 1988 Prime Time Wrestling - 2/19/88: The Conquistadors defeated Brady Boone & Omar Atlas when Atlas was pinned at 6:19 after a slingshot / clothesline off the top double team WWF @ Omaha, NE - Civic Center - February 15, 1988 (4,158) The Conquistadors defeated B. Brian Blair & Jim Brunzell after the Conquistadors switched places in the ring; Earl Hebner continued the role of heel referee for the bout WWF @ Warwick, RI - July 3, 1988 (620) The Conquistadors defeated Paul Roma & Jim Powers WWF @ LaCrosse, WI - LaCrosse Center - July 13, 1988 Prime Time Wrestling - 8/1/88: The Conquistadors defeated Sam Houston & Terry Taylor at 9:27 when Houston was pinned with a clothesline as he attempted a bulldog on the second Conquistador; after the bout, Taylor blamed Houston for the loss - ruining his debut - attacked him, and threw him out of the ring (Taylor's TV debut) WWF @ Manchester, NH - JFK Coliseum - August 7, 1988 The Conquistadors defeated Shawn Michaels & Marty Jannetty WWF @ Denver, CO - Auditorium - September 30, 1988 (6,500) The Conquistadors defated Shawn Michaels & Marty Jannetty at 17:39 WWF @ Toledo, OH - Sports Arena - October 6, 1988 (9,500) Prime Time Wrestling - 11/15/88: The Conquistadors defeated John Latu & Bob Emery at 2:02 when Emery was pinned following a clothesline off the top after a slingshot from the other Conquistador

Nice to know their go-home angle of the PPV's title match is the low-end equivalent of Halftime Heat, if that.

Very sad news. I didn't know Clawmaster personally, but he was among those that was a joy to read and great to learn from. What really makes me sad is, according to WrestlingClassics, he was only 50.

I thought I read somewhere that only 25-30% of the WWE Library is digitized and ready for distribution on the Network. WWE doesn't have the manpower to make the process any more efficient than it currently is, I'm guessing. Partnering with a large multimedia company (who does a great job digitizing and distributing everything from MGM Classic movies to NFL Films productions) seems smart in my opinion.

So what's her actual dob? Because if Wikipedia is incorrect, so is IMDB, among other places. EDIT: Unless your initial statement was incorrect. In which case, carry on.

Wait...since when is 22 years old "underage"?

Shitty games or not, they were watched well enough on a Thursday night (already a hot TV night) that CBS had a desire to acquire them. The NFL couldn't be happier themselves, as they eliminated their biggest competition for Thursday nights (Big Bang Theory) from the equation by doing this. I guess the WWE is hoping that with a strong TV night, that more eyes will glance at Smackdown, whether it's on football commercials, channel flipping, etc. It's not a terrible thought, but if the show is mostly a recap show, they'll need more than that. It's hard to think they'll do much worse than on Fridays though, as that night is hardly a good TV night at all. Another "days of the week" thought: One wonders if, with the explosion of Sunday Night Football on NBC, if WWE shouldn't have moved their PPV days to a Saturday night instead. It's somewhat of a moot point now, with the shows on the Network and all, but with Sunday nights being heavily watched (Sunday night hockey is about to become a thing here in Canada), I wonder if they might've drawn more going a day earlier. There's still some advantages to that, in fact. They really need to make every PPV "can't miss" in order to sell the Network strongly. If there are harder-hitting matches (for lack of a better term) that help that cause, the guys and girls get a day rest before RAW.

Expectations must have been pretty low, then. Which makes me wonder the following: 1. What WWE's expectations in Canada were and how much money they would've made had it been strictly OTT. 2. What Rogers paid WWE and how much of a difference it was compared to the money predicted in 1. 3. How many subscribers they're actually getting from approximately only 20% of the country right now, and if that actually changes projections once the service (eventually) expands. 4. If it means Rogers makes a significant amount of money from this. 5. If it's all bullshit.

Not a free preview, either. There's an explanation here: http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/PVR_settop_boxes_remotes/thread-id/18941 The only thing I heard close to it is that if you order the Net Pak, the initial two weeks is free, which seems strange in itself. But not the same as a provider simply playing the channel for free for a certain period of time, without the customer asking them to.

Did he explain how? It's not available to hardly anyone, free for those who do get it, hasn't passed CRTC approval yet and did I mention most of the country doesn't get it? I have Rogers. It's not free.

As long as the Rogers money is higher than the expected number of Canadian subscribers times 7 (or whatever is left after paying MLB and considering organization) it is the right choice from a business perspective. Pretty much. I'm assuming Rogers only* needed to toss the WWE about $10 million per year (so just at the nine figure range for the length of the contract). WWE likely assumed, after assessing their US totals, that it was more than enough to believe it's a safe gain in Canada. *what they're paying WWE is still a fraction of what they're paying the NHL, I'm guessing

Don't know if anyone else noticed this, but the funniest thing about the global expansion of the Network is that if you look up its availability in Ireland on wwe.com, they note how the Network will be available in the United Kingdom in October.

I somewhat disagree. HHH and Steph have done as good as possible, but Brie (heck, both Bellas) bring about no sympathy here. They're trying to go the "Brie is a woman scorned, you gotta feel for her" route. And, admittedly, Brie's big takedown got a big pop. I still don't know how things will turn out Sunday as far as reaction goes (LA crowds are unpredictable), but as WrestleCrap-ish as the angle may be, I can sorta see why they went with it.

I hear ya. My wife doesn't watch much wrestling when I have it on aside from when there's women on the show and they're presented in a way that appeals to her. Oddly enough, she initially thought the idea of a Total Divas reality show was a joke...now she loves it far more than I do. In fact, near the end of last season, my old cable box died and I thought, "Maybe this is it for me for cable and stick to internet." She refused to go that direction. I think things like this means that there's no one driving force to increase Network appeal (aside from delivering a stronger current product, thus growing the desire for the PPVs). At best, the Network really can be a "something for everyone" deal. I know the WWE is currently cutting costs, but I do think that, in order to help maximize said appeal, they need to explore things like aquiring rights to show movies starring wrestlers (that they don't already have access to, if that). It wouldn't hurt to have some of Rock's movies on there, and even some of Stone Cold's direct-to-DVD movies may have some appeal. Sports networks (at least here in Canada) show movies a lot during downtime; the WWE wouldn't be doing anything different here. It's a wrestling channel, but things like that should be considered. BTW, the Network launched here in Canada today, on Rogers anyway. Channel 512, with on-demand content on channel 100 (of which I have no idea how it compares to the streaming on-demand stuff). Haven't ordered it yet, have to talk with the wife about that. (The Total Divas re-runs may be a helpful argument in the pro category. )

Aside from realigning with Liz, his face turn seemed very gradual. Heck, he was cheering Taker when he stuffed Warrior in the casket. I always assumed the proposal was when he was a face again officially.

Re: CFCW's question. I don't know if old footage is enough to get people to get the Network, for the reasons Loss stated. That said, if they had a Network started about a dozen years ago, even if it was just a cable network with an ESPN Classics similarity, there may have been more of a draw with that footage. I think it's a different time now. I remember getting Flair's first WWE DVD and a friend who's a casual fan asked me, "does it have his old NWA stuff? That'd be cool." To the casual, non-hardcores, stuff like that was still a novelty then. Different time now where it's readily available in many places. I don't think quality of footage makes a huge difference; if it did, BR discs in all facets of entertainment would be selling more.

Very good point. Actually...we're August 1 today. Rogers and the WWE are saying this thing happens on August 12. As far as I know, they've yet to submit an application. I remember when Rogers obtained the contract for the MLB Network. It took a LONG time for the application to be submitted, approved and then the channel to go on-air. We'll see when the time comes, but I'll be very surprised if I see anything on channel 512 on August 12th.

My cost assumptions are things like any start-up, infrastructure and operational costs with having the network in Canada under the set-up it is in the U.S. With the relatively sparse population/market in Canada, if those costs are high, then going that route may not be the wisest, business-wise if Canadian subscriptions aren't all that and a bag of chips. Instead, they signed a deal with Rogers, who'll be responsible for the platform and set-up of the Network. WWE likely got their money already and are sitting pretty. Everything is up to Rogers' execution and performance now. Vince's "they do things differently in Canada" line gave me a chuckle, but because of how a couple telecoms dominate the market and one that has all things WWE, he's not wrong with that, as opposed to how things are in the States.

I'm in Canada. And yeah, I have my fears, for the same reasons Ryan just stated. Apparently the channel we'll initially get is a Network preview at $11.99 a month. I have no idea how well that'll work up here.

The thing with Canada is two telecoms pretty much dominate the scene. One of them happens to have acquired the RAW and Smackdown rights when the previous channel went under. And since they're a BIG company, it was probably easier for the WWE to present a plan to Rogers as said ala carte channel than it was the other times they tried to talk to various cable/satellite companies in the US before going with the current plan. Probably less risk on the WWE's part. If we compare ratios for Network viewing/RAW audiences in the US and apply them to Canada, they'd probably be looking at 50,000-60,000 subscribers in Canada via the web, which probably wouldn't be worth the cost. All this said, I'll be curious as to how it's presented here, as I mentioned in the other thread. Wouldn't shock me at all if it doesn't include PPVs (they were quick to mention PPVs separately in the summary above). Totally possible that won't be the case, but I'm keeping my eye on that. Will know better August 12th, but given how Canada gets things "differently" than the US in various media, it wouldn't shock me if the Network in Canada "officially" is more watered down.