JonnyBart

That makes sense because those two wouldn't sign unless they were getting good money; so WWE probably wouldn't want them in NXT for long unless they are really ramping that up.

I think that will change as votes go to more modern voters who grew up wrestling on and watching/appreciating the indies. You'll see vote totals change for guys like Punk and AJ Styles after a while.

I like this Hall of Fame better: http://halfguarded.com/2015-pro-wrestling-hall-of-fame/

Sasha and Becky was really great. I'd probably put it a tad higher than the Sasha/Charlotte match from last Thursday.

Yes, he is.

Don't mean to talk in riddles, sorry if that's coming across. It's just that those of us who have been with the site since the beginning don't want to get anyone in trouble. Some of us still talk with one of the catalysts of this whole thing, so its why some know more than others. *Edited out of deference to those directly involved, don't want to create more trouble for anyone.

Not sure I completely buy it, as Todd got into an argument with Mike Coughlin on the board, where he used some pretty heavy language before his disappearance. No one thing was the reason but the recaps were not inconsequential. The Coughlin thing (and Todd's likely reaction) just put it over the top.

The difference there is that essentially MLB is the only game in town and Costas doesn't run a private business where he offers "objective" analysis of an entire field. Had Meltzer taken the gig his credibility should have been shot, but most probably would have ignored simply out of blind love for NJPW. This would be more akin to Costas owning Baseball Prospectus and doing announcing for the San Diego Padres while still purporting to be delivering unbiased analysis of the Padres product in his Baseball Prospectus work. What about all of the team owned networks (I'm thinking YES, SNY, NESN as I'm on the east coast) that employ sports writers or sports radio hosts to be a part of the broadcast/network. Occasionally those guys get flack for objectivity issues (by media talkers), but its never talked about as this disgrace to the profession. I think those being critical are reaching on this one, especially within the current sports media climate.

Can't get anything to play on the PS3 myself

To networks, the ratings are prestige more than anything. The real meat is in the ad revenue that a show can produce. It's why WWE has a lower contract than the other sports, because advertisers don't pay big money (relatively) for wrestling. That problem has existed for a while and I don't see it going away. FS1 is a possible outlier because they may want WWE to help build their struggling network.

In regards to a contracts lawsuit, you usually need to show damages. So most suits would need to happen after the network launches because the plaintiff (Dish, DirecTv, etc.) would need to show how much revenue they lost because of the Network. That would be then be the basis for the damages in a breach of contract suit. I suppose in theory one of these providers could try to get an injunction against WWE to stop them from airing the Network.

Same, I have to remind myself of this fact whenever I get mad about the Network not having all of the archives.

Raw, Smackdown, etc. are all currently available through Hulu Plus, and NBC Universal doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Though that attitude could change when it comes to a digital service that is marketed specifically towards wrestling fans. Something like a week delay on the network would probably work for both parties.

You understand that's not what you'd have to do, right? Get a Chromecast or Roku or use a game console. Never heard of those first two things but I do have a PS3. I don't have a wireless set up though or a router. So, I'd still need to research and figure out what is best option. Just pick up a wireless router and you'll be good to go, no matter if your device is a PS3 or something else.

This, if true, is a very forward thinking move by WWE. I'm quite surprised.

For the Netflix/Hulu thing it seems like they would have to tier it, so WWE content would be sectioned off. I don't see any way for the WWE to get close to the revenue they need from just offering as it part of the overall Netflix/Hulu package. And Netflix/Hulu would have to run the PPV shows as live programming, which is something totally outside their comfort zone.

I'd think pre-game and post-game shows for Raws and PPVs are a given.

If the cable companies are that negative on the channel then it's dead no matter what.

So if cable systems think WWE Network will under-perform, and they still get to offer Mania on PPV, is there any real incentive to cut a deal? Those cable companies will have a ton of angry customers calling and demanding to know why they have to pay $60 for Mania instead of $10-$15. IMO, that's the smartest part of this strategy. WWE's fans will heavily push for clearance.

The costs of the network will be spread over time; but they'll lose some immediate revenue on the loss of Mania PPV buys. Putting Mania on the network is a risk, but this whole venture is a risk for WWE. Might as well go big.

There we go, his resume seems good though not stellar. I think we'll get some kind of launch in the first quarter, but possibly just a soft launch on a few systems.

If they are going to a pay channel, then I wouldn't think distribution would be that big of a hurdle. It doesn't seem like it would hurt Comcast, DirecTv, etc. to simply offer the WWE network at $15/month, especially when they get a cut. Maybe there are some hidden costs that aren't obvious.