DMJ

Goldberg hit two spears immediately, but couldn't get the pinfall. Undertaker did a sit-up which almost counts for a "high spot" for him nowadays. A few minutes later, Goldberg ran into the post and got busted open - supposedly hardway. Also, on Twitter, Goldberg said he was knocked out for a second. Taker hits a decent chokeslam and a decent Tombstone - but Goldberg kicks out. There's a collision that brings them both to the mat, but Undertaker maintains control soon after and delivers a Snake Eyes - only for Goldberg to counter with a third spear! Goldberg attempts a Jackhammer, but ends up having to settle for a Brainbuster. Taker kicks out, but is very slow getting to his feet. Goldberg tries to get Taker up in a powerslam but he can't and they both go to the mat. Taker then delivers an awful-looking chokeslam. After the match Taker looks pissed as Goldberg gets helped by a trainer I did not like this match and I'm someone who liked Goldberg's last run against Lesnar (and Owens). I'm also probably a bigger fan of Taker than many here and feel like, for a long time, his "aura" really was enough to carry a bad match into something interesting or "important." This match, though, didn't have any "big fight feel" and I didn't get any sense of a story being told. It started off interestingly with Goldberg trying to "shock and awe" his way to victory, but from there, it was just bomb-throwing with a couple random moves thrown in. There was no escalation - it felt like Undertaker went to the Tombstone as his fourth or fifth move when, back in the day, he would progress there with some other signature moves (the Flying Clothesline, the Old School, even the Triangle Choke). There's an audience for matches like this - as the review above shows - but I'm not it.

I'm not going to defend Kofi's statement as that would be ridiculous but, since he's become champion, I can imagine every "old school" agent/producer/Vince McMahon asskisser has been in his ear about how, now that he's the champ, he needs to "represent the company" and all that BS. I think he fully knows about the human rights violations - how could he not considering the bad press the WWE gets for even during these shows? - but he's given verbiage and his job is to speak it. Just like his promos on SmackDown. And, yes, to whoever said it above - you can and should blast Goldberg, Taker, and Shawn Michaels for working these shows. I can't hide the schadenfreude I feel towards Shawn Michaels fans/apologists who somehow believe that being Born Again means that he's not a greedy scumbag. Did the drugs make him an even bigger scumbag in the 90s? Sure...but it was there all along and him coming out of retirement to do a Saudi show proves where his heart lies. At least in Taker's case and especially in Goldberg's case, they've been open about the fact that they'll do anything and promote anything at the right price, that wrestling is a business. Michaels has put himself out there as a man of faith.

I thought that was all kayfabe - like all the bogus Twitter drama and "wrestling is fake - but I'm not!" stuff they did during the build to Mania. She was just playing the character of the former Champion who lost the title in screwy fashion (the finish to the Mania main event). Even the comment about her broken hand was "on brand" for her. Plus, based on her most recent tweets about the 24 Special, she's thankful and appreciative of her WWE run. I think her desire to start a family is legit, so I'm not expecting her back any time soon...but I definitely don't think we've seen her last match. At 32, she's got years ahead of her in pro-wrestling and Vince and Co. will always regard her as a bigger star than anyone on their own roster. I'm not sure we'll ever see her as consistently on TV and house shows, etc. like we did in 2018-19, but I wouldn't be surprised to see her make an appearance (at the very least) at WrestleMania 36.

- I don't think there's been a bad Takeover, but part of that is that the shows, compared to the main roster's, are considerably shorter and only happen every 3 months. Injuries have also stalled more than a handful of storylines. Calling any of them a "one match show" feels a bit hyper-critical...but, again, that's compared to the average main roster PPV that sometimes feature a total sum of 0 good matches. - I don't think NXT needed the North American Title. Its a "midcard title" for a brand that, at any given time, really shouldn't have a genuine midcard. Its a minor league. Take Velveteen Dream, for example. Why is this guy fighting for a midcard title when (a) he's been over enough to challenge for the NXT Title (a minor league championship) and (b) his best feuds/matches have really been about the clash of personalities anyway. If you've got wrestlers trying to win the second tier championship in a minor league, you've run out of storyline ideas for characters that should be, by definition, being developed with characters that shouldn't need titles to give them value/meaning. All the singles in NXT's midcard should be fighting to climb the ranks to be the NXT Champion - that's it. Its not like on the main roster where you have 30+ guys and 1 Championship isn't enough. Its NXT and they really only have what? 7-8 guys at any given time that are getting prominent exposure? 1 title is/was plenty. For another example - Ricochet. Did he need to win a title? If the answer is "Yes," they should've made the NA Title Ladder Match into a Number One Contender's Match and let him win that. Then he could've challenged Ciampa (or whoever was champ at the time). They created the title to seemingly give him and Cole something to do, but did the title add anything to that feud? If you want to "strap the rocket" on someone in NXT - a developmental minor league - just strap the rocket and put them on top of the show like they did with Owens, Nak, etc. The "rocket" doesn't go all that high. Its not like the NXT brand is depended on to bring in huge revenues or needs stability at the top. Its a developmental minor league that is fun to watch, period.

Just saw that 98k people purchased the show - that includes international, online, etc. based on the news story (which was pulled and maybe altered from the Observer). Any way you slice it, that is a very respectable showing for the first show. I thought 50k would be impressive, so 98k is tremendous and, if they can sustain it for another couple shows, real proof of concept. AEW is batting a thousand right now in my eyes and I haven't even seen all of DoN so I'm not even talking the wrestling-side. They're crushing it at getting buzz/positive PR on social media (Ocasio-Cortez!), on reddit (inclusivity for people with sensory disorders!), in the podcast world (Moxley torching WWE Creative), and in getting a TV deal (bringing 'rasslin' back to TNT!).

I too suspect that the "line" was going to be something like Dean Ambrose claiming to be dealing with "the real serious medical threat of being around all the infected scum in Chattanooga while Roman Reigns is pretending to have cancer in Miami." While I think he's going overboard saying that the WWE would lose sponsors - that's kind of a toss-up as some stuff gets traction in the news cycle (Moolah) while some stuff is just ignored (pretty much ever depiction of a minority character from the 80s through 2005?) - the IWC would certainly be in an uproar. And, of course, Vince and Koskey would probably relish in it as being "good heat." Another facet of the Moxley interview I love: the outing of Koskey as Chief Yes Man. Like how the Punk podcast outed Dr. Amann as, at best, being just complicit in the company's mishandling of performer's injuries, Ed Koskey has now become a name that we can attach to RAW's terribleness. Based on what Moxley said, Koskey seems to be there for all of the major creative meetings (which makes sense as he's RAW's head writer), but it seems like the extent of his input is to laugh at Vince's jokes and help him procure more props for his "comedy sketches."

Renee was definitely put in the booth as part of the Women's Revolution deal. And I'd theorize that her initial contract may have also been coming up and there was interest from networks and sports channels. As a backstage interviewer, she was clearly a natural and she's obviously a beautiful woman to boot - if ESPN hired Jonathan friggin' Coachman, I'm guessing ESPN and Fox Sports had their eyes on her too (probably even back when she was working in Canada). As I said, I could be way off but I could see the WWE possibly re-signing her to more a lucrative deal after her first expired and then, as the pay's gone up, thinking, "Hey, if we're going to get the most out of our investment, she should be on TV more." What non-wrestler role is on TV the most? Commentator! We'll make her a commentator...even if that's not what we hired her to do or what she excels at. There's also the added thought that, based on what her husband said, the overproduction and micromanaging of every aspect of the show includes the commentary and because she is being overproduced, her commentary suffers as she can't use her natural instincts to actually do the job correctly. I mean, don't we already know that to be somewhat true with Booker T? Or do we all actually believe that if the real-life Booker T was sitting on your couch, watching a match with you, he would be the same annoying dweeb with the inane (and stolen) catchphrases that we hear in the WWE? I tend to think that Booker T has more insights than "shucky ducky quack quack" and sometimes get the sneaking feeling that Vince McMahon might just have a documented penchant for minstrelsy. Or not? Maybe I'm wrong and Renee, Booker, Graves, Jerry Lawler after 95', and Mick Foley are all just really, really bad at their job.

I'm only 25 minutes in and this is already a "must listen." Obviously, the ads every 10 minutes are annoying, but they're only 90-120 seconds or so. I'd put this right up there with the CM Punk podcast and Austin's best episodes. On NPR they call them "driveway moments" when the story is so good that even when you reach your destination, you want to stay in your car and keep listening. That was exactly what happened to me when I got to work. I'll also admit that I was wrong the countless times I theorized that Moxley's unhappiness had less to do with Creative and more to do just being burnt out on life as a WWE wrestler (the injuries, the travel, even the wrestling itself). I believed he had far more creative lee-way than what seems to be the case and that many of the bad ideas he talks about originated from him. Which is why I kinda soured on him - because I thought, "Wow, this guy's idea of what's good is terrible." Its nice to hear that he thought all the prop comedy over the years was stupid and only got worse as time went on. I also liked the part where he mentioned that there are plenty of guys backstage who speak up, but that its not so easy because (a) even meeting with Vince sounds like an hours long ordeal, (b) convincing him of your vision as opposed to his is not easy, and (c) the label of being a "complainer" may not mean you'll get fired, but its still not a good thing. I'm figuring things are going to get very interesting over the next couple years if AEW stays afloat. If I think of how the company's treated some of their "main eventers," it makes me wonder if we've haven't seen the last of Prince Devitt, Kevin Steen, and Bryan Danielson after all...

As others have said, considering the level of brand awareness/current lack of TV presence, even 50k would be a huge number. I can't verify their accuracy but the numbers I came across from TNA ranged from 10k-40k for their PPVs, with an average around 20k (?). Despite some bellyaching, the $50 price point does not seem to have hindered sales too much. In fact, the overall positive reception for the show makes it seem like this was well worth the price on PPV. I did not order the show and I have not seen the whole show (I am admittedly more of a "WWE-centric fan" and have limited knowledge/exposure to indie wrestling save for local shows) but based on what I did see and read about it, I'm more likely to buy the next one. If there are another 8-12k fans like me, who were "fence-sitters" this time around, AEW has the potential to do an even bigger number for their next show. From what I've read, I have not seen many fans say they regretted their purchase.

Or worst of the bunch? Or somewhere in the middle? If that list of ideas ever does leak or get reported, its possible that it actually has some good ideas on it that Vince refused for whatever reason - even out of just spite or stubborness. I don't consider myself someone who blindly sees Vince or HHH or Stephanie or Shane as infallible creative geniuses - just as I don't think Kevin Sullivan, Eric Bischoff, Vince Russo, Paul Heyman batted 1.000 when they were in charge of different companies. They all had hits and misses. Right now, though, it does seem like the WWE is missing way, way more than hitting and this title is just not something I am interested in. As for people shitting on it and speaking great things about the Hardcore Titles of yesteryear - I don't know what to say about that. The 90's/00's Hardcore Titles of WWE and WCW were an unfunny joke that I disliked when I was a teenager and, on rewatches, its still a part of those PPVs and shows that I don't like. I don't know of really anyone who appreciated those titles back then outside Crash Holly's involvement and, in WCW's case, Norman Smiley's work (which was also comedy-based). Maybe I missed the critical reassessment of Brian Knobbs and Al Snow's Hardcore Title runs, but I thought we all agreed that shit was nothing special.

Oh, I agree...but in 2019, Cena is gone, Reigns was somehow a bigger deal before he beat cancer (!) Daniel Bryan is in a tag team, and as much as I like and think the WWE could do a better job at making guys like Orton, Jeff Hardy, Mysterio, and AJ come off as bigger attractions, none of them have much aura right now. And that's before we even talk about guys that could've/should've/would've been main event stars like Strowman or Rusev or Big E. Sadly, I think we'll see the same thing with someone like Velveteen Dream - someone whose Takeover matches have become "must see" to me and who oozes charisma and feels like a transcendent star (the way Nakamura did in his WWE debut). But they'll probably have him come in and feud with Robert Roode over the 24/7 Title or whatever and that "specialness" will disappear. So, you're right, it shouldn't be a "Lesnar Or No Stars" situation...but it IS a "Lesnar Or No Stars" situation because unless I'm missing someone, I don't see anyone with the same aura as Lesnar on the main roster currently and, even when the WWE does seem to have someone that has that aura, they crush it almost immediately with 50/50 booking and overexposure.

Oh, I agree...but in 2019, Cena is gone, Reigns was somehow a bigger deal before he beat cancer (!) Daniel Bryan is in a tag team, and as much as I like and think the WWE could do a better job at making guys like Orton, Jeff Hardy, Mysterio, and AJ come off as bigger attractions, none of them have much aura right now. And that's before we even talk about guys that could've/should've/would've been main event stars like Strowman or Rusev or Big E. Sadly, I think we'll see the same thing with someone like Velveteen Dream - someone whose Takeover matches have become "must see" to me and who oozes charisma and feels like a transcendent star (the way Nakamura did in his WWE debut). But they'll probably have him come in and feud with Robert Roode over the 24/7 Title or whatever and that "specialness" will disappear. So, you're right, it shouldn't be a "Lesnar Or No Stars" situation...but it IS a "Lesnar Or No Stars" situation because unless I'm missing someone, I don't see anyone with the same aura as Lesnar on the main roster currently and, even when the WWE does seem to have someone that has that aura, they crush it almost immediately with 50/50 booking and overexposure.

- Footage of wrestlers standing around in catering being themselves would probably be more interesting, funny, and help said wrestlers get over more than wrestling to be the "LOL Champion" for 3 days or whatever. I mean, did you hear the Good Brothers on Austin's podcast? You can stare at a brick wall and listen to that on headphones and it'll bring more smiles to your face than the average episode of RAW these days. - Saw the Ziggler segment and dug it. I wrote about it in the MITB thread, but I'm far more into actual heel/face drama than "let's see who the better wrestler is" bullshit like the Rollins/Styles match. The Bryan/Kofi Mania match is my WWE MOTY simply because, even if it was imperfect, there wasn't a single "This is Awesome" chant. People cared about who was going to win because Bryan winning would've pissed them off. Owens face/heel flip was too sudden for anyone to really care, but this angle at least started off hot with a heel doing something vicious to a face and the face being sympathetic (and not made to look like an idiot, i.e Kofi ever, even slightly, thinking Owens wasn't going to turn on him).

Just finished the show today. I'm seriously worried what I'll read from the RAW and SD results... - Definitely a candidate for worst PPV of the Network Era. I haven't read the RAW/SD results but, reading through this thread, I also wondered if all the ref screwups was the start of an angle. I kinda hope so because, if not, those ref screw-ups were woeful. - Like 99% of the audience in attendance on Sunday, I don't watch 205 Live and this match makes me think that's the right move. I'll say this too - the production choices around that match were all really poor too. This might be blasphemy or a "hot take" to some but this match, or most any 205 match on a major PPV, would benefit from not featuring elaborate entrances, from not having it take place right after the "international commentator round-up," from not being given more than 7 minutes. The first two things on that list made it clear this was a bathroom break opportunity. The last thing on that list is just poor design. I feel like, when the cruisers were starting to be featured, part of what made it work was that, at the time (95'/96'), you basically had two nobodies come out and, in one segment, they just AMAZED you with their skill. It was "blink and you'll miss it" - but it wasn't their entrances or poses that caught your attention, it was their in-ring ability. Nobody knows who any of these 205 guys are and their gimmicks aren't going to make me care...but if this match had just kickstarted, and they'd done some crazy shit, doing a string of ridiculous moves in under 7 minutes, I'd be like, "Woah, that was a blast!" I may not even watch 205, but I know next time they appear on RAW or SD or a PPV, I'm going to be excited about it (just as people were whenever you'd hear Liger or a Japanese women's tag team match was happening on a WCW PPV). I don't think Rey Mysterio, Psicosis, Juvi, La Parka, etc. would've gotten over without a bit of that "blitzkreig" production style where Nitro almost "jump-cutted" from main event guys (Randy Savage, Ric Flair) cutting promos to, out of the blue, two guys in colorful costumes wrestling a completely different style at a breakneck pace with (admittedly) a bit less focus on psychology. We get enough elaborate entrances from the rest of the roster, that elaborate entrances for nobodies is driving away the live crowd's engagement. - Bayley's cash-in was a great moment. Proves to me that she still has goodwill and support from the audience that the WWE unwisely chose to ignore for the past few years. It was interesting that they mentioned Sasha in the post-match interview too. Maybe she is coming back after all? - I am SHOCKED that some people really liked Styles/Rollins. As a match it was fine, but I found it be heatless and was not really engaged. I was rooting for Styles (kinda) because I dislike Rollins, but the build and "hype" for this match made no sense to me. I can get behind face/face matches when there has been a clear collision course (Hogan/Warrior) or when there is a culture clash (Hart/Michaels). I don't mind a "passing the torch" type deal (again Warrior/Hogan). This was none of those. It was two guys known for having good matches having a good match because they can have a good match and, look, one of them is going to win but they're both really great, right? Yawn. They seemed to try to paint it as Styles being the more seasoned veteran and Rollins "chasing" him, but Styles was never a dominant champion on RAW and Rollins has been in the WWE, in a main event position, for longer too. I know the actual timeline of careers make it clear that AJ is the vet and Rollins is (comparatively) the young lion, but in "WWE age," I don't see the "veteran vs. upstart" dynamic at all. Plus, yeah, with neither guy working remotely heel, this was just a really good exhibition match. - I am ALSO SHOCKED that everyone here is shitting on Brock Lesnar winning the MITB. I found that to be a WELCOME curveball that I didn't see anyone predict before the show. I can't believe that on the same board that regularly bashes Rollins for not eliciting any real responses from crowds, that regularly talks about how the WWE has no stars, that regularly discusses how much the company has failed with Reigns since his return, that we're going to then criticize the WWE for *hopefully* putting the Universal Championship back on Brock Lesnar? Come on. You can't have it both ways. Either you want one of these "good match for good matches sake" nerds to be your champion or you want the title around a guy that evokes a visceral response and a "big fight feel" from the crowd like Lesnar does. The AJ/Rollins match might have been *technically* a great match, but it had zero "big fight feel." Every Lesnar match has that.

The documentary before the match is really fun. The match itself is far from a masterpiece, but I still enjoyed it more than most matches I see on RAW or SD today. Its the little things you get here that I don't think we get today that make the difference. For example, Magee does two armdrags into an armbar and actually looks like he's putting some pressure and torque on the limb, Bret really sells the struggle and works out of the move slowly (telling the story that its not just about pulling his arm out of the hold, which could cost him his arm, but angling out of it so Magee can't just snap it in half with his strength or pull it out its socket). Its such basic offense, but who cares? It has logic that Seth Rollins' repeated suicide dives spot doesn't. Later, Magee backflips off the corner and then hits two dropkicks. They're not the prettiest dropkicks ever, but hey, at the time, you didn't see guys built like Ultimate Warrior leave their feet much. Today, nearly everybody does superkicks, planchas, and moonsaults so seeing a guy with Magee's physique do backflips wouldn't be impressive, but in this context, it popped the crowd huge. The lesson here, to me, is diversity in movesets is something the WWE should consider being a bit stricter on. After getting with the dropkicks, Bret leaves the ring and takes a breather with his manager, Jimmy Hart (whose incessant "C'mon, baby" and taunting of Magee as a "meathead" and "pretty boy" is terrific and sorely missed in today's product), and a fan gives him the bird and tells him to fuck off. Wow...today, there'd probably be a "This is Awesome" chant because audiences are "too smart" to actually boo or cheer characters. Back in the ring they go and Bret takes control. Magee seems out of position for a move here or there, but nothing I'd consider a real "botch" because perfect execution and choreography makes things look less real to me. So, even if Bret doesn't really catch him with all of his elbow from the 2nd rope because Magee sits up/rolls out of position somewhat, it still works because why on Earth would anyone just lie there and take an elbow drop if they had the will and energy to try to dodge it? The same can be said for Bret having to struggle a bit to get Magee up-and-over for an attempted suplex (that ends up leading to the finish). Worth watching for the doc and, because the doc is good, I was totally on-board to watch the match too and I like that they are compiled together so that you don't have to search for it separately.

I didn't like the Firefly Fun House this week. Seems like a punt to me, even if the intention was always to re-introduce the old Bray Wyatt (Now with mask!) through this "new Bray Wyatt" character. Evil children's TV host is a very tough character to turn into a wrestling persona (as we all said after the first video), but I think there was at least a feeling like, "Hey, if you're going to strike out, you might as well take the biggest swing possible." A split personality where one of the halves is just the old Bray Wyatt with a new catchphrase and slightly altered look is meh to me. Its like they actually convinced me that this new persona could work and then pulled it back for something many of us stopped caring about years ago.

Spoiler-Free Thoughts - * I don't watch the TV regularly because life is too short, but I try to keep up online and catch segments here and there. I totally missed that they're going with Charlotte/Becky again. I can't believe there's not more of an uproar online about this and I'm a Charlotte fan. I know there's a term for wrestlers called "go away heat," but this is one of those times where a match itself has "go away heat" from me. Lynch/Flair might have just bumped one level closer to HHH/HBK and Cena/Orton as pairings I wish I didn't waste 30 hours of my life watching wrestle each other. * I like the new Sami Zayn gimmick. Its fine. I don't like them restarting the Sami Zayn/Braun Strowman feud. WWE, if you want your fans to feel like things matter, like every week is a new and exciting show, like I need to tune in or I'll miss something, the first step should probably be making sure you're not running the exact same feuds you did two years ago. * Speaking of Strowman, they really seemed to have cooled on him this year. I forget - did he even appear at WrestleMania? Vince failing to make Braun a star - or even whatever the modern version of that would be in the "Brand Over All Era" - is the equivalent of whiffing at t-ball. It is and should be embarrassing.

Its a weird look to bring an award you received to a meeting, period. If I win a Hot Dog Eating Contest over the weekend, I'm not wearing the medal to my staff meeting on Monday...even if I work at a hot dog factory. That being said, it is also proper manners to congratulate a co-worker for an award they win and if there was any petty jealousy, that'd be equally lame. In response to Charles question, my guess is that she is a consulting producer/writer (?) and is not a full-time one just based on the fact that she won an award for a separate production she was involved in. Maybe something similar to what Freddie Prinze did where I don't think he was punching a timecard 5-days-a-week for the WWE, but was writing/producing/pitching ideas in more of a consultant role (compared to Gerwitz or Ryan Ward or Road Dogg or Russo, who were full-timers, and probably a bunch of other people I don't know the name of). So, for her, the money must be worth it or maybe she's a long-time fan or whatever.

I don't think every wrestler in the WWE is a "geek." I think the booking has failed many of them. Becky Lynch, for example, being considered a "geek" is weird to me - she's pretty badass, great look, natural charisma. Her booking has been shit, but you put a picture of Becky Lynch in 2019 next to a picture of Alundra Blayze in 94' and ask who looks cooler, Becky Lynch wins hands down. I'd also say that Sasha Banks, in NXT, had a great character. Charlotte gets over the "Genetically Superior Athlete" gimmick very well. In the males department, The New Day got over the "larger than life" gimmick quite well. They have flashy colorful clothes. They march around with trombones and throw pancakes around. Its basically a more nuanced High Energy. I'd argue that the issue isn't that they aren't capital-S Superstars, its that this gimmick, like Koko B. Ware or the boomerang-tossing Lanny Poffo or the fun-loving Bushwhackers, doesn't necessarily work at the top of the card without some serious, serious character development. I think they did a good job with Kofi...but maybe not a full, A+ great job. Strowman was booked into being a geek - he wasn't a geek to begin with. Same for Roman Reigns. Bray Wyatt was booked into being a geek but, initially, did have a larger-than-life gimmick and aura. The Miz has loads of charisma, but has been booked up and down the card for so long, he just seems like an aimless character with no motivation. Same with AJ now (and, at one point, the same was true of Jericho and RVD). While I agree that the intensity and larger-than-life characters of the 80s/90s is missing today, I'd also point out that not every star of that era was a steroid-fueled psychopath (in the sense that they gave insane promos, not that they weren't on the juice). For example, Rick Rude was calm, composed, but self-possessed. Mr. Perfect was a cocky snob. Jake The Snake had menace, but he wasn't a brute like Warrior or Hercules. Piper's words got him over far more than his larger-than-life look. Bret Hart eventually got over as a hard-working wrestler. I don't think its far-fetched to say that guys like The Miz, Velveteen Dream, and even Dean Ambrose and CM Punk fit in this mold despite not having huge, over-the-top Road Warrior gimmicks. Now, Owens, Rollins, Ziggler, etc. - yeah, they're geeks. No real gimmick. Fight meaningless matches for the sake of fighting meaningless matches. "Steal the show" bullshit. I'd also just add that not every wrestler I described above is someone I personally like. I'm not a massive Wyatt or Ambrose fan, for example, but that's also something people should be clear about. Just because we don't like a worker, or think they suck, doesn't mean we speak for every fan. Ambrose, for example, was, at a time, very over and clearly the number 2-3 babyface on the roster (maybe it was 2015/16?). Then he was booked like a geek.

So, as the ratings drop the production value will look more and more like college volleyball?

https://www.ewrestlingnews.com/news/the-xfl-partners-with-disney-and-fox-broadcast-schedule-revealed I'm not super surprised that the XFL got a TV deal, though I'm guessing the networks involved are paying bargain prices for the rights to air these games - with Vince probably agreeing to some sort of "play or pay" situation where, even if the ratings are so abysmal that ESPN or ABC decide to simply air something else, they'll still get paid something. I just don't see Disney forking over big bucks for content that has a very, very steep uphill battle of even matching the weekly 2.0 rating it averaged in 2001* - comparatively the stone age before streaming channels and the "real" internet made much of Network TV obsolete. Plus, he's trying to sell a product that is a proven failure. * note - I did not include the historic 9.5 rating of the first XFL game in my calculations. Nor did I include the 4.6 rating that the second game earned. In 2001, wrestling was mainstream (meaning Vince himself was a mainstream celebrity) and the XFL media campaign was so tremendous that the first game was a "must see" event. That number, and the 2nd week's number, became outliers as the season went on and 80% of the audience abandoned the league. 80%.

- Yeah. I know "ratings don't matter," but a show like Hell's Kitchen brought in 2.5+ million viewers on Friday nights (and is dirt cheap to produce ) and Last Man Standing does 2.5+ million and even The Cool Kids had 2.16 million last week. Their lowest rated show last Friday was Proven Innocent, a new courtroom drama, and it had 1.69 million viewers. Now, that's not that different than SmackDown, which does consistently bring in 2+ million viewers - but Network execs are always searching for a surprise hit and consistency is not necessarily honored over time unless that consistency is winning*. SmackDown is not going to overtake shows on NBC and CBS that bring in 4-7 million viewers on Friday nights even when they're on reruns. So, yeah, as long as Fox is happy with a 3rd place showing, SD is probably safe...but, hey, the TV business has lots of moving and shaking at the top and we saw TNT, TBS, and USA all cancel or let wrestling go (when Raw when to Spike) when new bosses took over, even when they brought good ratings. I tend to agree with the prediction that it will end up on FS1 by the end of 2020 if not sooner. - I was definitely more on Lio Rush's side of things based on what we've seen on Twitter and in various reports...but if you have a second, check out what Mark Henry said in a recent interview about it. As much as it is BS that Lio or anyone else is being asked to carry ice, etc., Henry's take is insightful and does offer an interesting counterpoint. The fact that its coming from Henry also makes me more likely to consider the other side than if it was coming from someone like JBL or HHH. - I can't believe anyone is arguing Vince is in the right about not pushing Harper because he can't do a southern accent. That's Vince saying Luke Harper looks like white trash but doesn't sound like white trash because white trash have southern accents. Even if that wasn't outright classist/regional horseshit, every single one of those writers and producers on staff should've had the guts to tell Vince that good TV writing is often about subverting archetypes. Hannibal Lector was a monster...who talked with serenity and calm. Walter White was sympathetic high school teacher with a deathly ill wife moonlighting as a drug lord! Harper being eloquent and clever adds much more to the character than him being the 2019 version of fucking Skinner. * A quick note - I'm not 1000% sure Hell's Kitchen was airing on Fridays in 2017-18 (Season 18), but that year, its average was actually 3+ million viewers. At one point the show probably did an even bigger number on a different night, but as it started trending below 4, I'm guessing it was sent to the "death night." I bring this up as an example of how a show that is trending down, that does not seem to be picking up any buzz or momentum, is not something Networks tend to prefer over a "shiny new toy" that might be a hit. For the first 6 months of SmackDown on Fox, it will be that shiny new toy and Fox will put money behind it. They want it to succeed. But, right now, the WWE's TV ratings are trending down yearly and that is not something TV networks overlook no matter how much the WWE is reaching "record profits." Fox is in the business of having hit shows, period.

The Moxley video is all sorts of silly/over-the-top/corny with symbolism so "on the nose" that I'm not sure it can even be called symbolism...but I'd be lying to say I wasn't excited about it. El-P mentioned that this video already makes him seem like a bigger star than he ever was in the WWE. I'm going to raise you one further, brother; If this same video was produced by WWE and aired on Raw in the weeks leading up to Dean's return from injury (instead of "Mox," it would just be hyping the return of an "unchained" Ambrose), it would be getting LOL reactions because (1) the video implies that barbwire and blood are in Dean's future and the WWE no longer does that and (2) the WWE's track record of booking stars is so atrocious that no matter how much a wrestler is hyped or promoted, we all know its only a matter of weeks before they're losing in the midcard, doing comedy gimmicks, or reading awful verbiage in the middle of the ring. So, in a sense, even if the WWE could set the table as well as this video does (and I'd argue that they could), its like, did anyone really believe that when Ambrose returned he was going to be treated seriously? How many months did he end up going before that butt injection skit? And , sure, its understandable why they'd pair him with EC3 and Nia Jax after it leaked that he wasn't re-signing...but even if he had re-signed, who would he have been trading wins with? Balor? Maybe feuded with Braun? Those don't sound too bad on paper, but they also don't sound super interesting and would've probably been booked the same as every other "filler feud" that the WWE does in the midcard these days.

Especially because the Lacey Evans character is so strong - just as a gimmick - that it would benefit from her defeating a "less classy" babyface like the "tomboys" Nattie and Bayley or the "crazy" Nikki Cross. I know its not a perfect comparison, but like, it made sense when Luger showed up as the Narcissist that he would feud with Mr. Perfect rather than get thrusted into a title match against Bret. With Evans, you have a gimmick that is based on her being a "lady" and while "The Man" is the obvious feud, its not like you can't run her against other non-traditional symbols of femininity (again, Bayley, Nattie, Cross, and Naomi spring to mind). But WWE booking themselves into dumbass corners is about as new as learning as Raw has hit a ratings low. Meaning: not very.

I'm really curious about the tiered approach. I'm happy with what they offer now for the current price point, though the app itself is definitely in need of repair and upgrades. I don't know what they could possibly offer to make me pay more. And if they take things away from it - for example, if PPVs are put on delay (meaning, for $9.99 you still get every PPV but its a week late), I'm either going to cancel or stick with whatever the lowest tier is (which I assume would be what they offer now). I certainly wouldn't be pay more to watch stuff live when, for the most part, I end up watching stuff a couple days after anyway. I have a sneaking suspicion that many fans are like me too. The Network is really convenient, but if you're savvy enough (or visit the right porn sites), you can usually find these shows within hours of them airing anyway. Eliminating stuff from the app is more likely to convince me to cancel outright than to ever pay more.