Slasher

I didn't know the numbers, so if I overestimated that then fair enough. 1 out of 3 WWE fans watching NXT is still pretty high. You say Sasha had the chants because of her success in NXT, well no shit! That is my point. You are only confirming it. The girls had an advantage coming in on RAW by virtue of their accomplishments elsewhere. It isn't like they had to build their fanbase from scratch. Look at Daniel Bryan or CM Punk. They didn't have the benefit of synergistic exposure like NXT folks do. There were always people who knows Daniel Bryan or CM Punk but I think they had less of a reach for the WWE fans and more required effort to build them up with their runs in reality competition NXT/ECW. Only then did they earn more of the fans' attention overall with their characters and their talents. Sasha debuted with the Divas Revolution before Takeover/Summerslam and they were cheering for Sasha even then. So the problem obviously isn't what you are claiming. The WWE did a terrible job booking them, that's part of it, but the girls do need to take responsibility here on adjusting to the different way of life that a travelling circus requires as opposed to living and eating and drinking and breathing at the NXT facility.

The girls had an advantage compared to guys who used to come in cold from other promotions. They rose through the ranks of the best drawing "indy" which I think it is fair to say 80% of the people watching WWE are also watching NXT by now. It isn't like they are coming in unproven. People were chanting for Sasha even before she officially got called up. So that explanation doesn't work IMO.

Why would we wait 10 years? He would be eligible in only 2 years from now if he was worthy of it.

May be wrong here but I feel like I've heard that Bray was not the guy Taker wanted this year. I think his first two or three choices were shot down due to availability or just because they didn't want to go that direction. He just didn't seem to have his heart in the Wyatt match as demonstrated by the fact he never appeared anywhere on TV beforehand.

The matches do change on house shows but they do mirror a lot of the stuff that make TV afterwards. Just seeing fan cams of stuff like Owens vs Ambrose with Ambrose jumping over him to counter the power bomb or Cody Rhodes doing the moonsault off the cage against the Real Americans and then doing it on Raw weeks or months later (those are examples that come to my mind but there are others). Guy develop chemistry and you start it on the small shows and adjust for TV. I'm not asking for them to do silly spots that I've seen on fan cams but at least they can do have some single matches on the house shows before they do a 15 minute match on Raw.Yes they rehearse the spots that they want to use for the big tv or PPV matches but the structure is completely different. I have gone to plenty of house shows where they had the matchups that would go on to be the RAW or PPV matches within a month or two and I can only recall two matches that was practically move by move same.

The League of Nations are not fan favorites obviously but I find it difficult to believe that the Authority could ever be placed in a babyface position, even in the face of a rampaging renegade faction. Triple H the individual might but if he has Stephanie cutting his promos then it won't happen.

No. House shows are worked in a way to make the crowds happy. They don't necessarily work the kinda match they have to work on tv.

Rock vs Brock is such a terrible idea. Brock's appeal is as a destroyer of the worlds. Rock's appeal is as the supernova megastar. There is nothing to connect the two people. They already had the sports build at Summerslam 2002. The only way the match works is if Brock went back to being an ultimate heel as opposed to the tweener he is now and drew the Rock out to save someone from a terrible fate...maybe Nia Jax? Or if the Rock managed to turn himself into the douchebag heel that people wanted Brock to destroy. Neither scenario is likely or even workable.

Maybe if Taker is up for wrestling 2 or 3 more years they can start a running angle where Undertaker's career is on the line and he wins the first two of those matches before falling again in his final.

Yeah definitely. Part of what made Undertaker so important to Wrestlemania and the streak is that everyone was portrayed to be very interested in being the one to end it. That made Taker a bigger attraction than anything he's done in the WWE the other 11 months per year. If people are having matches for the honor of challenging the streak, people pay attention.

I suspect Sheamus wins the belt back with the heavy odds being too much for Reigns but not before Reigns fights so valiantly. Then keeping the belt away from Reigms til Wrestlemania.

If its Taker/Cena, Cena has to win. I think the last time they had a meaningful match was 2003 when Cena was the young heel rapper and Taker the grizzled biker veteran. Taker beat him then. Would be a full circle deal if Cena finally beat him with the 12 years of wrestling experience he has gained since then.

Yeah I am only speaking for myself. The "people" I referred to was strictly about the Favre situation. I wasn't trying to use an opinion to speak for all. Obviously Taker is a legend and people are always gonna want to see him. I will concede the point to you though. Also I think Flair had a bad thing going too. He retired and had this great sendoff only to be begging the WWE to work again within a few months, being turned down and gokng to TNA where he was treatrd basically like a joke. Now he returns to the WWE and his role is the oddly oversentimental dad who is forcing his daughter upon all of us. At least Shawn Michaels for the most part had the sense to basically stay retired and be kind of choosy about when and how he makes his sporadic appearances.

I agree that Brock was the right guy to break the streak. Like you mentioned, they are friends and Taker certainly respects Brock a lot for his talents and abilities. He is a guy that Taker knows people would buy losing to. There is also the fact Lesnar is already a very special attraction and would not crumble under pressure of being the ender of such a Streak like a 25 year old youngster or a 30 year old upper midcarder looking to break out. Lesnar was really the only choice barring a Cena heel turn. But it should have been saved for when the end really comes for Taker. Now it just feels like Brett Favre coming back after a picture perfect end and people are like..."Oh...its Favre...back...uhhh yeah" awkwardness.

I don't believe that. If that was true he wouldn't have had him come back for Bray Wyatt. Or Brock again. Or Brock for the third time. Or the Wyatts again. Or possibly the Royal Rumble. Whoever he is scheduled to face at Mania XXXII. I think if that was the reason given, it was just an excuse to justify the finish without making Taker look bad. Undertaker passed out and was rushed to the hospital before the end of Wrestlemania 30. He was in rough shape anyway before the match, and Vince made a last-minute call that afternoon that if they were ever going to end The Streak, it was their only chance. It's not at all inconsistent with what the thought was at the time that Undertaker was probably done. He ended up bringing him back because Undertaker said he could do it after all. Then at WM31, he told everyone he felt better physically than he had felt in a long time. So they added more matches. Circumstances change. What was he expecting? This is Brock Lesnar. He hits hard, throws people around recklessly and has insane cardio and endurance that not many people can match, let alone a mostly retired 48 year old guy. I get that if he thought that Taker was out of shape but why didn't he notice that when they talked about ideas for him for that night? You would think he would give him a softball opponent instead of an electrified iron spiked ball like Brock if there were serious concerns. If you are saying that the finish was called on the fly via the ref's earpiece due to Taker's condition, I would doubt that. The finish looked planned all along.

I used to think the same way until Mania 31 where he spent a good 20 minutes standing there without speaking and just milking the crowd, cutting a nonsensical promo that had very little to do with what he was disputing in the first place (that they don't own anyone) talking aboit how they fail to realize Rock is an East Bay boy...like what? You're billed from Miami/Los Angeles for God'a sake. Getting slapped and milking that by staring for a long time before faking leaving then sauntering around for Rousey. Pretty much the day I completely lost interest in the Rock. Edit- Don't get me wrong. I totally get why people would be entertained by that but not me. I hate extended sequences of milking crowds. At least when Jericho did it he was completely trolling the fans. That was awesome.

Jingus- I don't think its weird. In 2010 he was still something like 44 or 45 but after you turn 40, your body can age badly practically overnight for some people...especially in something as physical as wrestling. I think Taker really needed those years to rest up after being in such high pressure matches like the Triple H HIAC, the brutal street fight type match he had the year before and of course...Brock. CM Punk is the odd man out here as IIRC it was a pretty straightforward match but then again Punk hit Taker hard to compensate for whatever perceived size difference there was.

I don't believe that. If that was true he wouldn't have had him come back for Bray Wyatt. Or Brock again. Or Brock for the third time. Or the Wyatts again. Or possibly the Royal Rumble. Whoever he is scheduled to face at Mania XXXII. I think if that was the reason given, it was just an excuse to justify the finish without making Taker look bad.

Roman Reigns? The same guy the Rock got booed for endorsing after the Rumble victory? The last thing Reigns needs in his precarious position is to face the guy that not a single soul would get cheered over him. And if anything, barring a heel turn (which won't happen because you can't turn the Rock heel and Reigns is meant to be their new franchise ace) you want Rock's endorsement to mean something in the long run. Having him face Reigns at Wrestlemania with the intent of taking the belt off him is really incredibly counterproductive for so many reasons.

With the Streak gone, yeah why not? But if he was still undefeated they could probably drag an extra 10 years out of Taker Mania matches. However it is my understanding that a large part of why Vince ordered the loss was he felt the Streak was getting too big for everyone involved and that it was putting a lot of pressure on Taker to keep defending the streak for the fans' entertainment. Vince wanted Taker to feel free sitting out a Mania if he so desires.

Only because for like 5 years he hadn't appeared on any show besides Wrestlemania and whatever Raws they need for the buildup beforehand. 2015 was the first year he actually wrestled in a bunch of shows. That was novelty but if he was doing this in 2016 and 2017 or whatever, that appeal would be gone entirely.

I understand the WWE wanting to treat Taker right by having him recover from the loss to get a few more paydays but man, if they were ending the Streak, it really should have been held off til Taker and the WWE knows it is his last ever match. Like Coffey said, the Streak was the only thing keeping his career rolling and really, keeping the fans interested in Taker's matches. It was amazing how little I gave a fuck about him after Brock beat him. Didn't care about the Wyatt match nor the Brock rematches. Probably won't even care about his 2016 Mania match, even if it is against Cena and he teases a heel turn harder than ever before.

The way the Royal Rumble winner spot is used is because that spot is firmly bonded with the fact that the person was gonna main event Wrestlemania. You are not gonna see them put a guy like Ambrose or Ziggler there yet. The champion going in are typically either the heel upstart via MITB or the veteran heel or the veteran fighting champion babyface. That leaves less room for WWE to operate in finding matches for their champion. So it isn't very often that there is a clear path for an ascending wrestler to win. So its always gonna be the reliable names with a Sheamus or an Alberto Del Rio mixed in.

LOL. Triple H is never letting Angle step one foot in their rings. Vince might like the idea but given Angle's history of drug problems, he would be easily swayed into not going for it.

No he doesn't but compared to Undertaker, neither would Balor...even in his most impressive monster get-up, he is still much smaller than Taker. I just think visually Corbin works better but let me make clear that Taker shouldn't be working with anyone from NXT really.