Should John Cena Turn Heel?

[PeteF3]

There hasn't been an MSG Raw since 2009. Since '06 the only MSG Raw not headlined by Cena anyway was the one Parv mentioned with Vince vs. Triple H and Cena in a semi-main 6-man.

[The Man in Blak]

Not surprising at all since it's now a publicly traded company, with layers and layers of bureaucracy

They became a publically traded company back in 1999, right in the middle of one of the most successful periods in the history of the company.

 

It's certainly possible that they've steadily accumulated that bureaucracy over time, but I think it's also just as likely that all that bureaucracy was there once Russo left back in '99 and they were too flush with talent to suffer from their mistakes.

 

Also, in terms of playing it safe, this is the same company that turned Rollins heel and broke up their biggest faction to mix things up. I'm still not convinced they made the right call, but it was hardly a safe one, regardless of the outcome.

 

I think the real problem is that, despite being the far and away leader in the industry, their current talent roster is thin and over-exposed. Even with an heir apparent in Reigns (who's probably closer to Sting than the Rock), turning Cena would only be a bandaid for stagnancy thrroughout the entire card.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't want this to turn into a political discussion, but it's a well established fact that bureaucracies trend toward continued growth over time. Many people believe this growth in turn leads to inefficiencies and internal conflicts that cripple productivity and innovation. Publicly traded companies in year one, are almost never going to look like publicly traded companies in year fifteen

[dgrblue]

In fairness, they tried to do just that with Batista and everyone hated it.

It was not fair to Batista. They tried the Rock treatment with Batista, however, the office dropped the ball on Daniel Bryan, and the fans backlashed on Batista. Trips decided to get one of his buddies a top spot for a few months before going to sell the Guardians of the Galaxy. Batista gets pissed when the fans do not embrace him, and then Daniel Bryan finally goes over, but at WM, rather than RR.

[dgrblue]

 

Not surprising at all since it's now a publicly traded company, with layers and layers of bureaucracy

They became a publically traded company back in 1999, right in the middle of one of the most successful periods in the history of the company.

 

It's certainly possible that they've steadily accumulated that bureaucracy over time, but I think it's also just as likely that all that bureaucracy was there once Russo left back in '99 and they were too flush with talent to suffer from their mistakes.

 

Also, in terms of playing it safe, this is the same company that turned Rollins heel and broke up their biggest faction to mix things up. I'm still not convinced they made the right call, but it was hardly a safe one, regardless of the outcome.

 

I think the real problem is that, despite being the far and away leader in the industry, their current talent roster is thin and over-exposed. Even with an heir apparent in Reigns (who's probably closer to Sting than the Rock), turning Cena would only be a bandaid for stagnancy thrroughout the entire card.

 

I agree that WWE's current product is way over-exposed, and the roster is very thin. Similar to WCW in 1998-2001. The same guys are on top, are the same guys who were on top 5+ years. The only new guys on top is the former shield, and Bray Wyatt. WWE has bigger problems than just chaning Cena to heel, which, I personally do not belive that WWE will consider changing Cena, since he works with all the sick kids.

 

WWE should consider dropping some of its tv shows, or reducing Raw to two hours, or hire more talent. Since WWE has financial problems, and are cutting the fat, so to speak, that is probably out.

[dgrblue]

 

Not surprising at all since it's now a publicly traded company, with layers and layers of bureaucracy

They became a publically traded company back in 1999, right in the middle of one of the most successful periods in the history of the company.

 

It's certainly possible that they've steadily accumulated that bureaucracy over time, but I think it's also just as likely that all that bureaucracy was there once Russo left back in '99 and they were too flush with talent to suffer from their mistakes.

 

Also, in terms of playing it safe, this is the same company that turned Rollins heel and broke up their biggest faction to mix things up. I'm still not convinced they made the right call, but it was hardly a safe one, regardless of the outcome.

 

I think the real problem is that, despite being the far and away leader in the industry, their current talent roster is thin and over-exposed. Even with an heir apparent in Reigns (who's probably closer to Sting than the Rock), turning Cena would only be a bandaid for stagnancy thrroughout the entire card.

 

Interesting theory about the break-up of the shield. I can see that is a bit risky, however, past history shows that since the company went public, the risk taking seemed to drop, and playing it safe seems the norm. The ratings on raw back in the late 90s, were consistantly 4s and 5s, with a high of 9. Today, they seem to be keen on 3+ ratings on Raw.

 

Also, I agree that Reigns is not ready to lead the roster, he still has to be carried a bit in matches. Technically, he is more closely related to The Rock. LOL

[kjh]

I don't want this to turn into a political discussion, but it's a well established fact that bureaucracies trend toward continued growth over time. Many people believe this growth in turn leads to inefficiencies and internal conflicts that cripple productivity and innovation. Publicly traded companies in year one, are almost never going to look like publicly traded companies in year fifteen

 

The creative team has definitely grown massively over the last 15 years. It used to be just Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara directly pitching ideas at Vince McMahon's home. They wrote the whole scripts for Monday Night Raw (and Smackdown briefly) on their own. Now, you have a whole team of writers for each show, some of whom work mainly from home and others who are always on the road (enough to fill a corporate jet!). There's also a hierarchy that makes it very difficult for new voices to be heard.

 

It's hard to see there being fundamental change in WWE until Vince McMahon steps down, Triple H gets complete control, removes Vince's old guard (like Kevin Dunn and Michael Hayes) and brings fresh blood in. Of course, many of the same problems will still be there in the long run.

[jushin muta liger]

I voted yes because Cena is starting to feel like Hogan was in 95/96. I was a child during that era and wrestling as a business on a decline. But I remember when Hogan turned and the NWO was formed, a lot of kids I went to school with came up to me to talk about wrestling (since I was one of the few wrestling fans in my school). So the whole thing about losing kids as your audience is a non factor because the kids will still watch especially with new technology now. Kids want something new constantly and a Cena heel turn would freshen up for more casual fans to take notice, kids and adults.

 

Also when Hogan turned in 96, it took WCW roughly a year and a half for them to cash in on Sting vs Hogan as their main program and after that it took them a while to cash in on Goldberg. The point is that WWE doesn't have to have a guy immediately to become the top babyface to replace Cena. Reigns and maybe Ambrose can become that but they have to give it time before cashing in. The money right now is to make Cena a heel and milk that like WCW did with Hogan and the NWO before it got stale.

[Log]

I voted yes. I feel like "soon" is the right time to do it.

 

It's too bad that Bryan is out. They could've had him run through everyone the Authority puts in front of him until Hunter brings out Cena as the guy to stop him. Cena's already the corporate WWE's ideal. Why couldn't he play that in storyline? He could basically do his same schtick, but with Steph and HHH backing him.

[DMJ]

I voted No.

 

I know I have hindsight on my side, but when people suggest that Cena could've turned heel and then had his spot given to Mysterio, Jeff Hardy, Daniel Bryan, or CM Punk, it makes me chuckle and shake my head.

 

I think we could also agree that, had this ever happened, we'd probably still be looking at Cena as the top babyface in 2014. The only difference is that we would've been able to point to, say, 2009, when Cena "went heel for 8 months" but then, because Mysterio got injured, they turned him back to a face in time for Mania.

 

While I do agree that a Cena heel turn would shake things up, I also think that the term "golden goose" has probably never been more apt to describe a wrestler. Here's a guy with the recuperative skills of Wolverine, who seemingly never tires of the schedule or the demands of being THE guy and never complains. Watching Total Divas and seeing his undecorated, barely-lived-in home and you can see he's a guy who has probably spent 8 months there total in the 8 years he's probably owned it. Even when he's getting booed out of the building, his merch is outselling everyone else's (by a wide margin, based on what I've read). He does movies (the Fred series, Trainwreck), but doesn't let them get in the way of being a touring member of the roster - and speaking of touring member, he's probably the only "draw" the company really has at this point. Turning him heel wouldn't change many of these things, but it doesn't seem like Cena *wants* to turn heel and an employee like John Cena is worth keeping happy.

 

I definitely see how turning him heel would allow another guy to become the new top babyface and that this could lead to a boom period...but is that guy going to have the staying power, work ethic, and ability as John Cena? It is hard to think of anyone that could.

[pol]

Would it even be wise for the WWE to take major risks with the wrestling product in the hope of introducing a new boom period? It seems like their approach for many years now has been to try to increase income by expanding every revenue stream outside of the core product; merchandising, sponsorships, movies, etc... with the WWE Network being the latest and biggest step in that strategy. They've made a significant move towards transforming their business into a Harlem Globetrotters-style brand/attraction rather than the traditional model of building major stars and putting them in big matches that can draw big gates and PPV buys. Their entire strategy seems geared towards strengthening the WWE brand and making it a business that can sustain itself regardless of the quality of the wrestling product. That's why they privilege things like merchandise sales and PR/good publicity over creating greater interest in the product itself.

 

P.S. I feel terrible for saying "product" so much in this post but I think for once it was actually appropriate.

[The Chief]

I voted yes. Sometimes you've just gotta make ballsy moves.

[The Man in Blak]

 

I don't want this to turn into a political discussion, but it's a well established fact that bureaucracies trend toward continued growth over time. Many people believe this growth in turn leads to inefficiencies and internal conflicts that cripple productivity and innovation. Publicly traded companies in year one, are almost never going to look like publicly traded companies in year fifteen

 

The creative team has definitely grown massively over the last 15 years. It used to be just Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara directly pitching ideas at Vince McMahon's home. They wrote the whole scripts for Monday Night Raw (and Smackdown briefly) on their own. Now, you have a whole team of writers for each show, some of whom work mainly from home and others who are always on the road (enough to fill a corporate jet!). There's also a hierarchy that makes it very difficult for new voices to be heard.

 

It's hard to see there being fundamental change in WWE until Vince McMahon steps down, Triple H gets complete control, removes Vince's old guard (like Kevin Dunn and Michael Hayes) and brings fresh blood in. Of course, many of the same problems will still be there in the long run.

 

 

Let me clarify a bit: I'm not saying that the bureaucracy isn't there - we have enough anecdotes from various people throughout the business that makes it seem clear.

 

The issue that I'm questioning is how long those layers have been there and if they're really the root cause. Has the WWE bureaucracy grown so dramatically that the WWE of 2008-2010, which was one of the most successful periods in the company's history, operated that differently from the WWE of today?

[JerryvonKramer]

It really depends on how many Belgians there are in the team. For each one, multiply the inefficiency by ten.

[Russellmania]

is Cena lurking?

 

John Cena ‏@JohnCena 3m

Ok interweb, have fun with this one.. #lifewouldbebetterif I turned heel. @twitter feed crash in 3....2.....

[shoe]

Haha.

[Dylan Waco]

It's a well established fact that Cena reads this board

[goodhelmet]

He should type #wwewouldbebetterif

[Steenalized]

He should type #wwewouldbebetterif

#ifnotmethenwho?

[goodhelmet]

That's awesome!!!

[Shining Wiz]

Is there actually debate about Cena being a massive heel at the same time as being the "face" of the company? You don't think they play up all the things that make so many people hate him? That he doesn't play up all those same things?

 

He is the epitome of what a modern audience needs in a heel. Note that I said needs, not wants. Once a heel gives the crowd what they wants, they cease really being a heel. By being exactly what he is - the squeaky clean good guy who looks like a superhero and almost always overcomes the odds no matter what - he's such a good guy he's hated. And, he is so good at it, he doesn't even need to be insincere about it like Bo Dallas. He just is.

 

And the second he 'turns'.....everyone who hates him will fall all over themselves babbling about how awesome he is, how fantastic he is, and how much they love him. So by 'turning', he'll end up being more of a face than he is now.

[Fantastic]

And the second he 'turns'.....everyone who hates him will fall all over themselves babbling about how awesome he is, how fantastic he is, and how much they love him. So by 'turning', he'll end up being more of a face than he is now.

 

Not if it's done correctly.

 

Having him go over popular babyfaces in drawn out, boring matches where Cena continually slaps on rest holds (see Randy Orton) and simply refrains from any high spots would be a great heat seeker.

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

 

And the second he 'turns'.....everyone who hates him will fall all over themselves babbling about how awesome he is, how fantastic he is, and how much they love him. So by 'turning', he'll end up being more of a face than he is now.

Not if it's done correctly.

 

Having him go over popular babyfaces in drawn out, boring matches where Cena continually slaps on rest holds (see Randy Orton) and simply refrains from any high spots would be a great heat seeker.

That worked once ,with Foley in ECW.And live crowds aren't gonna get or react to it. Little kids aren't gonna boo Cena because he's doing "boring" moves.

[Shining Wiz]

 

And the second he 'turns'.....everyone who hates him will fall all over themselves babbling about how awesome he is, how fantastic he is, and how much they love him. So by 'turning', he'll end up being more of a face than he is now.

 

Not if it's done correctly.

 

Having him go over popular babyfaces in drawn out, boring matches where Cena continually slaps on rest holds (see Randy Orton) and simply refrains from any high spots would be a great heat seeker.

 

 

Anything that would work to make him a heel would make him incredibly popular with all the people who are alreafy booing him. Even that.

[The Chief]

You just need to put him against a super over babyface that the crowd will get behind. You don't need to get cutesy or complicated. Good vs. evil.