The Trial Of Eric Bischoff (Podcast Question)

[JaymeFuture]

So, for this week's Squared Circle Gazette Radio, we're returning to our "Court Case" format that we did in the past for one of our most popular shows (The Trial of Triple H), and this time putting Eric Bischoff under the gun.

 

We have a prosecution, a defence and a judge in place - the charge against Bischoff is that he's the person most responsible for the death of WCW (via malpractice and negligence). So in terms of feedback it's simple - where do you stand on that specific question, and why?

 

As always, the best feedback will be read on the show and become part of the debate. So whaddya think - is Bischoff most responsible?

[JerryvonKramer]

Contributor but not solely responsible. The biggest blame in my view lies with the suits, especially Time-Warner:

 

- Guaranteed contracts with creative control -- not Eric's idea and consistently tied his hands and undermined his authority.

 

- Forcing Thunder on TV. Again not Eric's idea and he opposed it.

 

- Booking. Eric was never the booker, but does take responsibility for failing to set coherent direction and also pandering to the boys too much, even allowing for creative control.

 

- Failure to push young talent and make new stars. Partly Eric's fault, but those guaranteed contracts are the biggest problem.

 

- Vince Russo. Eric didn't hire him.

 

This feels like a pretty tired topic to me.

[JaymeFuture]

I'm on the prosecution for this one, so it's a challenge, but I think the interest in the debate is more with how to make the case for one side or another rather than the topic itself. The Time Warner suits argument I see a case for on the Thunder point, but that otherwise always seems like a convenient out given everything that went down, and with Death of WCW just re-released its fresh on the brain currently.

 

I absolutely love El-P's thread on this board going through months of awful Nitros revealing just how fuck awful pre-Russo WCW was in 99, could you argue that it was done as a real threat by the time Russo got there?

[SteveJRogers]

I'd agree with the esteemed Brit on this one.

 

The defendant, while an egomaniac, was a contributing factor in what drove WCW into their downward spiral from both a creative standpoint and behind the scenes, he doesn't deserve all the blame for what would be the death of the company.

 

Its like any decent coach or general manager in sports, or director in the entertainment parlance, the in-between guy (ownership/studio and players/cast & crew) is always going to get way too much credit for the good times, and shoulder way too much of the blame for the bad ones.

 

Oh sure you can blame them, and I'll use Bischoff specific ones, for playing favorites, being mean spirited, spending money frivolously because he could, not knowing what he had in certain talent and letting them go, etc, but they were an important part of the puzzle that got them to the top in the first place.

[Dooley]

 

 

- Guaranteed contracts with creative control -- not Eric's idea and consistently tied his hands and undermined his authority.

 

Only Hogan had creative control. The rest of the upper card just refused to do things left and right because Eric allowed it. As for the guaranteed contracts, they may not have been his initial idea but Eric clearly didn't have a problem with it and embraced the system. He was routinely criticized for "pushing guys to their contract". ie - big contract, big push. mid-level contract, mid-level push. Jericho talked about it in his book. Since he was the one making the offers, it's hard to not hold him responsible in that regard.

[JaymeFuture]

What we have to debate is not that Bischoff was the only cause, but is more responsible than any other single person or element. Or, I suppose, of the contributing factors, the one that contributed the most.

 

The contract caste system is key because by the time Bischoff was done, I'm not sure how much of what was left was going to turn things back around after seeing those guys in the middle for so long.

[The Chief]

Bischoff made WCW turn a profit when it never had before. Regardless of what happened after that has to be considered a success.

 

If no Bischoff does WCW die earlier?

[rovert]

In the words of the Diva Maria:

 

Last week Eric Bischoff abused his power in a way that was malicious and capricious. It was this rash discourse that has led to this locker room of disdain and mutiny and should be grounds for his immediate dismissal.

[Loss]

What had the longer lasting impact on wrestling? WCW's success? Or WCW's failure? I don't think that's a cut and dry answer, nor do I mention it to disparage Eric Bischoff. In fact, Nitro's success led to greater emphasis on RAW, and to this day that is one of WWE's most valuable brands. So back to the question - in the long run, which was a bigger deal: WCW igniting a wrestling boom and changing wrestling in the process, or WCW going out of business and changing wrestling in the process?

[WingedEagle]

I think its a fascinating question with compelling cases to be made for both. One of those things you could listen to reasonable people debate for a long, long time. Without Bischoff and Nitro, does Vince give Austin & Rock a chance to rise to the level they did? Who gets a chance at the top of the card if Turner money isn't there to bring over Hall & Nash? All interesting stuff.

[JaymeFuture]

Just wanted to thank you guys for the responses, for those interested the show is now available to listen to at this link:

 

http://squaredcirclegazette.podbean.com/mf/play/pf2qd7/SCGRadio19-TheTrialOfEricBischoff.mp3