Meltzer Comment

[Strummer]

from Meltzer's Update today:

 

--This year's World Series is on line to being the least watched World Series in history, and it's noted that it proves that it's marquee teams and not exciting baseball games that draw ratings. There is a lesson in that for wrestling, although most do recognize it.

Now I think I've gotten better in deciphering Meltzer's ambiguous statements but this one came out of nowhere and is kind of confusing. Is that a shot at TNA or WWE? Every comment he makes is always a subtle jab at something, anyone have any idea?

[Guest brian]

Aren't '00 and '03 like two of the three worst drawing world series of the last ten years or so?

[Guest teke184]

Which proves that New Yaaak is NOT at the center of the US's attention, no matter what the residents may believe.

 

(2000 was the godawful Subway Series between the Yankees and the Mets, IIRC, which interested NO ONE outside of the Five Boroughs)

[Al]

The poor World Series ratings are a sympton of the poor job the networks and MLB do of selling those teams. In a good market, teams that win games become marquee teams, and players that win games become marquee players. There could be a lesson for how well you MARKET your talent, and his point may be valid, but the analogy does not work.

[Guest brian]

I hope Meltzer is saying that MLB needs to do a better job of building up the other teams that play, and thus turn them into marquee teams, much like the WWE has to do a good job giving personality and such to the not so major players in the WWE so that they can prepare for the future (which MLB has failed to do when it comes to the ALCS and World Series this year, because they have been on cruise control as far as being creative). At least that's what I hope that's the correlation Meltzer is making.

 

EDIT: Err, I guess that's the point Al was making, and I misread him at first.

[Coffey]

It almost sounds like Meltzer is saying the content of the match doesn't matter. The World Series games have been good individual games. I mean, the Sox have won the first three but they've been good games. The problem is, no one cares. So, maybe he's saying wrestling should do a better job of building to matches instead of just slapping random matches on Raw & Smackdown?

[Guest brian]

It almost sounds like Meltzer is saying the content of the match doesn't matter. The World Series games have been good individual games. I mean, the Sox have won the first three but they've been good games. The problem is, no one cares. So, maybe he's saying wrestling should do a better job of building to matches instead of just slapping random matches on Raw & Smackdown?

I think that is what he is saying, that the quality of the match doesn't mean shit if you don't build up the people in the match, their feud, their personality, etc. I think he's made the same criticism of TNA, but I could be wrong.

[Guest TheShawshankRudotion]

I think it's a TNA jab as well. Big names = ratings. The thing is, TNA had Kevin Nash in their main event under that pretense, so I don't know how it applies to them. Unless it's a direct dig at JJ.

[Guest EastCoastJ]

I think he is saying a ***** match between Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero isn't going to draw in the main event spot what a sloppy match between Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin will.

[Strummer]

When I first read it I also thought it was a shot at TNA with "exciting baseball games" meaning "exciting wrestling matches". The point being that no matter how good and "exciting" the matches are people won't watch them unless they care about the participants. But then that goes against how Dave views wrestling as a fan, so who knows.

[Marty]

The poor World Series ratings are a sympton of the poor job the networks and MLB do of selling those teams.  In a good market, teams that win games become marquee teams, and players that win games become marquee players.  There could be a lesson for how well you MARKET your talent, and his point may be valid, but the analogy does not work.

I think that's what Meltzer means about marketable teams. I never checked the ratings, but I have a hunch the first round may have been the most watched, since it involved the Yankees, Red Sox, and Braves all losing.

[sek69]

I just took it to mean that you have to promote all your teams, since in baseball they tend to get shit ratings if there's no New York or California teams in the World Series.

 

Even if you have exciting games, people outside of the home cities have no vested interest in watching. That's what I got out of it. You gotta give people a reason to watch.

[Guest Some Guy]

A random 4 star match means nothing in terms of buyrates or ratings. A match with a great build and two people who the fans care about does mean something to buyrates and ratings. No one outside of Houston and part of Chicago care about those two teams. Most people don't watch baseball or wrestling to see great games or matches, they watch to see drama and a "clash of the titans." The rivallry between NY and Boston is something that everyone knows about and is very over with the fanbase. Baseball, like wrestling has not done nearly a good enough job of promoting new stars. Other than Pujols and Ortiz, name one more guy who has really gotten over with the public in the past few years. Same goes for wrestling, Batista and Cena are the only new stars who have been promted in the last while and they, like Ortiz and Pujols aren't pushed hard enough. MLB still has a hard on for Jeter and WWE still has it for Hogan, Austin, whoever. People don't care about those people as much as they used to. Both industries are afraid to move on and forge ahead.

[Loss]

I think he is saying a ***** match between Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero isn't going to draw in the main event spot what a sloppy match between Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin will.

I think that point could have been made without naming names, honestly, considering that Benoit and Guerrero headlined one of the most successful Wrestlemanias in history.

[Guest EastCoastJ]

I think he is saying a ***** match between Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero isn't going to draw in the main event spot what a sloppy match between Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin will.

I think that point could have been made without naming names, honestly, considering that Benoit and Guerrero headlined one of the most successful Wrestlemanias in history.

Wrestlemania XX was either successful because:

 

A) Fans were enthralled by the opportunity to see Chris Benoit finally win the World Title in a match he was the third biggest star in, and Eddie Guerrero vs. Kurt Angle below in the card.

 

-or-

 

Because WWE put the biggest advertising campaign that they had ever embarked on into what was billed as the Twenty Year Anniversary of Wrestlemania and the biggest wrestling show of all time, and they had stacked the card with matches involving Goldberg, a returning Rock & Sock Connection, Hulk Hogan, Vince McMahon, HHH and others.

 

Saying Benoit and Guerrero were proven to be draws because they came out on top of Wrestlemania XX is like saying Randy Savage drew the buyrate for Wrestlemania IV, and I don't think either are above criticism. They were given a nice feel good moment at the end, and the fans appreciate them, but I don't think you can point to either as the reason WMXX did well at the box office. The novelty, the starpower, the WWE brand and the anniversary element were the bigger draw than any two wrestlers.

 

Eddie definitely is a draw with the Hispanic audience, but with all of the Hispanic numbers he was pulling in with both his title reign and his program with Ray, non-Hispanics were still tuning out in big enough droves that ratings pretty much just treaded water.

[Loss]

I wouldn't credit the entire buyrate to Benoit and Guerrero either, but they were both very important in hyping that show and were both part of a successful formula. It's important to note that the previous year's Wrestlemania featured the returns of Steve Austin and the Rock, and Hogan/Vince, and it was considered a failure by Wrestlemania standards. There are no guarantees in terms of star power.

 

I think the main point I wanted to make is that I think Benoit and Guerrero are absolutely nothing like Styles and Daniels, neither in their wrestling style or the way they're pushed. They are far more like Michaels and Angle than they are anyone in TNA.

[Guest EastCoastJ]

I think the main point I wanted to make is that I think Benoit and Guerrero are absolutely nothing like Styles and Daniels, neither in their wrestling style or the way they're pushed. They are far more like Michaels and Angle than they are anyone in TNA.

Oh ok, I totally agree with you there.