S.L.L. Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 so at the imvestor's conference call today Vince called the cancel the network trend a "vocal minority" and that it actually helped business. Specifically, he said "it created controversy, and that was really good for us." So now, not only is Vince McMahon 1986 Verne Gagne, he is also 2006 Eric Bischoff. Any guesses as to which out of touch, failing wrestling promoter he's going to try to emulate next? Russo would seem like the obvious one, but it's almost too obvious. Dixie Carter? Herb Abrams, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Ewiak Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 The thing is, isn't he right? Ratings weren't effected by the Rumble - they were effected by the return of Walking Dead & the debut of Better Call Saul. According to all reports, WWE Network subs actually went up. And most importantly, Reigns is getting good pops on house shows, where the hardcore don't show up. So yeah, even if I'd prefer Bryan going over, it wasn't the disaster that some people thought it'd be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 I don't even think Vince hates Bryan. In fact it's been reported he likes him. To a degree. I think he really believes that it's a loud, boisterous minority of the crowd that likes him and then he looks at the data and it backs him up. Dave keeps reiterating how there aren't "enough" of those DB fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Ewiak Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 I don't even think Vince hates Bryan. In fact it's been reported he likes him. To a degree. I think he really believes that it's a loud, boisterous minority of the crowd that likes him and then he looks at the data and it backs him up. Dave keeps reiterating how there aren't "enough" of those DB fans  Right. Many of the Daniel Bryan fans will show up to a Rumble or a Raw or a PPV, but ya' know where they're not showing up? The Smackdown house show in Omaha or the RAW house show in Orlando. Those shows will be full of Cena (and possibly new Reigns) fans who sure, will chant 'Yes' when Bryan comes out, but then go spend $90 bucks on Cena merch.  Was Bryan crappily booked after WM last year? Sure. But, going through a shitty feud w/ Kane is a rite of passage in the WWE. Even Austin had to go through it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yo-Yo's Roomie Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 Shouldn't they be finding a way to get those Bryan fans to show up at house shows? Or generally finding a way to parlay his overness into making more money for them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 Shouldn't they be finding a way to get those Bryan fans to show up at house shows? Or generally finding a way to parlay his overness into making more money for them? That is the crux of the problem isn't it? They don't seem like they want to do that and that's what's pissing all of us (most of us) off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 At the house show I was just at the other week Bryan was super over. The only guy who got a louder reaction was Cena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmare007 Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015  Shouldn't they be finding a way to get those Bryan fans to show up at house shows? Or generally finding a way to parlay his overness into making more money for them? That is the crux of the problem isn't it? They don't seem like they want to do that and that's what's pissing all of us (most of us) off   Pretty much. I'm kinda surprised that hasn't been a bigger talking point when it comes to Bryan and his fanbase. Specially for someone like Dave. He seems more corncerned about not getting fans hopes up about DB and trying to explain WWE's mindset than clarifying and/or critiquing why they are so lazy when it comes to find ways of getting the most money of this "vocal minority" that keeps ruining big shows for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(BP) Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 The Yes! chants are a double edged sword because it's easy for Bryan's detractors in the company to argue that people just like to chant and Yes! is more over than he actually is. I don't think that's the case, but I'd be really surprised if that wasn't their mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 The Yes! chants are a double edged sword because it's easy for Bryan's detractors in the company to argue that people just like to chant and Yes! is more over than he actually is. I don't think that's the case, but I'd be really surprised if that wasn't their mindset. That's really not that far-fetched at all. Remember when they tried to give "YES!" to Big Show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmare007 Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 But that's the thing, every time they've tried to give the chant to someone else (Show, Brie , hell even Del RÃo with the "SÃ") it hasn't worked at all. How can you justify having the same mindset when you've seen it proven wrong more than once? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Ewiak Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 But that's the thing, every time they've tried to give the chant to someone else (Show, Brie , hell even Del RÃo with the "SÃ") it hasn't worked at all. How can you justify having the same mindset when you've seen it proven wrong more than once? Â From their point of view, how over is Bryan if they can give his signature chant to somebody else, and they still get 60-70% of the volume? I don't agree with them, but that's their point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 The Yes! chants are a double edged sword because it's easy for Bryan's detractors in the company to argue that people just like to chant and Yes! is more over than he actually is. I don't think that's the case, but I'd be really surprised if that wasn't their mindset. Â Its one thing that bugs me when watching Raw. Â I dont recall being irritated that often by the live crowd not since after Austin and gone and we kept getting the What chants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 Ok, I'm now leaning towards troll rather than moron, but who the fuck knows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'd do away with the WWE IC and US belts. Then I'd create a WWE Network Championship that could only be defended on the WWE Network. The Champion would still wrestle on RAW and SD but in non-title matches. That WWE Network Champion would be Bryan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 As the Brand split is no longer valid they do need to reduce the singles belts. Just keep the IC title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 As the Brand split is no longer valid they do need to reduce the singles belts. Just keep the IC title. WCW did quite well with more titles than the WWE currently has. It's not about reducing or increasing the belts, it's about booking then well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 yeah, i am pretty sure 80s crockett also had more belts relative to roster size than WWE does currently. the classic 3 singles titles, world & US tag titles, the central states title that sam houston had on their shows...the 6-man tag title was only a thing in the early 90s though, right? Â i *do* think that was too many belts, to be fair. having 6 or 7 "champions" just sounds inherently silly to people who follow sports and such. i especially have never understood the need for a 3rd-tier singles title, in any context. but that's not something that's going to kill a promotion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 i *do* think that was too many belts, to be fair. having 6 or 7 "champions" just sounds inherently silly to people who follow sports and such. i especially have never understood the need for a 3rd-tier singles title, in any context. but that's not something that's going to kill a promotion.  WWE was actually all right when they had tons of titles in play, even with a less than massive roster, at least during the times noted below:  WWE in 2001, just after the Invasion angle:  WWF World Title World Title (WCW title) WWF Tag Team Title WWF Intercontinental Title WWF European Title WWF Hardcore Title WWF Cruiserweight Title WWF Women's Title  WWE in early 2008:  WWE Championship World Heavyweight Championship Intercontinental Title United States Title ECW Championship WWE Tag Team Titles World Tag Team Titles Women's Title Diva's Title Cruiserweight Title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 i definitely think belts that represent different wrestling styles with different rules are the way to go if you want to have a bunch of titles. i guess that would be the answer to my argument in my last post - cruiserweight/hardcore titles definitely fit that. even the TV title filled a niche in its earlier days when long title matches were the norm, though i still think it was rather pointless once we got into the WCW days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 JCP had too many titles. Â The National Title was a legacy of the GCW buy out. When Dusty and Tully feuded over that, it was at the expense of the TV title. Â When Dusty and Tully feuded over the TV title, it was at the expense of the US title. Â Western Heritage States title was from the Mid-South buyout. Â Up until the end of 86, the old Mid-Atlantic title was still active too. Â The 6-man titles were a joke. Â I've always maintained the US tag titles were one title too many and only really meant anything when the Midnights had them. Â Arn and Ole held the National tag titles, which were another hang over from GCW and the precursors to the US tag belts (Arn and Ole were never world champs). Â Crockett had way too many belts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Yea I don't think pointing at Crockett having a ton of titles and going "look it worked in the 80s when they did it" is true. Most of those titles didn't mean anything at all. Terry Taylor & Black Bart fighting over the National Title? Krusher Kruschev & Sam Houston in the finals of the 1985 Mid-Atlantic title tournament? Yea they had way too many belts, even if they did manage to make to make 3 singles titles and (sometimes) 2 tag titles work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted February 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Look at Starcade 85 and 86 as an example. The sheer amount of titles is overkill. When you have Darsow vs Houston for the MA title open a show you have too many belts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 The quantity of titles isn't an issue for me, rather how they're presented. I loved the levels of the titles in AJW, for instance, where you had Jr. Title for younger girls, who'd then graduate to AJW Title/Tag Titles, who'd then graduate to the WWWA belts. If nothing else, it adds a nice structure to the roster/cards and gives everyone something to be working towards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 The quantity of titles isn't an issue for me, rather how they're presented. I loved the levels of the titles in AJW, for instance, where you had Jr. Title for younger girls, who'd then graduate to AJW Title/Tag Titles, who'd then graduate to the WWWA belts. If nothing else, it adds a nice structure to the roster/cards and gives everyone something to be working towards. Â WWE has never adhered to any formula like that. The undercard titles should suggest competition solely from guys rising up the ladder, yet we've had times where people who haven't needed the undercard titles were in possession of them. Triple H was Intercontinental Champion, Jericho's had multiple reigns with it too despite being near the top of the card, Michaels held the Euro title at one point, Angle and Taker were Hardcore champs (although that particularly title's status within card positioning is meaningless), etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.