Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

Moneymaker

If only.

Bounty Hunter

Won't quote you fully gnfnroses head but it seems that we have found some common ground at least as I don't think you are blaming developmental (the new NXT) in many ways but what the WWE do with the developed superstars once they make the main roster. NXT are doing well still imo and as said some people like Rusev (before I even go into the bigger stars like the Shield/Wyatts) for example are potential stars they have created but on the main roster creative will probably mess up their push, in his case the past history of similar pushes does not show creative well in this aspect for example.

EdK

Bull Buchanan was Shield before Shield were Shield

Sirsok

Has the current NXT format and dev facility been around for to short of a time to judge what has been a success or not. Most of the guys on the roster that have been promoted to the current roster from NXT were there in FCW and all.

I believe we can only judge weather it has been a success when the guys who have debuted on current NXT format have been promoted.

DM_7

The move to calling it NXT and filming the shows isn't much different than fcw. The big change was moving the developmental system format of FCW to the bigger developmental system, developmental centre and all that offers.

Even people who trained at FCW or are already on TV are getting the benefit of that move.

Developmental was always about getting people TV ready and they are doing that, its up to the wrestlers, creative and Vince/Triple H to capitalise on the development and get someone to the top.

For me I think its going well based on my previous post talking about how many people from developmental were on RAW last week. The NXT show we see is only part of it.

gnfnrhead

Moneymaker wrote: »

I'm going to dedicate 10-15 minutes of podcast to this on Wednesday.

Suffice to say, I disagree with gnfnrhead.

Surprise, surprise.

:pac::pac:

If I said your username is Moneymaker, you'd disagree :pac:

Machismo Fan

I would've said Reigns and Wyatt are all NXT have produced. The rest are midcarders, comedy characters or their success can't really be attributed to anything NXT did (the Cesaro's of the world).

sockmo

Rybaxel are growing on me, They could do with need more mic time and backstage skits to establish their characters

Jester252

The whole nxt think is more of an issue with wwe lack of undercard development They just seem to pick 6 guys and push them for the ppv and leave the rest to sit about and wait for some random match.

leggo

Jester252 wrote: »

The whole nxt think is more of an issue with wwe lack of undercard development They just seem to pick 6 guys and push them for the ppv and leave the rest to sit about and wait for some random match.

Don't UFC do the same, though?

True story: I remember watching a PPV YEARS back with a few mates and seeing how every match had a story but it was all half-arsed, including the main events. I argued that WWE should focus on 2-3 main events (since Fandango/Dolph isn't going to generate a single PPV sale anyway regardless of how well you build it), build them really strongly and have the rest of the show based around matches that are good quality but just placeholders, i.e. guys fighting for a 'place on the championship ladder'. All you need for that is a skeleton build, if the matches themselves are good people will be satisfied. And they'll be watching anyway if the main events are sold well.

Like it's all well and good saying they should have everyone fleshed out from top-to-bottom, but this is how you implement wrestling as a business: "What sells? Push that, then have everything else good quality and bubbling around the surface." Even in the glory days a generic tag-team match with Bossman and Bull Buchanan didn't shift one PPV sale because Austin and Rock were taking care of that in the main event. Otherwise you're using limited creative resources (there's only 24 hours in the day and creative are only expected to work 18 of them) on something that won't move business forward anyway.

CSF

leggo wrote: »

Don't UFC do the same, though?

True story: I remember watching a PPV YEARS back with a few mates and seeing how every match had a story but it was all half-arsed, including the main events. I argued that WWE should focus on 2-3 main events (since Fandango/Dolph isn't going to generate a single PPV sale anyway regardless of how well you build it), build them really strongly and have the rest of the show based around matches that are good quality but just placeholders, i.e. guys fighting for a 'place on the championship ladder'. All you need for that is a skeleton build, if the matches themselves are good people will be satisfied. And they'll be watching anyway if the main events are sold well.

Like it's all well and good saying they should have everyone fleshed out from top-to-bottom, but this is how you implement wrestling as a business: "What sells? Push that, then have everything else good quality and bubbling around the surface." Even in the glory days a generic tag-team match with Bossman and Bull Buchanan didn't shift one PPV sale because Austin and Rock were taking care of that in the main event. Otherwise you're using limited creative resources (there's only 24 hours in the day and creative are only expected to work 18 of them) on something that won't move business forward anyway.

The general quality expected of a show definitely decides how many people will watch it. Obviously some guys will sell PPVs by themselves but that doesn't change how the rest of the show affects many peoples level of bother to watch

leggo

CSF wrote: »

The general quality expected of a show definitely decides how many people will watch it. Obviously some guys will sell PPVs by themselves but that doesn't change how the rest of the show affects many peoples level of bother to watch

I disagree. I think *we* complain about the general quality of the show beforehand, then a lot of the time end up enjoying it anyway (Payback this year being the most recent example to mind). But I don't think anyone is sitting at home going "Cool main event, really wanna see who wins the title, but I'll give it a miss since they haven't fleshed out the undercard."

At the end of the day, there's a line between 'What is an ideal scenario?' and 'What actually sells?' and what sells is that one match where you really want/need to see who wins. Boxing has outsold wrestling for decades using that premise alone. Remember CM Punk at Money In The Bank 2011, for example? If they'd have fed you a crappy undercard (which they didn't, but still), would that have made that one match any less must-see than it was? No, we'd have bought it, maybe complained a bit about the undercard, but still have been sold completely on that really strong main event. Then all we'd take away from the show long-term would be the memory of that main event.

Jester252

leggo wrote: »

Don't UFC do the same, though?

True story: I remember watching a PPV YEARS back with a few mates and seeing how every match had a story but it was all half-arsed, including the main events. I argued that WWE should focus on 2-3 main events (since Fandango/Dolph isn't going to generate a single PPV sale anyway regardless of how well you build it), build them really strongly and have the rest of the show based around matches that are good quality but just placeholders, i.e. guys fighting for a 'place on the championship ladder'. All you need for that is a skeleton build, if the matches themselves are good people will be satisfied. And they'll be watching anyway if the main events are sold well.

Like it's all well and good saying they should have everyone fleshed out from top-to-bottom, but this is how you implement wrestling as a business: "What sells? Push that, then have everything else good quality and bubbling around the surface." Even in the glory days a generic tag-team match with Bossman and Bull Buchanan didn't shift one PPV sale because Austin and Rock were taking care of that in the main event. Otherwise you're using limited creative resources (there's only 24 hours in the day and creative are only expected to work 18 of them) on something that won't move business forward anyway.

WWE have four main shows, just because a match might not be the number one seller for a PPV doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fleshed out. Most of the undercard just seems to be an after taught. There is no real story behind any of the titles apart from the top one.
The US title has become nothing more than an entrance attire, while the intercontinental is less import than the European title.

Surely as well with the whole "best for business" vibe that HHH has been playing would it not be important to make sure the tag champions are support HHH and WWE rather than fighting them.

leggo

Jester252 wrote: »

WWE have four main shows, just because a match might not be the number one seller for a PPV doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fleshed out. Most of the undercard just seems to be an after taught. There is no real story behind any of the titles apart from the top one.
The US title has become nothing more than an entrance attire, while the intercontinental is less import than the European title.

Surely as well with the whole "best for business" vibe that HHH has been playing would it not be important to make sure the tag champions are support HHH and WWE rather than fighting them.

Okay, so let's flip this up a bit and we can get an interesting debate going: sell it to me. How would fleshing out the undercard improve business? Right now we're going under the proviso that we're watching WWE creative at their maximum efficiency (since I don't think anyone can argue they don't work ridiculous hours given what we know of their demands).

So, given WWE's resources and need to cut budgets (meaning no more to be added to the creative team), how do you re-jig everything so that it equals a better bottom line at the end? Do you take focus away from Reigns/Cena/Rollins etc and put it into Fandango/Ziggler? Or how do you use the same efficiency, resources and limitations they're using now to get a better end product?

That's the lens I'm looking at it through, see. There's probably a million things WWE would do if they had the time and manpower. But at the end of the day when you're running a business you have to get down and look at what you've got and prioritise how to sell what, where and when. I'd genuinely love if people would analyse it from that standpoint and think we'd get some interesting ideas from there (that may prove my point wrong), but just saying they need to do something without a care for what it takes to make that happen isn't really a credible complaint.

mooonpie

It's been a while since I've heard too much about the background of WWE Creative, but if there's any truth to the talk about them being former sitcom writers and the like that see themselves as "writers" rather than "bookers", I think that's a good place to start changing things.

Slacken the puppet strings a bit and reduce the scripted nature of the promos. If the talent doesn't believe what they're saying, then no audience is ever going to buy it either.

Sure, given how far in the opposite direction we've gone it's gonna be a risk, and without competition it's a risk I feel WWE aren't going to take, but that's where I'd start

CSF

leggo wrote: »

I disagree. I think *we* complain about the general quality of the show beforehand, then a lot of the time end up enjoying it anyway (Payback this year being the most recent example to mind). But I don't think anyone is sitting at home going "Cool main event, really wanna see who wins the title, but I'll give it a miss since they haven't fleshed out the undercard."

At the end of the day, there's a line between 'What is an ideal scenario?' and 'What actually sells?' and what sells is that one match where you really want/need to see who wins. Boxing has outsold wrestling for decades using that premise alone. Remember CM Punk at Money In The Bank 2011, for example? If they'd have fed you a crappy undercard (which they didn't, but still), would that have made that one match any less must-see than it was? No, we'd have bought it, maybe complained a bit about the undercard, but still have been sold completely on that really strong main event. Then all we'd take away from the show long-term would be the memory of that main event.

IMO, what you're saying moreso applies to big PPVs like Mania and Summerslam where the main event is one that will usually interest all, and those are usually the ones that also have good cards all around.

With a main event at a PPV of a fatal 4way between Cena, Kane, Reigns and Orton I think you need a good card in general. That match doesn't interest people near enough to get away with not having a good card, and I've found that to be the case for the main events for the majority of the smaller PPVs.

Agent Coulson

Lana can be the next huge WWE breakout star!

leggo

CSF wrote: »

IMO, what you're saying moreso applies to big PPVs like Mania and Summerslam where the main event is one that will usually interest all, and those are usually the ones that also have good cards all around.

With a main event at a PPV of a fatal 4way between Cena, Kane, Reigns and Orton I think you need a good card in general. That match doesn't interest people near enough to get away with not having a good card, and I've found that to be the case for the main events for the majority of the smaller PPVs.

I'd be the opposite view (surprising, I know ), in that SummerSlam and Mania should have a 'Supercard' feel to them with padded out undercards and minor feuds should build to there to have meaning, whereas they're just pieces of a bigger picture on smaller cards.

Cheap Heat suggested renaming WWE events similarly to UFC events, so drop say 'Battleground' and call it 'WWE: Cena vs Reigns' as a way of refocusing what your main event is and building around that. I love that idea. You can have 2-3 solid main event style matches then the rest is entertaining filler (think giving Ziggler and Sheamus, say, a bit of time to work a good match for the US Title - nothing spectacular or forced just two good workers given licence to work). Wrestling is easy, simple is effective.

SureYWouldntYa

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Lana can be the next huge WWE breakout star!

The more we get to see her, the better

ShagNastii

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Lana can be the next huge WWE breakout star!

She has a great future behind her TBF;):cool:

Vision of Disorder

ShagNastii wrote: »

She has a great future behind her TBF;):cool:

I love when a user name and a post complement each other so well.

Sirsok

leggo wrote: »

Okay, so let's flip this up a bit and we can get an interesting debate going: sell it to me. How would fleshing out the undercard improve business? Right now we're going under the proviso that we're watching WWE creative at their maximum efficiency (since I don't think anyone can argue they don't work ridiculous hours given what we know of their demands).

So, given WWE's resources and need to cut budgets (meaning no more to be added to the creative team), how do you re-jig everything so that it equals a better bottom line at the end? Do you take focus away from Reigns/Cena/Rollins etc and put it into Fandango/Ziggler? Or how do you use the same efficiency, resources and limitations they're using now to get a better end product?

If you look at the likes of WCW and WWE in their best years, they both had a great undercard. WCW ma of having the NWO but the lucadores jericho benoit etc where the ones that made a card not suck so bad, think it was Jericho that but it in his book that yes people paid to see the NWO but they went home much happier due to the efforts of the rest.

In WWEs prime they had a plethora of midcard stars, go back on the attitude days and look at the reaction Road Dogg or the Godfather gets, people genuinely cared about these characters. Jesus could you imagine Al Snow if he started with the same gimmick now, he would get about 2 weeks of vignettes, a solid month push and then boom gone to superstars obscurity, no head, no J.O.B. squad. Just forgotton fodder.

Also you could not sell a card based solely off a main event like they do in MMA and Boxing, as wrestling just is not real, their is no genuine an hatred , everything is scripted. You wouldnt pay to see the circus if they just had the lion and lion tamer act. No you would wanna see the elephants, clowns and trapez artists. You pay for a show, an entertainment one at that, and by departing with your hard earned money you should be entertained for the full duration of the show.

Chip Whitley

Also, a big thing with the UFC is most of these guys haven't laid a finger on each other building up to a fight, whereas in WWE everyone has history with each other and often are in tags or involved in run-ins leading up to a PPV so that element of suspense and build-up isn't transferrable to WWE I would think.

Jester252

leggo wrote: »

Okay, so let's flip this up a bit and we can get an interesting debate going: sell it to me. How would fleshing out the undercard improve business? Right now we're going under the proviso that we're watching WWE creative at their maximum efficiency (since I don't think anyone can argue they don't work ridiculous hours given what we know of their demands).

So, given WWE's resources and need to cut budgets (meaning no more to be added to the creative team), how do you re-jig everything so that it equals a better bottom line at the end? Do you take focus away from Reigns/Cena/Rollins etc and put it into Fandango/Ziggler? Or how do you use the same efficiency, resources and limitations they're using now to get a better end product?

That's the lens I'm looking at it through, see. There's probably a million things WWE would do if they had the time and manpower. But at the end of the day when you're running a business you have to get down and look at what you've got and prioritise how to sell what, where and when. I'd genuinely love if people would analyse it from that standpoint and think we'd get some interesting ideas from there (that may prove my point wrong), but just saying they need to do something without a care for what it takes to make that happen isn't really a credible complaint.

First you need to understand that fleshing out the undercard is not at the expense of the main storyline or a cost on production.

WWE already has 3 shows that aren't used, on average, to advance the main storyline. Superstars is just a raw recap. Nothing stopping them from running a storyline on these shows with the undercard.

Machismo Fan

I love the video package for this match (and the match is awesome too): http://http://dailymotion.com/video/xs2qwq

ShagNastii

No chat in the Q&A thread so I'll fire this here.

I’d imagine in terms of big moments. A Sting “segment” at Mania with Taker would probably give me ten times more satisfaction than a one/two star match between the pair.

Blue_Dabadee

I do wonder what they're going to do with Daniel Bryan once he returns from injury?

gnfnrhead

mxph3 wrote: »

I do wonder what they're going to do with Daniel Bryan once he returns from injury?

I doubt they even thought about it. Sounds like a pretty bad injury he has so they likely decided to assume he won't be back any time soon. Pointless to plan for a return when you have no idea how long it will take him to recover. Could be six weeks, could be six months.

leggo

Jester252 wrote: »

First you need to understand that fleshing out the undercard is not at the expense of the main storyline or a cost on production.

??? How do you think storylines get written? Just because there's TV time to fill doesn't mean there's production time to fill. So, at its most basic, you'd be using a production meeting to spend time writing and developing Cameron/Naomi that could be used to develop Roman Reigns' WrestleMania plans. The latter is going to be directly responsible for ratings, ticket sales and Network subs, whereas the former might only have the Divas' family and friends tuning in alone.

So let Cameron and Naomi have their feud with a skeleton storyline, see if they add to it with their own innovations and can back it up in the ring and go from there instead of wasting time writing them an odyssey that still manages to let people down when it turns out they'll have a bad match anyway.

Eire-Dearg

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I love the video package for this match (and the match is awesome too): http://http://dailymotion.com/video/xs2qwq

As someone not hugely familiar with TNA, I remember tuning in for that series around the time Aries had the belt and had to give up the other title.

Super talented guy. He'd probably get lost in the shuffle at WWE though.