The W
Views: 97738945
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.7.07 0344
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - About this split... Register and log in to post!
(10002 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (13 total)
Eradicator
Kolbasz
Level: 47

Posts: 122/480
EXP: 712295
For next: 53914

Since: 4.1.02
From: Chicago

Since last post: 58 days
Last activity: 30 days
#1 Posted on 5.3.02 1349.33
Reposted on: 5.3.09 1359.05
Has anyone discussed how UPN and TNN feel about this split? I think both networks have a right to be kinda miffed. If talent is exclusive to one group then they are taken away from one of the networks. For instance, if Rock is in the Smackdown! group, and appears exclusively on that show, then he will never be on TNN (unless it's a recap show). Just wondering if anyone has heard anything about the networks caring that the WWF is taking away half of the big names from both of them. But what it comes down to is ratings, I guess. Maybe they won't care as long as the ratings stay the same for their show.
Promote this thread!
Scar
Goetta
Level: 39

Posts: 115/313
EXP: 375132
For next: 29643

Since: 2.1.02
From: NS, Canada

Since last post: 1405 days
Last activity: 1062 days
#2 Posted on 5.3.02 1411.35
Reposted on: 5.3.09 1415.54
TNN and UPN (along with MTV which shows Heat) are owned by the same company, Viacom. So I guess it doesn't matter what station the show is on. The company also owns a bunch of other networks like CBS and VH1.
Eradicator
Kolbasz
Level: 47

Posts: 123/480
EXP: 712295
For next: 53914

Since: 4.1.02
From: Chicago

Since last post: 58 days
Last activity: 30 days
#3 Posted on 5.3.02 1509.14
Reposted on: 5.3.09 1513.12
Yeah, I know that they are all owned by Viacom, but I'm not talking about them being upset from a competition standpoint. I just meant that TNN, for instance, might be upset that the Rock is no longer on Raw, possibly meaning lower ratings for that show. Even though TNN and UPN are owned by the same company, TNN is still going to want as big of ratings as possible for Raw. Something that might not happen if half the main event guys are taken off of it. They still need high ratings in that slot to sell advertising spots.
The Tino Standard
Bauerwurst
Level: 24

Posts: 20/106
EXP: 73933
For next: 4193

Since: 2.1.02
From: Ohio University (originally hailing from Concord, OH)

Since last post: 3939 days
Last activity: 3850 days
#4 Posted on 5.3.02 1609.09
Reposted on: 5.3.09 1612.41
Trust me, if the ratings for one of the shows start tanking, they will find some lame-ass way to balance the two shows out really quick.
E
Cotechino
Level: 23

Posts: 66/91
EXP: 58776
For next: 8948

Since: 7.1.02
From: WPB

Since last post: 3516 days
Last activity: 3398 days
#5 Posted on 5.3.02 1740.06
Reposted on: 5.3.09 1743.23

    Originally posted by The Tino Standard
    Trust me, if the ratings for one of the shows start tanking, they will find some lame-ass way to balance the two shows out really quick.


Yeah, like a "re-unification."
Addy
Bauerwurst
Level: 24

Posts: 38/105
EXP: 72718
For next: 5408

Since: 24.1.02
From: Melbourne, Aussie Land

Since last post: 4493 days
Last activity: 4489 days
#6 Posted on 5.3.02 2043.33
Reposted on: 5.3.09 2059.05
I'm wondering how this split up will work.

I mean, if Rock is in Group A and Austin is in Group B, does that mean they feud with the guys in their group? Or will they feud with guys in the other group? If they do, how will the fed do this? Just insult each other on mic until the PPV (when they can meet face-to-face)? I mean, if you are in Group A (which is RAW), you can't show up on the Group B show (SmackDown)?

Does anyone really have a glue?
Excalibur05
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 301/2923
EXP: 10685988
For next: 31724

Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 5.3.02 2052.53
Reposted on: 5.3.09 2059.08
As far as I know, the feuds will all be self contained on the shows (People in Fed A only feud with people in Fed A, and the same goes for Fed B). This would lead up to two PPVs (One for each fed) with hopefully enough distinction that you'd want to buy both, and one Super PPV in WrestleMania once a year.

I'm guessing they'd split the other "Big PPVs" two each, one getting KOR and one gettting Rumble, I imagine.
Flash
Cotto
Level: 16

Posts: 6/44
EXP: 19649
For next: 608

Since: 28.2.02
From: State College, PA

Since last post: 4494 days
Last activity: 4351 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 5.3.02 2231.36
Reposted on: 5.3.09 2232.31

    Originally posted by Excalibur05
    I'm guessing they'd split the other "Big PPVs" two each, one getting KOR and one gettting Rumble, I imagine.


Linda McMahon addressed this in her conference call a few weeks back. The idea was to have both feds contribute matches, and in rare cases have inter-fed matches between the two groups (probably only on the Big 5 PPV's). They also planned on adding 3-4 additional PPVs in the first year, building to an additional 12 PPVs per year (ie 24 per year or one for each promotion per month).
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple
Level: 126

Posts: 360/4860
EXP: 22952629
For next: 131538

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#9 Posted on 5.3.02 2242.52
Reposted on: 5.3.09 2244.09
I'm really surprised they are still considering a split. I like the idea of guys getting more of a chance at doing there thing on t.v., but the way things have been going in the WWF lately I don't like it's chances. Something is going to have to be drastically different between the two shows besides Rock on one and Austin on the other type thing. If are run by two totally different teams then I think the chances of the shows doing well increases drastically. Otherwise it's just gonna be the same show with different guys. Not quite the competion I'm looking for..
MarchOfThePigs
Salami
Level: 32

Posts: 120/209
EXP: 203834
For next: 2610

Since: 10.2.02
From: Sudbury, Ontario

Since last post: 4389 days
Last activity: 4320 days
ICQ:  
#10 Posted on 6.3.02 0015.38
Reposted on: 6.3.09 0016.58
I think the split is a really really bad idea and if it does go down, I will be less and less interested in watching.
Qubber
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 165/375
EXP: 491711
For next: 29655

Since: 7.1.02
From: Sheffield, UK

Since last post: 2663 days
Last activity: 1926 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 6.3.02 0324.38
Reposted on: 6.3.09 0329.01
The potential for doing something different is awesome, I just hope they do it and don't just do the same old same old with two different casts. I really don't see them doing a "wrestling show" and a "sports entertainment" show though, simply because that would mean Vince would having to go back on 20 years of spin and admit wrestling as the concept was worth doing. Personally though, I wouldn't want to go back to no sports entertainment at all, I would just like one of the shows to be more wrestling orientated.

The other big thing that I would absolutely love (that's never going to happen) would be each show having bi-monthly PPVs instead of one a month each. The two month story arcs would allow for more build up and depth to PPV matches (just like back in the 4 PPVs a year days) which I believe is sorely lacking. The return of epic feuds that people actually cared about would be awesome. With the current state of affairs and without the ability to have as many ayers to feuds, if a feud goes more than a month in length (like Regal-Edge) people complain it's being going on too long. Less of the main eventers to cram into each show would lead to more time to develop the mid-card feuds, which would only be a good thing.
Addy
Bauerwurst
Level: 24

Posts: 39/105
EXP: 72718
For next: 5408

Since: 24.1.02
From: Melbourne, Aussie Land

Since last post: 4493 days
Last activity: 4489 days
#12 Posted on 6.3.02 0345.37
Reposted on: 6.3.09 0359.01
I agree with the idea with having one show wrestling orientated and bi-monthly PPVs. I complain too much that there's not enough wrestling. Put guys like Storm, Benoit, HHH, Angle on one Fed and Rock, Austin, Taker on the other. No way they will be spilt that way, but it would be cool (at least to me). It would be a dream come true having all the good workers on one show.

But I have a feeling it will not work too well with the way things are going.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 69/763
EXP: 1426775
For next: 59162

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 494 days
Last activity: 109 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 6.3.02 0523.37
Reposted on: 6.3.09 0529.01
As far as the split goes with the talent, Im strictly in a wait and see state of mind. Well just see how it plays out with the division of the talent. But I think trying two PPV's a month is a BAD idea. Its not like they are getting ALL of WCW and ECW's old audience. RAW isnt pulling 9's in the ratings. Unless the split draws 10 million more new viewers to WWF TV then I dont see how they think two PPV's will work. Especially at 35 bucks a pop.The bi-monthly PPV idea is good one to me. I think of the WWF as like the United States after the cold war. Theyve defeated all their enemies. Now they should try to slim down a bloated product and try to make it better. I dont think expansion is the answer, if I was running things I would think about slimming down and tweaking the product, not expand it. I think this is a simple case of Vince and Linda getting a little too greedy. I dont presume to know more about the business than the Mcmahons, but it doesnt make good sense to me. Ok Im done....
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Does any one miss WCW?
Next thread: Heels in Cage Matches
Previous thread: IS WHAT!? HOT OR NOT?
(10002 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - About this split...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.387 seconds.