If this show wasn't a work, I'd guess Sheffield or Tarver but I have to think the first six weeks of NXT has been designed around Daniel Bryan and the Miz.
Bryan getting pinned this week sealed the deal for my theory. My prediction is the same as last week: The Miz uses Bryan's 0-5 record as "proof" that he doesn't belong and he's the first eliminated. But Bryan gets one more chance somehow and has to beat the Miz to stay in NXT.
If you're going by wins and losses purely anyway, Bryan has to be the one who goes since he's never won a match. The only reason to me to even bring wins and losses up is to further the storyline about Bryan not being WWE-worthy.
Originally posted by thechiefHave they even clarified what the rules of the "competition" are? Do people get "eliminated" Tough Enough style? It seems like they change it every week.
Yeah, they said this week that somebody would be eliminated after next week's vote. This is the first week they explained the criteria, as far as I know. They really seem to be making this up as they go along. If we assume that eliminations keep going this way, once every six weeks, that would lead to 42 total weeks of programming. What happens in the last 10 weeks? Do they just start a new group right away if the ratings stay successful? Or does it get an actual Season Finale and then go away for two and a half months? And what do they do once they're down to 3, then 2 finalists? Have them wrestle regular superstars? They'd have six weeks at least of that, but having them wrestle the regular WWE guys on a weekly basis would kind of destroy the novelty of them popping up on Raw or Smackdown once they won.
I don't understand what good it does to have TWO guys with losing streaks. The angle seems to be working for Bryan, and I'm confident that they'll turn things around for him eventually. But Tarver? It almost feels like his whole purpose in being there is to have an obvious guy to get rid of. I continue to pity the guy.
Pretty sure it'll be one a week going from here on out. They're not going to do six weeks between eliminations - this initial period was to establish the show and the new guys before making a decision.
Originally posted by Amos CochranPretty sure it'll be one a week going from here on out. They're not going to do six weeks between eliminations - this initial period was to establish the show and the new guys before making a decision.
I dunno, I think it'd be smart to reduce the amount of time before another elimination so that it doesn't get stale, but every week? If the criteria stays the same, how much can someone's win/loss record and difficulty of opponents change in a week's span?
They've already established win/loss records, so it would just be topping them up. And if Bryan managed to win a big match next week against, say, The Big Show, that one win would do a lot to counter his losses. This is also probably why there's the other more nebulous judging categories.
At first I was all about Heath Slater getting eliminated (even with his 4-0 record) but unfortunately, I will have to change my opinion because Tarver has shown nothing. No in-ring work really and has done nothing with his "1.9" gimmick.
I wonder if the WWE figures Daniel Bryan is safe even with his 0-5 mark. I guess if the fans really like him, he doesn't need the W's.
I am sticking with Wade Barrett but of all the people with a winning record thus far, Justin Gabriel is the better person, which includes being ahead of David Otunga (a personal fav from Vince McMahon), definitely better than Heath Slater, and in plain terms is just good.
Skip Sheffield in my opinion has the worst gimmick but last week, he had a pretty good match against Wade Barrett which is better than Tarver has done thus far.
I will go with Tarver the first to go followed by Skip Sheffield.
I guess this is more the writers' fault than Tarver's, but it really does beg the question: why has a man who claims to be able to knock dudes out in 1.9 seconds, never once attempted to actually do so?
Of the rookies, Tarver has really shown the least, and he has no wins. He should be the first to go. I agree with the assessment on Skip Sheffield - at least he has a gimmick (albeit pretty terrible) and I can see him as a comedy act in the future.
Forfeit the game, before somebody else takes you outta the game, and puts your name to shame Cover up your face, you can't run the race The pace is too fast, you just won't last - "Points Of Authority" - Linkin Park
You guys are right. Maybe I gave Tarver too many points. And I made a mistake: I gave Skip only 5 points for SOO, because he only has had three matches at all. The same has to go for Tarver! Therefore his total points are only 18! But still, Skip has to go first!
I can't help it; I like Skip Sheffield. I think he's a likable dummy, and for a big guy I don't think he's terrible in the ring. Of course, it helps that they were smart enough to pair him with Regal, a natural mismatch that I find consistently entertaining.
the reason i pasted the scott keith review is because it says, almost verbatim, the same thing the majority of the haters on this board say. swap out "stale main events" for "get stephanie off my tv" and you're set.