Curious: At just what point did the then-WWF go

[Guest Brian]

Austin who sold a T-shirt every ninety seconds was not a big draw? Yeah, Rock and HHH kept the thing going but without Austi, none opf it would probably have even happened. You mention that Austin was handled pretty poorly in his return, basically up until the WrestleMania build and that was when everything looked strong again. Plus, when he turned heel people pretty much flew, and when he left RAW this past year ratings fell by how much, half a million.

 

What's the reasoning for the Rock & Sock Connection anyways? Because this is you life Rock drew a huge rating?

[Guest Razor Roman]

Austin who sold a T-shirt every ninety seconds was not a big draw? Yeah, Rock and HHH kept the thing going but without Austi, none opf it would probably have even happened. You mention that Austin was handled pretty poorly in his return, basically up until the WrestleMania build and that was when everything looked strong again. Plus, when he turned heel people pretty much flew, and when he left RAW this past year ratings fell by how much, half a million.

 

What's the reasoning for the Rock & Sock Connection anyways? Because this is you life Rock drew a huge rating?

Austin was simply not as big a draw as the Rock, As far as bringing in new fans to the sport. Yeah Austin was tremendously popular with wrestling fans, and may have drawn some new fans (particularly WCW's fans) but I still feel Rock was able to cross ethnic and social lines better than Austin (whom I am sure many people simply viewed as a redneck). Rock brought in more urban fans, more women, more minorities.

 

I was using the Rock and Sock connection more as a shorthand to describe the time from Fall 99 - Spring 00 when FOley and the Rock were the top 2 babyfaces carrying the company. The WWF had a non-drawing champ (Big Show) and still got big numbers during that time period. Which even a poorly drawing champ (like JEricho supposedly was) couldn't do that with Austin, Rock, Taker and HHH all around.

[Guest Brian]

The difference was that during Jericho reign nothing was happening of any note. Still, the buyrates for No Way Out and WrestleMania 2002 were just as strong as 2000.

[Guest the 1inch punch]

I think SK said is best, the WWE started to die(yes, DIE) the second Steph kicked Kurt in the nuts and HGH pinned him at Unforgiven2000. its been downhill since then

[Guest RickyChosyu]

Austin was solely responsible for reviving a near-death WWF and somehow resurecting it's corpes into the #1 promotion. Austin was what drew the fans back, and though Rock was able to sustain that popularity in Austin's absense, Austin was a draw before Rock was even getting any heat whatsoever, so both of them had the ability to draw fans on their own, and Austin still did, even in the wanning days of the WWE.

 

I think they started to go downhill the second Vince stopped calling it wrestling, to be honest. The run of popularity it received hardly proved to be self-sufficient, as they suffered from all the problems a wrestling promotion would have, accept they weren't willing to cure them the way a wrestling promotion would. Suddenly, it's this new hybrid form of entertainment that Vince could invent the rules for, and nothing "wreslting related" should control it. Of course, this refusal to be a wrestling company will ensure they'll die just like every other wreslting company, which is probably a fitting end to their little reign of supremecy. Just my opinion.

[Guest Eagan469]

I'd call X-7 the peak business-wise for WWE.

 

As for the exact moment WWE "jumped the shark", I'd go with the Bagwell-Booker match on RAW. Everyone was jacked that WWF bought WCW, and Vince fucked it up royally.

 

Since Invasion, the company has been going downhill. The only reason Wrestlemania X-8 drew a high buyrate is because Vince was desperate and brought in Hogan at the last minute. Too many temporary fixes, and not enough rebuilding. Right now, they're veering off in a new direction which seems to be starting to pay off, but I honestly don't want the roster split to go on forever.

 

WWE doesn't suck, but it's seen better days.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I think they started to go downhill the second Vince stopped calling it wrestling, to be honest. The run of popularity it received hardly proved to be self-sufficient, as they suffered from all the problems a wrestling promotion would have, accept they weren't willing to cure them the way a wrestling promotion would. Suddenly, it's this new hybrid form of entertainment that Vince could invent the rules for, and nothing "wreslting related" should control it. Of course, this refusal to be a wrestling company will ensure they'll die just like every other wreslting company, which is probably a fitting end to their little reign of supremecy. Just my opinion.

 

I think this is the best point made in this thread - The Wwf was basically a snake eating it's own tail with 'Sports Entertainment'.

[Guest creativename]

I'm not saying that the wwe is Enron.  I'm saying they can take new ventures such as their restaurant and the money they got from the smackdown television show and combine it with previous profits making their per show profit margin seem higher than it was the previous year, when in actuality they just have more streams of profit.  This makes the overall product more succesful because they now have more ways that they can collect money but it doesn't make the individual shows in and of themselves more successful.  The wwe was drawing mid 6 ratings in 1999 until after summerslam.  The ratings eventually went up and hit their highpoint during the 10 man tag featuring the radicals debut as heels and the return of kane at the end of the match.  This however was only a couple of week blip as the ratings for the rest of 2000 fell back into the mid 5's.

by the way I know Smackdown started in 1999 but they only accounted it in 1 quarter of their yearly notice to shareholders unlike the 4 that it was in during the 2000 year.

The ratings numbers used were for Raw only.

 

Ratings were highest in 2000, this is simply fact, it is impossible to argue otherwise.

 

Manipulation of profit figures has nothing to do with ratings, attendance, buyrates, merchandising etc. For instance, the "profit" figures that MLB owners release are highly dubious. They can make their revenues look smaller, and their expenses larger, then they actually are. Depreciation and amorization, for example, are expenses that reduce the profit figure. However there is no cash outflow taking place. They are merely a legal way of writing off past capital expenditures for tax purposes. There's nothing wrong with that, but using this and similar tricks can really bring down "accounting" profits.

 

But the ratings and attedance figures that MLB, and the WWE, release are 100% accurate. It is not possible to play around with these numbers (at least not legally).