Guest Y2DAYDAY Posted March 9, 2003 Report Posted March 9, 2003 Two things no one is mentioning about Rumble: 1. It was going against the AFC Championship game for the first time ever, which did hurt the buyrate. 2. The PPV universe has increased. It used to be 400,000 buys was a 1.0, now it is 500,000. All things considered, the Rumble did a very good buyrate and it shows there was interest, at least for one show, in Scott Steiner vs HHH.
Guest The Tino Standard Posted March 9, 2003 Report Posted March 9, 2003 Buyrates percentages are worthless in comparing PPVs from different years for the reason mentioned above. Total number of buys is a much more accurate comparison.
Guest teke184 Posted March 9, 2003 Report Posted March 9, 2003 Buyrates percentages are worthless in comparing PPVs from different years for the reason mentioned above. Total number of buys is a much more accurate comparison. That depends... a 10.0 in 1987 certainly won't be more than a 1.0 today considering how small the PPV universe was for Wrestlemania 3. A buyrate for today compared to last year, however, IS more accurate because it's a percentage based on the total universe of cable subscribers, which doesn't swing wildly from year to year. No Mercy 2001 may have had less buys than No Mercy 2002 since DirecTV and the WWE were fighting, but NM 2001 still did better with the available universe it had then NM 2002 did.
Guest Blue Bacchus Posted March 9, 2003 Report Posted March 9, 2003 Maybe others would disagree with me. I didn't necessarily mean YOU wanted to see ALL of them but some of those that I listed. And I'm pretty sure there are those (or one) who wanna see Repoman back in action. It's not that they keep bringing in these old stables and wrestlers. It's that they instantly put them into the main event spotlight and give them a belt. They thrust Steiner right into the spotlight on Raw. And it turned out he sucked. If he'd started out with a lower profile, maybe his impact would have been merely forgettable instead of disastrous. You're 100% correct. They do use returning older talent like that. But would a mark rather see Hogan come back, main event and then go on to win the title or would he rather see Hogan go on a 50 match losing streak to Justin Credible or some other WWE jobber. I really don't see how it can be a win/win either way. You lose either way. Letting go is one thing, and to that I simply say that at some point we all need to "grow up", but making up bullshit statements to support your fanboyism is another thing, and it annoys me, and a LOT of that went on when it came to HBK and what his return would ACTUALLY mean. I'm sorry my fanboy-ism annoys you. I'll try harder in the future just to piss you off instead of annoy. The truth is that the WWE will continue to try to cash in on those stars of the past. You may not like it, but you have to accept it. Is it the right thing to do to try to have your past stars go out right with a bang or just simply fall off the radar forever. I'd rather have them go out with a bang.
Guest Brian Posted March 9, 2003 Report Posted March 9, 2003 None of the older stars went out with a bang. Vince is just looking for a quick solution to hook the adult audience. The only one who has a shot at it *surprise* is Shawn, but if he does the right thing he'll just end up fading back. It's the way the business works, you move on.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now