Smackdown Rating

[Guest oldschoolwrestling]

Last night's Smackdown did a 3.1 cable rating, with a 5 share, according to Nielsen Media Research. That is down from last week's 3.3.

 

 

1wrestling

[Guest Anglesault]

We want Angle

 

::Clapclap clapclaplap::

 

We want Angle

 

::Clapclap clapclaplap::

[Guest oldschoolwrestling]

All Vince hears is:

 

We want Hogan/Mr America

 

::Clapclap clapclapclap::

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

FROM www.otherarena.com

 

: The rating was 3.3 last week.

The 3.1 brought a tear to my eye as I

thought back on the days when I would

do "overnight math" to project the

final rating based on early returns.

 

3.9 * 80% = 3.1

 

Generally the final rating was between

80% and 75% of the overnight ratings,

barring unusually high preemptions.

 

But what does a 3.1 really mean?

 

Well, 3.3 +/- 0.2 would cover eighteen

of the last twenty weeks, so this low

rating isn't outside that range. The

two "unusual" ratings were a 3.0 on

March 13th and a 2.7 on March 20th,

so this rating isn't noteworthy yet.

 

The key as always will be to monitor

whether the rating dips below 3.1

next week, potentially indicating

that 3.1 represented a softening of

fan support. Otherwise, this 3.1

could just be a slightly off night

in a relatively stable stretch.

 

Frank

 

==========

 

Q3 2001 = 4.0

Q4 2001 = 3.9

Q1 2002 = 4.0

Q2 2002 = 3.5

Q3 2002 = 3.3 (tossing out July 4th)

Q4 2002 = 3.4

Q1 2003 = 3.3

Q2 2003 = 3.2 (4 of 13 weeks)

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

(For RAW)

 

Point? This "jump" from 3.4 to 3.8 is

not necessarily a "jump" at all because

it is within a typical "range" for RAW.

 

Well, the middle of the range is 3.6.

If RAW maintained 3.8 for a number of

weeks I would adjust the range to 3.8

+/- 0.2. My comment was suggesting

that RAW would "drop" from 3.8 back

into the 3.4 to 3.8 "range" rather

than maintaining this 3.8 peak and

building to some higher range.

 

For those who are curious, over time

ratings tend to fall within a certain

range. Experience has shown that 0.2

higher or lower is within the normal

deviation. This accounts for most of

the ratings data, though occaisionally

there are weeks which deviate furthur

than 0.2 for a variety of reasons such

as a post-PPV bump or special draw.

 

Let's take a look at recent weeks:

 

03/17/03 - 3.8

03/24/03 - 3.5

03/31/03 - 3.7

04/07/03 - 3.5

04/14/03 - 3.45

 

*rolls eyes*

 

Okay, first we'll round up the 3.45

to a 3.5. I believe it was actually

a 3.44, but some columnist wanted to

cushion the blow so he reported it

with an extra decimal. Sheesh.

 

03/17/03 - 3.8

03/24/03 - 3.5

03/31/03 - 3.7

04/07/03 - 3.5

04/14/03 - 3.5

 

Okay, add em up and divide by 5.

 

Average = 3.6

 

Range = 3.4 to 3.8

 

All ratings fall within range.

 

Now a 3.8 comes in. Is it within the

range? Yes. Okay, so no cause for

alarm, the range is still intact until

more high (or low) numbers suggest

that the average should be adjusted.

 

Now without the big quarter, ratings

would have been about 3.6 to 3.7,

right in the middle of our range.

 

Frank

 

=====

 

Butthead: "I'm angry about numbers."

 

Beavis: "Yeah, there's so many of them."

[Guest Choken One]

Who is sad enough to spend time doing that?

 

3.8 sounds better then 3.5 is all I am saying...Maybe it means Dick but It still sounds better.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Still, it's within the average Range and is nothing to raise (or lower) your eyebrows at.

 

Who does this? Frank Jewett, and I'm happy he did cause I learned something new and semi-relevant. There is all this talk about week to week ratings but nothing is really made of it on this board - this at least brings a lil depth to the discussion.

[Guest RenegadeX28]

The show wasn't that good as it usually is. Maybe it was good in the first 30 minutes, since I missed SD between 8:00-8:30.

[Guest humongous2002]

Well it seems that the fans watching tv don't think that much of Brocky as a champ, people could argue that it's all the writers' fault or because the Atrain was in the main event, all this is a bunch of bullcrap, Brock is the most uncharismatic, unentertaining champ champ the WWF/E has ever pushed down our throats.Eversince he became a champ he hasn't done anything to increase sales or ratings, his mic skills are horrendous and if he is not being carried by Kurt his matches are forgettable.He is supposed to be the #1 guy but his pops (even with the canned heat) are not as huge as a Rock or Austin ovation from back in the days.Hopefully Vince realizes that this is not 1987 and gives the belt back to Angle or somebody more entertaining than Baby Huey.

Edited April 26, 2003 by humongous2002

[Guest bob_barron]

, Brock is the most uncharismatic, unentertaining champ champ the WWF/E has ever pushed down our throats.

 

Does that include Diesel and Kane?

 

Eversince he became a champ he hasn't done anything to increase sales or ratings

 

The ratings weren't at 4.0 when Angle was champ either.

 

and if he is not being carried by Kurt his matches are forgettable.

 

The guy dragged watchable matches out of Undertaker and Big Show.

 

He is supposed to be the #1 guy but his pops (even with the canned heat)

 

His pops aren't canned heat. I've been at a show where Brock got the loudest pops out of anyone and the fans Let's Go Lesnar during the whole match.

 

are not as huge as a Rock or Austin ovation from back in the days.

 

Wow- Brock's pops aren't bigger then the #1 face of all time?? Let's take the belt off him NOW!

 

Hopefully Vince realizes that this is not 1987 and gives the belt back to Angle or somebody more entertaining than Baby Huey.

 

Or we could give Brock a chance as the #1 face champ in the company and see where it goes instead of hot shotting the belt back to Angle.

 

I have nothing against Angle but he had a title reign so bad they had to mercy kill it after two weeks.

[Guest Anglesault]

The guy dragged watchable matches out of Undertaker and Big Show.

 

That's a story that was made up by Brock apologists when he was really bad and it has snowballed to the point where people think it is true. Brock/Show 1 and 2 were both really bad. Not much Brock could do there, but don't say the match was watchable. Taker/Brock 1 sucked ass, no matter who you want to blame, and Hell in a Cell is the most over rated match of 2002.

[Guest Anglesault]

One thing Brock HAS to cut is this fun loving Brock bullshit. What the hell?

[Guest bob_barron]

The guy dragged watchable matches out of Undertaker and Big Show.

 

That's a story that was made up by Brock apologists when he was really bad and it has snowballed to the point where people think it is true. Brock/Show 1 and 2 were both really bad. Not much Brock could do there, but don't say the match was watchable. Taker/Brock 1 sucked ass, no matter who you want to blame, and Hell in a Cell is the most over rated match of 2002.

They booked the Show v. Brock matches to hide their weaknesses. I was there for Brock v. Show 1 and the crowd heat was off the charts that I can't help but not like it. I haven't seen the second one since it aired.

 

I enjoyed both Brock v. Taker matches. The Unforgiven match could've been a bit shorter and had a less gay ending but I enjoyed the match for the most part. I recently watched HIAC a few weeks ago and again- could've chopped off a few minutes but I thought the match was very good. They were able to do a successfull HIAC w/o a sick bump and they stayed in the cell the whole match!

[Guest Coffey]

They were able to do a successfull HIAC w/o a sick bump and they stayed in the cell the whole match!

That's the way that it should be.

[Guest Anglesault]

The guy dragged watchable matches out of Undertaker and Big Show.

 

That's a story that was made up by Brock apologists when he was really bad and it has snowballed to the point where people think it is true. Brock/Show 1 and 2 were both really bad. Not much Brock could do there, but don't say the match was watchable. Taker/Brock 1 sucked ass, no matter who you want to blame, and Hell in a Cell is the most over rated match of 2002.

They booked the Show v. Brock matches to hide their weaknesses. I was there for Brock v. Show 1 and the crowd heat was off the charts that I can't help but not like it.

That doesn't make it good. That's atmosphere.

 

I enjoyed both Brock v. Taker matches. The Unforgiven match could've been a bit shorter and had a less gay ending but I enjoyed the match for the most part.

 

I found it excruciatingly boring with a lousy finish.

 

I recently watched HIAC a few weeks ago and again- could've chopped off a few minutes but I thought the match was very good. They were able to do a successfull HIAC w/o a sick bump and they stayed in the cell the whole match!

 

Blood does not make a match.

[Guest humongous2002]

, Brock is the most uncharismatic, unentertaining champ champ the WWF/E has ever pushed down our throats.

 

Does that include Diesel and Kane?

 

Eversince he became a champ he hasn't done anything to increase sales or ratings

 

The ratings weren't at 4.0 when Angle was champ either.

 

and if he is not being carried by Kurt his matches are forgettable.

 

The guy dragged watchable matches out of Undertaker and Big Show.

 

He is supposed to be the #1 guy but his pops (even with the canned heat)

 

His pops aren't canned heat. I've been at a show where Brock got the loudest pops out of anyone and the fans Let's Go Lesnar during the whole match.

 

are not as huge as a Rock or Austin ovation from back in the days.

 

Wow- Brock's pops aren't bigger then the #1 face of all time?? Let's take the belt off him NOW!

 

Hopefully Vince realizes that this is not 1987 and gives the belt back to Angle or somebody more entertaining than Baby Huey.

 

Or we could give Brock a chance as the #1 face champ in the company and see where it goes instead of hot shotting the belt back to Angle.

 

I have nothing against Angle but he had a title reign so bad they had to mercy kill it after two weeks.

It's time for me to embarras your dumb ass:

1-At least Diesel was good and entertaining on the mic and Kane was a one day champ so that doesn't mean anything.

2-The reason i said that the ratings haven't increased since Baby Huey became a champ(And this is going back all the way to Summerslam) is because for a wrestler who is being pushed as the top guy and a wrestling savior hasn't done anything to improve business.Meanwhile Angle has always been booked as a weak comedy champ and he still gets over with the fans with his wrestling and his promos.Lesnar hasn't done any of that yet.

3-He dragged watchable matches out of Taker and Big Slow??I wish i could laugh at this but it's too sad to be funny, Taker bleeding tons of blood and doing an F5 on a 500lbs sack of crap doesn't equal to watchable matches.

4-How do you know if the WWE doesn't use canned heat for Brock, and even though you've been to house shows were they popped crazy for Lesnar did you actually take your time counting all the fans popping?I admit Lesnar gets pops but they are not as big compared to the ovations Rock and Austin used to get when they were on top.

5- See #4

6-Brock had a title reign as a heel last year and the only good thing about it was that Heyman talked for him, but it still didn't make him look like a top star. He has beaten Taker,Slow,Angle and Rocky clean in the ring to get over but i still don't think he is ready to carry the company since he hasn't done anything to improve sales and ratings so might as well start experinmenting with other wrestlers that are as over as Lesnar or more to see if it works out or not, if Lesnar was a draw like Austin or even Hogan then i would say he deserves the title, but as of now he is not ready to be push like he was at the same level with those 2 guys.

And about Angle's babyface run as a champ bombed b/c he was still being booked as a joke(ie. milk-a-mania runnin' wild) so it wasn't his fault that it was cut short.

[Guest Anglesault]

1-At least Diesel was good and entertaining on the mic .

Does that change that he is the worst drawing champ ever?

[Guest AndrewTS]

I agree that the Brock/Taker HIAC match was probably the most overrated match of 2002. Brock-Taker 1 would be the most boring PPV main event of 2002 if it weren't for the Double Suckfest at Backlash (and possibly Judgment Day, but I haven't seen that one).

 

Brock vs. Show at the Rumble was "watchable" in the sense that you knew Brock was going to squash Show and it was fun to watch him do that. But the match was nothing as far as workrate.

 

Brock got the biggest pop up the night at the SD taping in Pittsburgh I went to. That doesn't mean he's a draw, though.

[Guest bob_barron]

It's time for me to embarras your dumb ass:

 

I was worried you were going to embarass me but this sounds much worse!

 

At least Diesel was good and entertaining on the mic and Kane was a one day champ so that doesn't mean anything.

 

His mic work as a face was always pretty bad I thought. Kane was also pushed down our throats and despite his one day title reign- I'll count it. Diesel drew much worse then Brock ever did.

 

The reason i said that the ratings haven't increased since Baby Huey became a champ(And this is going back all the way to Summerslam) is because for a wrestler who is being pushed as the top guy and a wrestling savior hasn't done anything to improve business.Meanwhile Angle has always been booked as a weak comedy champ and he still gets over with the fans with his wrestling and his promos.Lesnar hasn't done any of that yet.

 

Brock is over with the fans when he wrestles and cuts promos (I didn't say they were good promos) Angle's third reign didn't increase ratings either and this time he was not booked as weak comedy champion. The business is an overall slump- it's not just Brock's fault. Not even Austin and Rock can rope them in for more then a week.

 

He dragged watchable matches out of Taker and Big Slow??I wish i could laugh at this but it's too sad to be funny, Taker bleeding tons of blood and doing an F5 on a 500lbs sack of crap doesn't equal to watchable matches.

 

I didn't like HIAC just for the blood even though I think it added to the match and to the legacy of Hell in a Cell. The Unforgiven match, while a bit slow at times, was a much better match then I ever thought it would be. His matches with Big Show were booked to hide weaknesses and they did a very good job.

 

How do you know if the WWE doesn't use canned heat for Brock, and even though you've been to house shows were they popped crazy for Lesnar did you actually take your time counting all the fans popping?I admit Lesnar gets pops but they are not as big compared to the ovations Rock and Austin used to get when they were on top.

 

It's not that hard to tell when they can it or not. I don't count the fans popping but I do hear the noise of the crowd. Austin and Rock were something special, one in a lifetime people. It's not fair to compare Brock to them.

 

 

Brock had a title reign as a heel last year and the only good thing about it was that Heyman talked for him, but it still didn't make him look like a top star. He has beaten Taker,Slow,Angle and Rocky clean in the ring to get over but i still don't think he is ready to carry the company since he hasn't done anything to improve sales and ratings so might as well start experinmenting with other wrestlers that are as over as Lesnar or more to see if it works out or not, if Lesnar was a draw like Austin or even Hogan then i would say he deserves the title, but as of now he is not ready to be push like he was at the same level with those 2 guys.

 

Brock is very very over and I think if they give him a good run as a face and book him as a main eventer it'll work. He hasn't been given a chance to shine as #1 face yet. They should be building people up to face him but taking a title off of him after only three weeks is a bit ludicrous

 

And about Angle's babyface run as a champ bombed b/c he was still being booked as a joke(ie. milk-a-mania runnin' wild) so it wasn't his fault that it was cut short

 

I'm just showing you that Kurt Angle, who you want as champ, isn't exactly Mr. Ratings Draw either

[Guest bob_barron]

I agree that the Brock/Taker HIAC match was probably the most overrated match of 2002. Brock-Taker 1 would be the most boring PPV main event of 2002 if it weren't for the Double Suckfest at Backlash (and possibly Judgment Day, but I haven't seen that one).

 

Hogan v. HHH, Taker v. Austin, Hogan v. Taker, HHH v. Taker, Kane v. HHH, HHH v. HBK- Both Taker v. Brock matches were much better then those snoozefests

[Guest razazteca]

what if Smackdown was on a channel that never got pre empted for real sports how high would the ratings be?

[Guest Anglesault]

I agree that the Brock/Taker HIAC match was probably the most overrated match of 2002. Brock-Taker 1 would be the most boring PPV main event of 2002 if it weren't for the Double Suckfest at Backlash (and possibly Judgment Day, but I haven't seen that one).

 

Hogan v. HHH, Taker v. Austin, Hogan v. Taker, HHH v. Taker, Kane v. HHH, HHH v. HBK- Both Taker v. Brock matches were much better then those snoozefests

Yes, No, Yes, The second one was, Yes, No.

 

Still doesn't make them good matches

[Guest bob_barron]

I agree that the Brock/Taker HIAC match was probably the most overrated match of 2002. Brock-Taker 1 would be the most boring PPV main event of 2002 if it weren't for the Double Suckfest at Backlash (and possibly Judgment Day, but I haven't seen that one).

 

Hogan v. HHH, Taker v. Austin, Hogan v. Taker, HHH v. Taker, Kane v. HHH, HHH v. HBK- Both Taker v. Brock matches were much better then those snoozefests

Yes, No, Yes, The second one was, Yes, No.

 

Still doesn't make them good matches

You thought Taker v. Austin from Backlash was better then Taker v. Brock??? Taker v. Austin is the most boring match of all time.

 

I found Taker v. Brock better then HHH v. HBK- 2/3 falls. The 2/3 falls match was 38 minutes of both guys being exposed for being awful.

 

I've always liked Brock's ring work- he matches up well with the big guys and is able get matches that I enjoy watching out of them

[Guest Anglesault]

You thought Taker v. Austin from Backlash was better then Taker v. Brock??? Taker v. Austin is the most boring match of all time.

That boring Unforgiven Shitfest gives that a run for it's money. Hell in a Cell might be better.

 

I found Taker v. Brock better then HHH v. HBK- 2/3 falls. The 2/3 falls match was 38 minutes of both guys being exposed for being awful.

 

Unfogiven did the sme thing for Taker and Brock in less time.

[Guest Austin3164life]

I'm not going to be quick to defend Brock as a credible face, but it's still early for him to be judged as a drawing champion. Once again, this isn't Brock's fault, as much as it is Vince's for shoving him down our throats for the past year. Of course Brock is not going to be the draw Austin was or Rocky was. Those two guys are in their own league of drawing power. I'll be patient for Brock's reign, and I'd like to see what they do with him and how Brock can make himself into the true top guy.

[Guest Anglesault]

I'm not going to be quick to defend Brock as a credible face, but it's still early for him to be judged as a drawing champion. Once again, this isn't Brock's fault, as much as it is Vince's for shoving him down our throats for the past year. Of course Brock is not going to be the draw Austin was or Rocky was. Those two guys are in their own league of drawing power. I'll be patient for Brock's reign, and I'd like to see what they do with him and how Brock can make himself into the true top guy.

Right, 100% correct

[Guest AndrewTS]

You thought Taker v. Austin from Backlash was better then Taker v. Brock??? Taker v. Austin is the most boring match of all time.

That boring Unforgiven Shitfest gives that a run for it's money. Hell in a Cell might be better.

 

I found Taker v. Brock better then HHH v. HBK- 2/3 falls. The 2/3 falls match was 38 minutes of both guys being exposed for being awful.

 

Unfogiven did the sme thing for Taker and Brock in less time.

Bob--Taker vs. Austin WAS good...at Summerslam 98. I wouldn't call it the most boring match of all time, but it went about a half hour of punchy-kicky with Ric Flair's shoes being the highlight of the match.

 

I don't see how HHH-HBK 2/3 falls was that bad. The fued was idiotically booked, extremely anti-climactic, the last fall sucked, and HBK didn't seem to care as much as at SumSlam, but it had some decent garbage stuff in there and some rudimentary psychology. And I said "boring" not "bad." It's hard to be bored with two Clique members swinging weapons at each other and bleeding everywhere, even in the match itself wasn't very good.

 

I do think that AS's anti-Brock bias is making him give Brock less credit than he deserves, though. Taker-Brock was boring, bogged down with political bullshit, and had Brock bumping to the degree of looking like a little bitch (wow, the wind behind Taker's punch sent Lesnar flying out of the ring!) as Taker no-sold all of Brock's ribwork and pulled out his *yawn* thrilling pseudo-MMA moves as they brawled. Then he avoids the chairshot some shit happens and then the laaaaaame-o finish. Of course, it's not Brock's fault.

 

I think the Backlash matches were far worse, and just the fact that they got so much time made them far worse than Taker-Brock 1.

 

I agree that the Brock/Taker HIAC match was probably the most overrated match of 2002. Brock-Taker 1 would be the most boring PPV main event of 2002 if it weren't for the Double Suckfest at Backlash (and possibly Judgment Day, but I haven't seen that one).

 

Hogan v. HHH, Taker v. Austin, Hogan v. Taker, HHH v. Taker, Kane v. HHH, HHH v. HBK- Both Taker v. Brock matches were much better then those snoozefests

 

Er--I don't get what you're saying, Bob. Taker vs. Austin and Hogan vs. HHH were the Double Suckfest at Backlash and I agree on that. Are you saying that both Taker-Brock matches were better than ALL OF THOSE, though?! I disagree on Kane vs. HHH and HHH vs. HBK. I've yet to see the rest and don't think I will.

Edited April 26, 2003 by AndrewTS

[Guest bob_barron]

I was shocked at how bad Taker v. Austin was- They've worked so many times that I thought they could put together a good match. I even enjoyed the match they had in October 2001.

 

The 2/3 falls match is sad to watch. Fall 1 is pretty good but goes on for way too long. Fall 2 is when they lose it. There's a part where HHH and HBK just sit there on top of the cage doing nothing. They had to send Ric Flair out there to save it- that's pretty sad. Fall 3 was about 2 seconds long and saw HBK fuck up his splash and take a bump that everyone called in Fall 2.

 

I'm saying that-

Taker v. Austin, HHH v. HHH, HBK v. HHH Part II, HHH v. Taker and Kane v. HHH were much worse then the Brock v. Taker series.

 

Taker v. Brock 1 had a lot of extracurriculars to keep my interest and I gave it like **1/4-**1/2. Taker v. Brock II was what a Hell in a Cell match should be. I liked it a lot and it made Brock look like a major player.

[Guest Anglesault]

Taker v. Brock 1 had a lot of extracurriculars to keep my interest and I gave it like **1/4-**1/2.

Subtract a star, Bob

 

And were you saying that **1/4 is good?

[Guest Midnight Express83]

For Brock drawing, you can't count ANYONE being a draw right now. There are no real draws. The WWE has did everything in their power to make joe mark not care about any of them.

 

Kind of hard to make anyone a draw when you pull shit like the gay wedding, necrophilia, racism angle, Al Wilson, HLA, bait and stwiches to the cows come home.

 

Brock's run as champ will be like Bret's run as champ in 1992/3, a over person who can't draw on the weight of all the crap around him.

 

As for worst match of 2002: Hogan vs Taker.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

As I said in the overnight ratings thread, the rating for SD will likely be thrown out. Fox was showing home videos of Michael Jackson's kids or whatever and that was probably dominating the ratings that night as the MJ Publicity Tour continues.