Smackdown rating slowly slipping

[OldSchoolWrestling 0]

The ratings continue to drop...

 

WWE Smackdown finished with a 3.1 rating and a 5 share, down from a 3.2 last week. The 3.1 rating is far below the season average. Obviously WWE did face strong competition with new episodes of Friends and the rest of the NBC comedies, as well as Survivor and CSI on CBS. It should be noted though that Smackdown did a 3.7 last year against the debut of Friends and the other usual competition from NBC and CBS.

 

Credit: 1wrestling.com

[Guest Loss]

Long-term trends indicate that the brand extension was a bad idea. This is just added fuel to a fire that needed no more of it.

[Kurt Angle Mark 0]

It should be noted though that Smackdown did a 3.7 last year against the debut of Friends and the other usual competition from NBC and CBS.

Then it should also be noted that Smackdown that day had the Edge/Eddy ladder match and Benoit/Rey/Angle triple threat match going for it.

[Guest Loss]

Uh hello. None of those guys draw.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Ratings, schmatings.

[Guest Loss]

And actually, going from a 3.7 to a 3.1 is not a major freefall and isn't really that big of a deal. I think a better example is to look at the difference in buys between Wrestlemania X-8 and Wrestlemania XIX.

[Guest RollingSambos]

People have been calling the brand extension a bad idea pretty much since the start, but the WWE powers that be still insist that it is going to increase fan interest "long-term". In other words...DENIAL.

 

So many things about it suck.

 

It limits the feuds that you can have, I can't think of one person that has actually been elevated as a result of it (which is what it was supposed to do), fan interest is down, and how much does it suck when the Smackdown! guys tear it up on pay-per-view and then you have to wait until Thursday instead of the next day for the storylines to continue?

[Guest JMA]

People have been calling the brand extension a bad idea pretty much since the start, but the WWE powers that be still insist that it is going to increase fan interest "long-term". In other words...DENIAL.

 

So many things about it suck.

 

It limits the feuds that you can have, I can't think of one person that has actually been elevated as a result of it (which is what it was supposed to do), fan interest is down, and how much does it suck when the Smackdown! guys tear it up on pay-per-view and then you have to wait until Thursday instead of the next day for the storylines to continue?

From what I've seen most of the board likes it. Not saying I agree... just saying.

[OldSchoolWrestling 0]

The concept isn't a bad idea. The execution is.

[Papacita 0]

Yeah, they're just not using the split to its fullest potential. If done right, it frees up space for underutilized talent on the main shows, and no matter how artificial it may be, it does give you somewhat of an alternative. That way if Raw's terrible, you don't have to worry about giving up on the WWE entirely, because there's always Smackdown. If Smackdown's bad...um...get some porn or something. I dunno. Also, I like the fact that we'll have to wait the extra week to find out what happens next, because having 2 major shows covering the same storylines just cheapens the product as a whole...for me anyway. The split makes individual shows seem more important.

[SamoaRowe 0]

I like the roster split as a whole. I was losing track of things before the split because if I missed wrestling for a week due to work or something, I missed a lot. Now if I miss wrestling for a week, i just miss one episode for each week.

 

That, and Smackdown is saving me right now. If both shows were like Raw, I would have been gone last Fall.

 

My biggest complaint is that no one has been elevated. That is the most frustrating thing of all. I'm also annoyed because the roster split was supposed to prolong the life of storylines. So far it really hasn't (unless you count Test/Steiner). Most feuds still only last for a month or two.

[Guest OnlyMe]

My biggest complaint is that no one has been elevated.

 

Would John Cena be in a World Title feud right now, without the split? I think not.

 

Nik

[Guest Choken One]

Eddy Guerrero would be no where if they didn't do the split, Mysterio would only get sproadic apperences...

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

And some would say The Big Show has greatly benefitted from the split...

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Without the split you would get nothing but the McMahons and HHH on both shows taking up all the time. Eddy may not be WWE Champion, but he gets a lot of TV time. Without the split he's on Heat.

 

Can't anyone remember how terrible things were in early 2002?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

We're Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Eddy Guerrero would be no where if they didn't do the split, Mysterio would only get sproadic apperences...

Rey Misterio may not have even been hired by the WWE if not for the split.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Cena isnt in a world title feud. He's feuding the former champion.

[BoboBrazil 0]

This rating is misleading, because that was the show where they had the Billy and Chuck wedding with all the mainstream publicity that bumped up it's rating alot.

[Guest OnlyMe]

Cena isnt in a world title feud. He's feuding the former champion.

 

Fair point, but he's had a World Title shot on PPV.

 

Nik

[clean rob 0]

I can't think of one person that has actually been elevated as a result of it

As already mentioned, Cena and Eddie have done pretty well out of it. Big Show, A-Train, Chavo, Matt Hardy, Tajiri and Nowinski have all been in the limelight to an extent they probably wouldn't have been without the split, IMO.

 

Mysterio, Spanky, TWGTT, Gowen, La Resistance and Rodney Mack have all been hired and have gotten at least a decent amount of TV time (whether they've been entertaining at all is a seperate matter, of course).

 

Not to mention without the split they wouldn't have been able to build up Lesnar to the extent they did on SD, he would never have been allowed to be sole 'top guy' over HHH.

 

I agree with you about limiting the amount of feuds though, it would be nice if they had an annual 'season end' or something where there's a period of brand swapping to keep things fresh.

[humongous2002 0]

The one who deserves the blame is always the one that's being pushed as #1, and i'm talking about good ol' Brocky, he still hasn't done anything to make the tv fans care for him and can someone please get him a manager, his mic skills are worse than Sid.

[clean rob 0]

Can't say I agree with that much at all. Whilst he's not the most talented on the roster on the mat or the mic, he hasn't got to where he is today just because of his massive push. He's put on good matches (for a hoss, and considering his allocated style is 'powerhouse'), his promos have gotten better and better - they still need lots of work, but they're already as good as most of the roster's (worse than Sid's? Pffft.), and he's got plenty of years still ahead of him.

 

He went through a period of getting massive pops as a face and since turning heel he's toadied up to McMahon, picked on a cripple and slung him down some stairs and cheated his way to the title. How is that not giving the fans something to boo him for?

 

WWE screw up a lot of opportunities but Brock is one of their few recent successes, how does he deserve the blame exactly? The only thing SD is really lacking is fresh, well written feuds. It's the writers and bookers (and, sadly, the fans...many of whom would rather watch Goldberg hand out another squash over Rodney Mack than a match involving cruiserweights) that is causing low ratings.