That s#it gave me chills...

Welcome back home!

Why go back to the night AFTER WrestleMania? Why not go back go WrestleMania itself, the biggest show of the year, and the actual event where they reintroduced the Women's Title hoping to bring back legitimacy to the division? That is my biggest problem with it all.

Yup, agree on Cole. I remember how the announcers were the ones that ruined the Fandangoing fun, and it's equally as jarring this time around.

I think Charlotte has done great in the heel role as well, but what better opponent for her at this point than Sasha who the fans want to cheer for? Now I;m not saying that Natalya has been poor here; she's good as well. But I just think that the interest that Sasha would have generated isn't there for this feud here. Sasha would have been the logical conclusion following WrestleMania. I pointed out in the last column about how the fans who probably tuned into Raw the next night to see what Sasha's rebutal would be would have probably been left confused. That isn't something I necessarily would have done if I wanted to bring the Women's division to the attention of a larger audience.

Nattie hasn't been treated seriously for years; through no fault of her own, of course, and while her matches with Charlotte have all been good to great, it doesn't bring the emotional attachment that fans would have otherwise have had with Sasha. That's why they had to bring Bret Hart in.

I really think Sasha is injured - she did take that mistimed Sunset Flip Powerbomb at WrestleMania. A explanation to that effect could have at least helped some fans come to terms with it.

Thanks for the regular comments, man! I haven't been able to reply, but I always appreciate the comments!

I thought it worked fine for the moment that he came in. I get the importance of this match and perhaps those 37 seconds could have been better utilized on advancing a 'Mania storyline, but then again, it's just 37 seconds, and Truth came after Kane, Goldust, Ryback, Kofi, Titus and before Harper, Stardust, Show, Neville and Strowman; so not a lot of big names and you needed that breather in there to keep the crowd interested.

It had to be Rollins. Cena might have more MOTMs and a more impressive run of matches when looked at from a sheer entertainment value, but Rollins has excelled under numerous different situations and found a way to make everything work. From that Rumble triple threat, to curtain jerking Fast Lane; from arguably the best MitB cash-in, to the steel cage match; the Dusty Finish, to the Ladder Match... he's just done too much this year to be ignored. And that's not even bringing in the slew of strong TV performances as he was the glue to Raw for such a long time. Cena - while entertaining - was too one-note, one might say, and the argument in favor of Rollins would never even touch that idea.

"less people watching= less people attending live events, =less people subscribing to the network= less $ all around" - but this isn't happening, is it? Why are all shows selling out despite the low ratings? Why is the number of subscribers of the WWE Network increasing? How did WWE make a good chunk of profit in the most recent quarterly report despite the downfall in viewers from the previous year?

I agree with you on the Nielsen rating still being the basis of decisions for networks. It's in the column. But, all I said is that a single rating, or number, reported the next night is not what they care about. And other shows with a huge following HAVE seen a drop in ratings, but they aren't concerned. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D's rating has halved since Season 1, but it's still more popular than ever. Arrow has seen a downfall. The New Girl show creator quoted in this column has seen a drop of more than 5 million viewers from the start, so why is she not concerned?

There are a lot more variables today than just a Nielsen rating to justify a show being on air. Earlier, shows weren't available online months after its original airing. And even if it was, it cost a fee. Now, they're instantly uploaded on the network's website. Why?

Fact is, the creators and producers get reports of people watching months after a show has originally aired - like I mentioned in the column. If they tallied all the numbers - from online views, to DVRs, to streaming apps - I'm sure they'll see that the retention is still there, but people are just more careful about devoting their time to the show. How do you make sure they devote said time to your show? By increasing the quality, of course. And I argued for that. I just highlighted the fact that a single Nielsen rating is not being as aggressively being pursued now as before and that a general exposure of your product, be it online or otherwise, is what the networks and the creators want.

It's the same for every single show that's on air right now. Dixie Carter recently mentioned in a Tweet (or e-mail, I don't exactly remember) that Impact's +3 and +7 numbers are actually really good and the reason why they got an extension from Destination America. It's on the basis of those numbers that they were able to crack a deal with PopTV. It's a shame that DA doesn't trust them enough to keep them on their network, but that's part of their rebranding as a supernatural network and TNA cannot do anything about it.

The point about this article was that a single rating point doesn't matter at all. Now, if the cumulative trend in the overnight, +3, +7, +30 and +whatnot, sees a downfall over a considerable period of time - then obviously the networks would start worrying. Impact has done decent overnight numbers throughout their run on DA so far. We, sadly, don't know the other numbers, but if you believe some of the comments that Dixie has made, they were very good and the network somehow wants to conceal it from them.

So, a single Nielsen rating is nowhere near what companies look for now. And hence, Twitter and Social Media visibility are slowly gaining more importance. More than the number of people that watched, or missed, your show on a given night for some reason, companies are more concerned about the consciousness that their target audience has about their product.

Totally agree with you there. It could have been worse, and it's not like Reigns is piss poor. He has improved considerably.

Not right now. The 650 price tag is a bit too much, but if it stays around after a couple of years, sure. I might get a free month in December.