Cuz at the time of some of those at least one of the participants was nowhere near main event status when reigns and cena have both headlined like the last 15 wrestlemania combined. The only hbk diesel match I recall that wasn't mania was nashs last ppv match. And I think it's argumentative to call a Foley a headliner at any point and time. His main event matches were more less to keep guys like Austin and the rock or triple h and the rock away from each other. I wouldn't call joe vs Brock a mania match name wise....but Romans vs cena should have been saved
Except the part where most of his crowd wouldnt recgonize her where as at that time everybody knew who eric bischoff was. Im not so certain you could bring in bischoff now without some sort of video package without 80 percent of the crowd asking whos that...let alone dixie carter. So if shes the big reveal its kinda sad. Not that stephanie mcmahon is exactly groundbreakinv either though
Was with you on the concert bit....but annoyingly enough people do that with food quite often
I think it's safe to say 30 or 40 years later that advertisers already know this. Just as I'm sure they have their own data on how sales went before and after advertising on certain shows. Whether or not the sales are truly related to advertising on whatever is debatable...but they will spin it as they like
Well unless you have or had a Nielsen box it didn't matter what you were watching anyway. The numbers are a projection...not an accuracy. Always were. Subscriber numbers on the other hand are accurate unless the company is lying. Same goes with buyrates, merchandise and attendance. The whole ratings thing always was a misconception no matter what show you're talking about.
Maybe I'm in the lost minority....but I don't think I'd want to watch a Goldberg match that's longer than 2 minutes...never mind 5.
Not speaking for anyone...but Goldberg and his 30 second "matches" were a big reason I didn't care for nitro when he was the focal point. Let alone now when he's 50 or whatever. The fact that the undertaker has more ring time in the past year than your raw champion who has had 2x as many matches is kind of absurd. And for the record...I hated when they put the belt on Shawn Michael's in essentially his 2nd match back in I believe 02. Same with the rock a few years ago. But at least both of those matches where they won the belt lasted longer than a minute and 2 "moves." And basically the title this year will be fought by 2 part timers. But that's what they give me a fast forward button for
Well...take away the "dark" part and hasn't it been big shows job to lose to Lesnar for almost 15 years now?
Ummmm...yeah....before Cena became even close to being what Cena became.
Dude has made a lot of money by not having much "practice" that I don't see the point in changing things up now that he's much older. Besides him having short "matches" makes it much easier for me to fast forward through. Just saying
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Medley