They used to do the Legends of Wrestling/Wrestlemania Roundtable that was more along those lines. Not sure why the don't do those anymore; perhaps they have only a limited amount of topics they actually want to talk about.

NXT is more targeted to a mid-20s or so audience. Only around 20% of the Raw/Smackdown audience is under 18, but around 40% is over 50.

And yes, Smackdown and Raw are the exact opposite of groundbreaking and unconventional. Very formulaic, controlled, hospital like atmosphere. Or just nonsensical.

All I know is there's 2 PPVs between now and when lesnar's supposed to return and we're very likely to have Seth v Orton in the first and Seth v Orton v Kane in the 2nd

So ya

Transitional ppvs are the time to try something fresh and see if it takes. Dilph v Seth? How bout picking up on Ambrose v Seth? **** even ryback v seth. Literally the perfect time to see if you have something big

But no. Let's go with Randy Orton v Seth for 4 straight months. That's the future! Of this business!

either over push someone who isn't ready or keep rehashing the same old ****. And you wonder why you keep needing free trial months to beg ppl to subscribe

Am probably canceling the Network until Summerslam. Have a busy next few months ahead and don't see myself watching much.

Does anyone do Raw via Hulu? We're considering dropping DirecTV and I'm wondering what that experience is like.

The Raws on Hulu are 90 mins so they cut a fair bit.

Seems to be a feature instead of a bug.

Seems like reigns has already been in more meltzer 4 and 5 star matches than anyone in wwe history

What in the actual ****

Only a half-star worse than Savage-Steamboat.

lol I haven't watched it but now I'm tempted.

If you're expecting an absolute trainwreck of a match, it's not like that. But it's nowhere near four starts by any stretch of the imagination. There's really no good reason to watch it.

Even Meltzer has been instructed to make Roman look strong.

This. Really wasn't terrible. The ending was atrocious. Big Show looked good on offense. Reigns can sell.

Fun fact:

In his entire career, The Big Show has NEVER had a singles match rated higher than 3.5 Meltzer stars until this week.

I mentioned this in a different thread but Ill ask it again. Why do you care what Dave Meltzer or anyone else rated the matches from this PPV? How does his arbitrary star rating system change the way you viewed the match in the slightest? I liked the Reigns-Big Show match, but the fact that some of you didnt doesnt change how I feel, nor does the fact that Meltzer loved it make me feel better. I will grant you that reading others' reviews will occasionally have me look at something with a different eye, but in the end if I liked it, I liked it.

I once heard a radio interview with ex NFL Head Coach Dick Vermiel. He was plugging his new line of wines he created. One of the interviewers asked him what makes a wine good or bad. His response was "If a wine tastes good to you, then its a good wine." So I will say "If a match looked bad to you, then it was a bad match"

I don't think anyone here cares at all but it's fun to discuss it.

I agree it is fun to discuss, and like I said it may even cause you to look at a match a little differently, but between this mention and the mention in the WM thread, to say no one cares is a bit of a stretch.

There's a natural inclination to want to see a reasonable level of agreement to our own opinions in these star ratings, likely based on a desire to want to see what we like be recognized positively.

Of course, the positive recognition only maintains our interest if we view the rating system as credible, and LOLworthy ratings hurt the credibility of the rating system. That's probably my best attempt at explaining why the reactions are what they are. Obviously you'll see the same sort of effects across reviews of all sorts of non-wrestling things too.

Meltzer giving a show's matches high ratings doesn't necessarily means he thinks it was a good show; more to a show than the star ratings. He talked at some length about how people seemed very apathetic towards Extreme Rules. On the other hand he didn't give Wrestlemania 3 very high star ratings, but when he ranked the best wrestling PPVs of all time at the end of the 80s it was ranked near the very top; 3rd or something.

Maybe he's grading it on a curve? Or weighted by his expectations?

Honestly that match was better than it had any right to be, but LOL at 4 stars

That tired ending they trotted out was just so pitiful that the rest of the match would have had to have been amazing to justify four stars. I mean, that's not even the first time that the Big Show has lost a last man standing match in that exact way in the last couple of years.

I agree with those saying the match was alright and not the worst thing in the world, but that finish was as ****ty as it gets.

Im guessing they did that ending becuse they felt they had to "protect" Big Show. When did losing a staged match become so detremental to a wrestling career? It seems like most of the booking is done to make sure everyone stays "over". I just dont understand it. Here is an idea: If they are so worried about protecting everyone, then how about they bring back time limits and have a draw every once in a while

Completely agree with time limits and having draws instead of the stupid 50/50 protection booking they do. Trading wins and losses keeps feuds and wrestlers luke warm; would rather have some be cold and some hot than everybody luke warm. Or, if you want to trade wins and losses, do a best of 5 or 7 series.

But I think the main point of the match, and the main reason this Big Show/Reigns feud never ****ing ends, is to get people to cheer Reigns. The crowd would tend to root more against Reigns if he were facing just about any other remotely main event wrestler on the roster.