Skip to main content

Masked Man on Off-Seasons


Before everyone starts e-mailing it to me...

And yeah, I agree with the idea.  CM Punk really should have taken WAY more time off after Wrestlemania.  Frankly he didn't need to come back until Summerslam.  Would have made the showdown with Brock even more dramatic.  

Comments

  1. Was really surprised to read how poorly Summerslam did. I was very hyped for Bryan/Cena and Lesnar/Punk, both were fresh matches and then it ended up being a great show.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with this fully. Christ, Cody was gone for like 3 weeks and when he and his brother showed up for some shenanigans in their hoodies I actually marked out a bit...for Cody Rhodes and Goldust!


    I actually think that's also why Show is getting some cheers. Admittedly once he gets in the ring with Orton the plan goes to hell, but you know what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a brilliant idea. Doubt it will happen, but it would be a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It doesn't make sense to book for the internet crowd. They're not paying for ppvs anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Short of the wrestlers forming a union (Which has roughly less than no chance in hell of happening), it's not happening.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like the concept in theory, but I think it could use a bit of tweaking. The idea that sabbaticals would be taken randomly on a per-wrestler basis seems far too confusing to keep up with for long. What I would do instead is basically create two separate rosters of talent, and rotate them for stretches at a time between live event touring and television touring. In other words, have Roster A appear only on Raw, SmackDown!, Main Event, etc. during the post-WrestleMania / Summerslam season while Roster B moves to touring three or four nights a week. Then between SummerSlam and the December PPV, have Roster B on television and move Roster A to live events. Once the new year begins, have both Roster A and Roster B appear at television and live events together to build to WrestleMania.

    You could even get creative with it and front-load your bigger draws during the summer months on television, so that when you historically draw weaker in the Autumn and early winter, you can run with new guys to see who might be able to take the next leap. After WrestleMania ends, you could then elevate them to the next roster for the summer programs and send someone back to the other roster for touring. Your major champions could float between live events and television tapings to prevent breaks in title lineage and continuity issues.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not the least of which being because unionizing is not in their best interests.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You say internet crowd like its some small portion of the audience. Every single WWE fan uses the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Even the ones that are the real life versions of the Wyatts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That doesn't give them any legit time off though; they're still all doing either TV or house shows the whole time. Plus, house show sales would suffer if people on TV aren't actually performing there. If little Jimmy is watching Cena on Raw every night he's going to be disappointed when Cena's not at the house show. But then if Cena is "floating" back and forth he ends up with even less time off, most likely.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not in the best interests of the company but certainly in the best interest of the wrestlers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The NBA and NFL have both shown dramatic growth over the last decade and they both have offseasons. Would they make more money operating 52 weeks a year? I would argue no for a variety of reasons. Hell, the NFL has maximized revenue with only 16 games a year per team. An offseason could similarly aid the WWE if it's managed properly.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dougie is Justin Watry?! I had no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wrestlers get their opportunity to shine at the expense of others.

    Blue collar workers need unions to earn a livable wage, but all of WWE's independent contractors earn enough money for a comfortable living even after expenses. So a union would limit their opportunities without bringing in any needed benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  15. They are legitimate sports.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Agreed. "Internet Fans" means something completely different now than it did in 1998.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yeah, Punk didn't need to come right back. After the historic title reign and what not, he should have taken a long vacation. It was going to be the John Cena/HHH show regardless, so he might as well take some time

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yeah, because only the Internet crowd is chanting "YES!" and "CM PUNK!" at every single show.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Exactly. You're agreeing with me a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As long as Vince is in charge this will never ever ever happen. He views NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL A SNEEZE as "weakness", can you imagine what hed think of wrestlers needing mandatory time off?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neither of them are publicly traded. And the NFL clearly doesn't give a fuck about player health which is why they keep trying to expand the season and have more games during the week.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I feel dirty for agreeing with Dougie alot recently but hes correct. Why would they ever gear booking towards internet fans? We make up a small percetage of the audience and wwe knows we wont turn away from the product.

    Remember when Russo tried booking WcW to swereve the internet fans? Didnt go very well business wise

    ReplyDelete
  23. And it shows.


    Go to their Facebook, the comments section is like trying to decipher hieroglyphics.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Except those matches weren't made for "Internet fans".


    That's the main problem here, he's acting like only people on these forums are fans of Daniel Bryan and CM Punk.

    ReplyDelete
  25. True. I just the idea some people have that wwe should book to please the smart fans. Makes no sense in any capacity.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't think throwing smart fans a few bones here and there is such a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Honestly, I think most of the resistance is going to come from the wrestlers. This was a very well written article that touched upon pretty much every issue, but I think the wrestlers are going to get too concerned about certain things. You're going to have some guys who are bitter that their sabbatical coincides to periods that buyrates and attendance tend to be up (which impacts their payoff), and you'll have guys who probably think they're gaining momentum, but the front office won't agree with their request to delay their sabbatical. Then I'm sure you're going to have guys like, say, RVD (just picking a name here) who has remained injury free but is now forced to take time off.


    Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea that would be universally beneficial. But, strangely, I see the people who would benefit from it the most (the wrestlers) being the ones who would offer the most resistance.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kellers been on this bandwagon for years...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Back in the territory days some promotions did have an off season. So it has been done before. They only did that because business was down during certain months traditionally. WWE is way too big to do that though. In the territory days those guys would just go somewhere else to work usually. Would WWE allow their talent to do that? Unlikely. The young guys don't get enough experience as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Another reason this will never happen:

    USA Network is the entire reason Raw went to three hours. USA Network is the entire reason the brand split truly ended.

    And why?

    Because Bonnie Hammer (and I'm not sure she's still in charge, but if she isn't, I bet her successor is of the same mindset) wanted MORE stars on Raw and MORE TIME with those stars on screen on USA.

    The WWE taking a handful of their big name talent (and SD always had less star power than Raw) off Raw and having them still boost the company's profile overall was something USA simply couldn't tolerate.

    Any guesses on how USA would react to hearing that the WWE intended to take John Cena off Raw for 2-3 months a year, just to let him rest up?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think it's pretty well understood that when people say "internet fans/IWC," they're still talking about the dorks and nerds like you and I who sit on message boards/blogs and discuss booking, heat, buyrates/ratings, etc.

    Taken literally, yes, the term has a different meaning now than in 1999, but I think it's still understood what it's referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  32. A private company can afford to act in its long term interests.

    A PUBLICLY TRADE COMPANY cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  33. TV shows only broadcast 13-22 episodes a week and they make a ton of money just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  34. TV shows only broadcast 13-22 episodes a year and they make a ton of money just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sports leagues have unions that have done a TON to help out the players and those leagues are equally cut throat.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The today show is on 5 days a week.

    ReplyDelete
  37. And it's terrible w/out exception.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The NFL doesn't play football year round but that doesn't mean they have an off-season. They extended the draft to May now so they are never off the radar. If WWE went off the air they would still need to think of ways to stay on the minds of the fans.

    ReplyDelete
  39. There is nothing NFL from February - April. Draft combine in May and then nothing until July. That's a lot of down time.

    But there are ways around this for WWE - they could have a one off mid-hiatus PPV. Or the NXT guys could have periodic specials in the SD! timeslot.

    ReplyDelete
  40. That's the beauty of what the NFL does. There is nothing ever going on but that doesn't stop the machine. Hell, the combine is dudes running and jumping and they get people excited for it.



    Taking a page from the NFL, the WWE would have to turn random things like the combine and draft into events to keep fans excited. Maybe hyping up some kid from NXT that's going to debut.

    ReplyDelete
  41. What part of PUBLICLY OWNED COMPANY are you not getting here?

    ReplyDelete
  42. that has nothing to do with whether or not the wrestlers would benefit from being in a union. the average wrestler obviously would. as much as 20 years ago? probably not. Things are better now, at least in WWE.

    ReplyDelete
  43. What part of PUTTING OUT A PRODUCT 52 WEEKS A YEAR DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAXIMIZE MONEY. SEE: OTHER EXAMPLES INCLUDING PUBLICLY OWNED TELEVISION STATIONS THAT DON'T DEMAND OUT 52 EPISODES OF THEIR HIGHEST RATED SHOWS A YEAR. Sometimes scarcity is a good hting and actually drives up profit margins, is my point.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think the combine being popular is an effect and not a cause though. The NFL managed to grow its appeal in years before the draft was highly rated.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Name one publicly owned broadcasting company that does not put out content every single day.

    ...but what if people get tired of FOX every single day!?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Costco begs to differ. They are the model company of throwing a middle finger in the face of said logic, and they're thriving. That lesson that you speak of is the primary reason the economy took a giant shit in 08. Everyone so fucking worried about whether they COULD, that nobody bothered to think if they SHOULD.

    ReplyDelete
  47. But NBC doesn't go completely off the air for 3 months a year. Sure, specific shows don't run year round, but there are plenty of other shows to fill the void. The point is that WWE would need to find something that would successfully fill the void for 3 months without significantly lowering profits for that time frame.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You mean the company that took a big dump after missing estimates for Q3?

    ReplyDelete
  49. It seems to me that Undertaker has pretty much taken time off as he needed it throughout his WWF/WWE run. How much of that has to do with injury vs just needing time away, I don't know. But, he has clearly benefited from doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  50. It's definetly woth looking into and discussing, although I think Vince would never go through with such a drastic change. Even though a whole "sabbatical" system seems to me both infeasible and too much of a constraint, I think the whole message behind the article is simple AND plausible: give the superstars some time off so we can miss them and love them more when they come back. That doesn't need a publicly acknowledged contractual system, only more flexibility on the bosses behalf.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The Masked Man brings the goods literally EVERY time. Glad to see that Simmons hired someone with a legitimate (and intelligent) passion for wrestling.


    Also, funny to see him link to Scaia/OO on the Bulldog firing.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This goes for MOST comments sections on the internet. The average person goes to school for 12 years and still can't put a sentence together.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ain't happening, the circus animals need to be available at all times. Not to mention there is nothing stopping guys from taking time off as is, because of downsides. Except 1) you'll get buried for it and 2) most of the talent has crappy downsides.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Who should they be booking to?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Exactly, DB is the most "correctly" over guy on the roster. Cena is still probably more over, but 30-50% of the crowd is booing him on any given week

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment