Originally Posted by TripleG
I love how a low (or high rating for that matter) always falls squarely on the champion. I never understood that logic. Shawn Michaels was accused of not being a draw in 1996 when WCW took control of the ratings. But Good God! Look at both shows. On one show you had cartoon characters running around like Mantaur with a Shawn Michaels main event, and on the other, they were doing something revolutionary with the nWo. Which show would you watch? The champion can't be blamed for the entire show sucking.
And I'll use TNA as an example. So is it AJ's fault that TNA got their ass kicked by the WWE while he was champion? But wait, I thought Hulk Hogan was going to be the one to change everything and bring in new audiences, so shouldn't the blame fall on him instead of AJ?
Look at Monday's show. The main angle was the Kane/Cena storyline and it has been for the last few weeks, yet the low ratings are Punk's fault? Heck, they even switched Punk out of the main event segments & ratings are still basically the same.
MAYBE, the real culprit falls on creative. The show's are bad and people are turning away. Doesn't matter if its Punk or Cena who is carrying the strap. The show is still going to suck. Where WWE botched it is that The Summer of Punk should have led to a creative high & change of personality for the show and it didn't at all. They are right back to doing what they doing before the Punk shoot pretty much. Yeah, Punk is on top, but its still the same show, same cliches, same stupidity, same presentation. Nothing really changed.
I'll put it to you like this. Let's say Triple H and Zack Ryder appear in a segment together. Doesn't matter what the segment is whether they're cutting a promo, fighting, singing I'm Walking On Sunshine by Katrina and the Waves, whatever. If the segment rating is good Triple H will take all the credit. If the segment rating tanks Zack Ryder will take all the blame. You almost never see a wrestler say "Man that segment rating bombed because of me."