Funny thing is, about every single one of these "Why do you care about ratings?" posts are coming from Punk marks.
And at the same time, I could say the people that hate/dislike/find Punk overrated are the ones who jump into this thread head first to hurl any insult they can about Punk being in the position he's in.
This shit seriously needs to fucking stop. Nobody has ever said that yet we get all the morons of the day coming in here and repeating this over and over and over again. Jesus fuck. Comprehension people, comprehension.
Originally Posted by Starbuck
WHO THE FUCK HAS EVER SAID THAT THEY BASE THEIR FAVORITE STARS ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE DRAWS?
As far as ratings go, I think the whole people basing favorites on ratings they do is... well... just read Starbuck's post I quoted above. I like people who are big draws in ratings (Rock, Taker, etc.) and people that aren't drawing in the ratings (Barrett, Sandow, etc.). Granted I like looking at them to see how certain guys are doing in that regard, but I certainly will never base who I like or not based on who's drawing.
The thing is though, nobody on the current roster is really a proven draw on their own. Hell, there's always a possibility anyone could do below average in a segment, even the likes of Cena and HHH. Cena especially doesn't always have high gains when in there in a crappy feud with someone who doesn't draw any better than Punk.
Only Rock right now is 100% capable of really drawing in the viewers just on his name alone. No one else associated with WWE can. Maybe Lesnar to some degree as well has that power but even then neither guy is on the roster more than a few days a year. Which makes you wonder if they did come back every week, would the ratings go up that highly? Maybe the first few weeks, and sure they'd be higher generally than without them, but they wouldn't be bringing in these numbers people are ridiculing Punk for not bringing in. 5,000,000+ viewers every week on average just isn't going happen when the product is lazy as shit. It's not going to happen when the biggest championship on the brand is the "beating John Cena" title. It's not going to happen when the the mid-card tag division, and hell even the divas division aren't having any mind payed to them and are just going through the motions.
If there was a compelling storyline for all parts of the show, with or without The Rock or Brock Lesnar, whether CM Punk is the face of WWE or not, the show would be pulling in 5,000,000+ viewers a week. We've seen based on the Raw 1,000 that they have a potential fanbase of nearly 7,000,000 people, of which with the lackluster product they somehow manage to get around 4,000,000 of a week. So the viewers are there, but WWE needs to do more to make them care about the whole show and the WWE Championship. Not just the special attractions like Rock and Lesnar. Now granted some of those fans will never come back to watching WWE for various reasons (PG, growing out of it, hate Cena, hate CM Punk, etc.) and just watched it for the night to see some of their old favorites again. But I don't believe that they can't get 5,000,000+ viewers a week easily if they just did a better job with the quality of the show all around (not just the main event). Especially in a period where there is no mega draw like Austin or Rock there consistently and there is no competition. They could get away with it being mostly about them back then, but not in this day and age. There needs to be something interesting for everyone on the show, not just the top 2-3 guys.
EDIT - And on the whole Punk marks thing. Some, not all, but some Punk marks don't want to know about ratings and are constantly saying that they don't matter. Then if/when Punk's segment does well they are the first people here to boast and throw a party about it. That screams hypocrisy to me. Those same marks are also the same people crucifying the likes of Orton for something they're willing to give their favorite guy, CM Punk, a free pass for. Again, hypocrisy. Bottom line is this, if you don't like to discuss ratings and don't think they're relevant, DONT COME INTO THE RATINGS DISCUSSION THREAD. It's as simple as that.
I think you're unfairly generalizing Punk marks. There are marks of him that like to talk about ratings and marks of him that don't. And there might be one or two who will be the hypocrites you claim them to be, but we could say the same thing about Orton marks for Orton. Bryan marks for Bryan. HHH marks for HHH. Taker marks for Taker. Rock marks for Rock. The only difference is those last three rarely underperform in ratings, especially in this day and age when they're big special attractions.
EDIT 2: Fuck, you did put only some Punk marks. Ignore the first sentence of that last paragraph. <_< However, my point still stands that you could say that about some marks for any wrestler.