I think the point Tnmore is trying to make is that the main event feud is the main feature and focus of the show and it therefore props everything else around it up. When your main program isn't doing the business then naturally, everything else is going to blow chunks. The vast majority of people don't tune in to see the midcard acts because they're just that, midcard acts. People tune in for the 'main event' of the show with all the other feuds seen as sort of, extras I suppose and that's especially true in today's WWE where the main event is the only thing that gets any progression week to week if even. The main event program gets the major timeslots on the show in order to give Raw as a whole a chance to make better gains and get a better overall rating. More people tend to be watching at the start, at 9pm, at 10pm and at the end so segments are strategically placed to maximize viewership. The stronger the main event program and the people in it, the stronger the rating. The weaker the main event program and the people in it, the weaker the rating. That's why a lot of times we see breakdowns and overall ratings only to find out that a certain segment propped up a particular hour and impacted upon the show rating overall. Of course, it takes 2 people to have a feud and right now Punk isn't feuding with anybody. However, when Cena was around, their segments were still sucking and dropping every week anyways. People have been tuning out of the midcard acts for years now but now more so than ever. The difference is, more people were watching the main event program, whatever it happened to be, so the overalls weren't that bad. Now, less people are tuning in to even watch the main feud in the company so how can the 'extras' or midcard acts be expected to do any better?
Regardless of whether it involves Punk or not, when the main feud/segment on the show peaks at 4.2 million viewers (which it did last week iirc) then you have a serious problem. I just don't get how anybody can then go and claim that that makes whoever a draw. It doesn't. Overall viewership is at its highest when there is more than 1 thing to tune in for. When there isn't and there is only 1 main feud, that takes the responsibility of propping up the rest of the show as the central and focal point of that show. If that feud is failing to produce the goods then the rest is almost doomed to fail. If people aren't even bothering to tune in to watch John Cena or CM Punk feud over the WWE title, why in the hell are they going to bother tuning in for Kofi Kingston or Tyson Kidd in a match that means absolutely nothing?
I get the points he was trying to make. The thing is, if Punk's segments gain viewer, and everyone else's segments lose them, how is it Punk's fault? Should the blame be placed on, you know the people involved in the segments that lost viewers? How can you blame the guy who brought in viewers for other people losing them? It'd be like blaming an MLB pitcher for losing a game when every ball that was hit was a pop fly and the fielders dropped it. He doesn't have any control over what they're capable of, so how can it be his fault?
I never said Punk was some mega draw who could bring in a million viewers in each segment he's in. Then again, I don't think Rock vs Brock given away free on Raw with 6 months of hype could bring in that many people. Why? Because the interest for the product isn't there in the first place.