Originally Posted by The Sandrone
Gotta love how when Punk is in a match/segment with Cena/pretty much anyone, it's all Cena's/their doing doing, but when Ryback is, he's suddenly a ratings success. And now he's apparently getting credit for a strong HIAC buyrate? I like Ryback, but the HIAC buyrate had as much to do with Punk as Ryback, not to mention the fact for the first time ever (I think) it was 6 weeks after the previous PPV, which I'm sure had something to do with it.
Personally I consider both of them draws on about the same level (for different reasons of course), but I do have to lol at the attempts to overlook whenever Punk may have influence on the main event, including this week, including last last... hell including the last several weeks. But then Ryback gets credit when he's been just as inconsistent (gains one week, loses the next, etc.)
The people giving Ryback credit are joking...I think. Punk's a bigger draw than Ryback imo but that's not saying much. Both of them are wildly inconsistent and obviously need a lot of help to produce any significant sort of number. I'd attribute the HIAC buyrate to the fact that Punk was legitimately in danger of losing his title for the second time in his reign. The first was against Cena and this time it was Ryback. For all his other matches everybody knew he was going to win. People genuinely didn't know who would win that one though and it was a fresh match. Both of them get the credit as far as I'm concerned along with the intriguing story behind it all.
And you must have missed the part where people were calling Ryback pathetic whilst marking for DAT RATINGS MACHINE CM PUNK. Don't act like there aren't double standards on both sides. Fact is, nobody draws anymore. Cena has the ability to bump numbers when they give him something decent but even he's not making as much of a dent as he used to. 3 hours is killing them.