Originally Posted by Shawn Morrison
You can care about ratings all you want, what is extremely annoying is when people will look at ratings to a judge a superstar/show/feud/etc. There could be a really good Raw, yet the ratings would be down for certain reasons on that day, and people would call it a terrible Raw for that alone. Also it's really stupid how people use it to judge superstar's talent, ratings don't say shit about how talented someone is, however they do show how well/or not well those superstars are being booked, cause if they were booked well they would get better ratings.
This is why it is annoying. Honestly i find it lame to blame anything other than Creative or 3 hours for the ratings. I mean different superstars get different ratings each week, and just like sheep you change your opinions about them every week too. It is obvious that it's the booking and storyline that gets the ratings, yet you will still find a way to make an excuse and keep saying 'this superstar sucks, he can't draw, etc.'. 3 hours has drastically decreased the ratings, if anything deserves blame, its that.
I assure you that I'm not judging wrestlers talent by ratings. I judge them by how entertaining they are and I simply like to use poor ratings to make fun of them (it's just internet, after all). Del Rio often makes bad numbers and I really like him.
Since Raw 1000 two things have changed - Raw became 3 hours long and CM Punk became #1 guy. You can't really say that Punk has NOTHING to do with poor-ass ratings. My brother and uncle (they are casuals), who were wrestling fans since 2007, stopped watching WWE 2 months ago, and they said it's because Punk is boring and makes them fall asleep.
I'm not saying Punk is killing WWE or shit like that, he just fails to help boost ratings and considering what WWE gave to him, he SHOULD be doing that. When you look at the worst overruns in history, you see CM Punk's name everywhere, no matter what you think, it CAN'T be coincidence.