Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Indy Wrestling, Lucha Underground, Women of Wrestling Forums - View Single Post - **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

View Single Post
post #8729 of (permalink) Old 12-11-2012, 08:14 PM
Lacing SCOTT STEINER's boots
SinJackal's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,393
Points: 0
Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Originally Posted by KO Bossy View Post
There are people in this thread who actually believe that Punk not being on the show in a prime role somehow contributed to a rating that is completely equal with all of the other ratings they've been getting lately. Almost like a 2.67 is something to be proud of because they think it proves some ridiculous point despite the mountain of evidence against it.

"DERP HEY GUYS, 2.67 RATING DIS WEEK! MORE PPL LIKE DA SHOW WEN PUNK ISN'T DERE HUR DERP!" Yeah, nothing shameful about a rating that is .19 of a rating point above the lowest in 15 years. Way to shoot for the stars. Soon the show might even be getting the unattainable 2.9s that exist only in legend. This company now lives for the day it can break the 3.0-it'd be like Christ's second coming.

I just...I can't do it...to fathom the stupidity...its impossible for me. And people wonder why the IWC complains about wrestling today-its because a 2.67 is now interpreted as a good rating.

Remember back in the day when Raw used to be able to pull off 4+ weekly? Shit, there was a time when anything in the 4s was considered low in comparison. Now? A fucking 3.0 has become the Holy Grail. Embarrassing. I don't know how you people can fight about this shit. Calling Ryback a better draw than Punk is like saying brown is a more appealing color of shit than green-its still shit, who cares? Punk is shit, Ryback is shit, Cena is shit, nobody can draw to save their lives and its gotten to the point where their big 1000th episode, that they hyped up for MONTHS before hand, drew a whopping 3.43 rating! It used to be when they could hint towards one thing happening the next week and that alone meant 5.0+. Now, they pull out all the stops, throw in everything including the kitchen sink on like...a weekly basis...and you guys are bickering about why a 2.67 rating suddenly proves all these crazy theories you have.

Ratings are in the toilet-that's the bottom line, and those of you who look for this hidden meaning that isn't there...don't get it.
Is your mind not capable of rational thought? Must everything debase into "everyone's out to get Punk, must defend Punk"?

The fuck did you expect with the ratings? Instant 4.0's all the time when ratings haven't been that high in consistently in like 7 years? That number is irrelevant. And yes, actually getting back into the 3's will be viewed as a good thing because ratings have been in the 2's for several months.

You're trying to set the bar to a laughably high level that's higher than the show's probably capable of getting back to anymore. That way you can lazily pretend that any ratings increases "aren't a big deal" and "don't prove anything" when Punk's out of the spotlight. . .even though the ratings will visibly have gone up.

2.7 isn't shitty rating, but it's better than 2.2. It's called a positive trend in the right direction, rather than constantly trend downward until it gets into the 1's while people like you still foolishly spin doctor it to make excuses for Punk, or, like in that post, try to muddy the waters with nonsense about ratings from nearly 7 years ago before Punk was even on the Raw roster.

Ratings will go up and stay up for months as soon as The Rock comes back to inform us he's going to take the title off Punk, so long as Punk loses to him and the title stays off him. Watch.
SinJackal is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome