[A-C-P]

You had some valid points, didn't really agree with any of them for a few reasons....

#1 The Rock said himself he wasn't coming back to be WWE champion and he didn;t want the title involved in his fued.

#2 The Cena/Rock match did not need the title involved and even if the title was involved in the match, the WWE title istself wouldn't "gain" any importance b/c the fued itself is bigger than the title and it would be overshadowed anyways. so IMO it acutally is better for the WWE (from an importance standpoint) not being involved with Rock/Cena.

#3 The WWE itself made the WWE title lose alot of its importance by announcing the Rock/Cena fued a year ahead of time and treating it like almost the only thing that has mattered since pretty much after the Oct PPV.

Originally Posted by Falkono

Punk's run has gone on so long that it has been difficult to bring others into the title picture and have them as a credible threat. But they need to start building up these guys fast because after Mania Taker,Rock,HHH,HBK,Jericho will probably all be gone for a longtime again. That is when we will see how weak the roster really is.

Your last paragraph is what confused me though you say the title should be on Cena and involved in that match and say something like this? You think Punk's reign has gone on to long (Disagree here to, i guess you like WWE Title Hot Potato) And your argument against Punk keeping the title this long is its not bring others into the title picture, yet you want the title to be back on Cena?

[Green Light]

Based on the ratings HBK, Taker or Triple H should be champion. Maybe give the US title to Rock but only if he starts bringing in some better numbers

[Clique]

Originally Posted by Green Light

Based on the ratings HBK, Taker or Triple H should be champion. Maybe give the US title to Rock but only if he starts bringing in some better numbers

Na, they'll just headline the biggest show of the year (over any match for a championship. These matches bigger than that) as they should and WWE will continue going to them until they are done for good.

[Vin Ghostal]

Originally Posted by Falkono

My personal view is that the Cena vs Rock match should of had the title involved like it was supposed to.

Nahhhhh. In selling this event, WWE must make it appear that all of the matches are fantastically important, and that there are many different reasons to buy the event. Not one person would be more interested in Cena/Rock if the title were involved, since it's already being billed as the biggest match ever. Can't get much more hyped than that.

The flip side is that LOTS of people would consider the Punk/Jericho match less important without the title. So, if moving the title to Cena wouldn't make his match any MORE attractive to potential buyers, but would definitely make the Punk match LESS attractive, where's the upside?

Originally Posted by Green Light

Based on the ratings HBK, Taker or Triple H should be champion. Maybe give the US title to Rock but only if he starts bringing in some better numbers

You really think The Rock would stick around to hold a secondary title? He was far above the US/IC title in 2000, for heaven's sake.

Originally Posted by KO Bossy

Taker/Trips is by far the best thing they're building up. Coincidentally, it was the match so few people wanted to see. What's largely the reason for this? They're old school guys who know how to provide that psychology, emotion and intensity surrounding a match that takes it from being good to amazing.

Oh yeah? Where was all that "old school" knowledge last year when they gave us a tepid, boring, directionless sorta-feud going into WrestleMania?

[#1Peep4ever]

Originally Posted by Vin Ghostal

Nahhhhh. In selling this event, WWE must make it appear that all of the matches are fantastically important, and that there are many different reasons to buy the event. Not one person would be more interested in Cena/Rock if the title were involved, since it's already being billed as the biggest match ever. Can't get much more hyped than that.

The flip side is that LOTS of people would consider the Punk/Jericho match less important without the title. So, if moving the title to Cena wouldn't make his match any MORE attractive to potential buyers, but would definitely make the Punk match LESS attractive, where's the upside?

Agreed

You really think The Rock would stick around to hold a secondary title? He was far above the US/IC title in 2000, for heaven's sake.

I think it was sarcasm

Oh yeah? Where was all that "old school" knowledge last year when they gave us a tepid, boring, directionless sorta-feud going into WrestleMania?

They thought that it would be enough that Taker retired HBK

[Hladeit]

Originally Posted by A-C-P

You had some valid points, didn;t really agree with any of them for a few reasons....

#1 The Rock said himself he wasnlt coming back to be WWE champion and he didn;t want the title involved in his fued.

#2 The Cena/Rock match did not need the title involved and even if the title was involved in the match, the WWE title istself wouldn't "gain" any importance b/c the fued itself is bigger than the title and it would be overshadowed anyways. so IMO it acutally is better for the WWE (from an importance standpoint) not being involved with Rock/Cena.

#3 The WWe itself made the WWE title lose alot of its importance by announcing the Rock/Cena fued a year ahead of time and treating it like almost the only thing that has mattered since pretty much after the Oct PPV.

Disagree with that part. Rock/Cena feud has no proper storyline at the moment. John cena has explained why he needs this match and a win against the rock at WM but no one knows why the rock is even back and wants cena in a match at mania. There is no reason given why Rock needs a match and especially why he needs to win. By adding the wwe title in this feud, they can make up for this.

Remember The Rock always used to say "He is the best damn WWE champion of all time" ?? They can use that in this feud imo.

And NO, the feud wont "overshadow" the WWE title. Thats ridiculous assumption. Stone cold vs The Rock WM 17 is the perfect example how this can work.

Anyways, pointless discussing this now. Its not happening. Besides Punk needs the WWE title badly. If they take the title off him or take him out of the feud, he becomes irrelevant again.

Your last paragraph is what confused me though you say the title should be on Cena and involved in that match and say something like this? You think Punk's reign has gone on to long (Disagree here to, i guess you like WWE Title Hot Potato) And your argument against Punk keeping the title this long is its not bring others into the title picture, yet you want the title to be back on Cena?

I think he meant, by having john cena as the WWE champion, you can build new stars. Punk hasnt done anything interesting with the title imo.

Originally Posted by Vin Ghostal

Oh yeah? Where was all that "old school" knowledge last year when they gave us a tepid, boring, directionless sorta-feud going into WrestleMania?

Consider last year's mania to be just a preview of this year's ultimate showdown, Mania 28.

[A-C-P]

Originally Posted by Hladeit

I think he meant, by having john cena as the WWE champion, you can build new stars. Punk hasnt done anything interesting with the title imo.

Still doesn't make any sense if thats the case. Cena has held the WWE title (almost exclusively for the last 5 years) outside of the Nexus stuff and the last 6 months. How many new stars were "created" in that time period and what "interesting stuff" did Cena do with the title, outside of his fued this summer with Punk? None (and almost nothing) thats why the WWE is where its at.. anyways not the thread for this discussion.

[Hladeit]

Originally Posted by A-C-P

Still doesn't make any sense if thats the case. Cena has held the WWE title (almost exclusively for the last 5 years) outside of the Nexus stuff and the last 6 months. How many new stars were "created" in that time period and what "interesting stuff" did Cena do with the title, outside of his fued this summer with Punk? None (and almost nothing) thats why the WWE is where its at.. anyways not the thread for this discussion.

Well you're forcing your personal opinion on this. Just because you dont like cena or that you're not a fan of his work, doesnt mean whatever he was involved in the last 5 years has been "Uninteresting". He drew money/ratings in those title programs/feuds, which is proof that the casual fans did find him entertaining. Unless you can prove CM Punk draws/drew as the WWE champion, you cant argue this.

[Mister Hands]

Originally Posted by Falkono

To answer this question I think you need to ask another question first. Has the WWE championship meant much since Punk has had it?

My honest opinion is no. Heading in to WM and Punk is in possibly the third biggest feud at the moment. And that is only because Jericho has come back for a match. If there was no Jericho he would be defending against someone else lower down the card. Which isn't Punks fault it is the roster being weak. The main two feuds at Mania won't even involve a belt. Punks match will probably be third last. The only other time I can remember the WWE title not being in the last match was the Taker vs HBK match.

My personal view is that the Cena vs Rock match should of had the title involved like it was supposed to. Cena should of gone into Mania with the belt. It would of meant so many possible changes could of happened. For example he could of cheated and retained the title turning him heel in the way HHH used to be. Saying that all that matters is the title, not what the fans think of him etc as he couldn't care less. Then on RAW Rock beats him in a no title match and Cena beats him down afterwards with a chair or something. It could make Cena the biggest heel since Hogan did it.
Or Rock could win and become champion again until the next ppv. That would be awesome.
Point is the title should mean something, and under Punk is has not meant much. He is supposed to be the top guy but is nowhere near the top. The title should always be in the main event in my opinion.

Punk's run has gone on so long that it has been difficult to bring others into the title picture and have them as a credible threat. But they need to start building up these guys fast because after Mania Taker,Rock,HHH,HBK,Jericho will probably all be gone for a longtime again. That is when we will see how weak the roster really is.

My honest opinion is that another Cena reign would be the very, very worst thing WWE could do. They can't fall back into that holding pattern all over again. Even if nothing hugely significant happens throughout Punk's title reign, and even if the WWE title match is a 3rd tier main event at WM, I feel like a 6 month plus WWE title reign for someone other than Cena or Orton is hugely significant in and of itself. Taking it off Punk going into WM would be shooting themselves in both feet and also the groin.

[A-C-P]

Originally Posted by Hladeit

Well you're forcing your personal opinion on this. Just because you dont like cena or that you're not a fan of his work, doesnt mean whatever he was involved in the last 5 years has been "Uninteresting". He drew money/ratings in those title programs/feuds, which is proof that the casual fans did find him entertaining. Unless you can prove CM Punk draws/drew as the WWE champion, you cant argue this.

I am not trying to argue anything against Cena or the fact he has held the title so much over the last 5 years (I agree that it was the right move for the WWE to have Cena as their top guy, I just disagree that he shouldn't have been the ONLY guy getting that kind of push) Whether I am a fan of Cena's work or not aside not even taking that into account, I can say the same thing about you forcing your personal opinion on CM Punk on this issue. My post here was about the statement that Cena carrying the title would be better for building new stars which IS debatable and my statement that Cena has not "created" any new stars over the last 5 as (almost) the exclusive WWE champion is valid. Now the "interesting stuff" is an opinion of course but honestly I don't see much of any difference from a show content aspect from the 5 years Cena carried the title from the last 6 months Punk has had it.

I am not trying to argue anything about drawing or ratings #'s or anything here b/c the reason you can't argue Cena vs Punk drawing/ratings/whatever is b/c you can't even compare it for a couple of reasons....

1. Ratings and buyrates and w/e other "drawing measure" have all been in decline for the past # of years and it has ALOT more to do with the product as a whole more so than just who is WWE champion.

2. Of course Cena is going to be a better "draw" right now than Punk, Cena has been a pushed as THE top guy for nearly 8 years and Punk has been pushed as A top guy for 8 months.

My problem originally here is the fact that Falkono's problem was that Punk carrying the title was preventing other guys from getting into the title picture and his "solution" to this was to have Cena be the champion again and defend it against The Rock? Thats the part I had an issue with. B/c Cena has spent the last 5 years preventing other people from being in the title picture. Thats all I had an issue with not whether or not Cena should have been carrying the title for the last 5 years or not.


But again the ratings thread is not the right place for this discussion.

Originally Posted by Mister Hands

My honest opinion is that another Cena reign would be the very, very worst thing WWE could do. They can't fall back into that holding pattern all over again. Even if nothing hugely significant happens throughout Punk's title reign, and even if the WWE title match is a 3rd tier main event at WM, I feel like a 6 month plus WWE title reign for someone other than Cena or Orton is hugely significant in and of itself. Taking it off Punk going into WM would be shooting themselves in both feet and also the groin.

Exactly this