[Choke2Death]

Originally Posted by NearFall

They lost viewers in nearly each quarter during the hour before the over-run. And a lot just before it. A majority of the viewers were just regains. Remember the piss poor over-run Punk/Cena had a few weeks back?

This pretty much explains it.

LOL @ Sheamus being completely no-sold for the main event and all credit going to Punk. Then Punk marks will whine if Rock316AE no-sells his presence if he has a segment with Cena/JR/Laurinaitis/Vince that gains huge.

[swagger_ROCKS]

I remember a report saying WWE would use the 3 hours to hype the ME a lot more. Guess they are holding true to that.

[Warrior]

So WWE, still has trouble maintaining viewers through-out the show. Three hours is even worse, since they try to kill time with the under-card. They need to get it together, three hours is perhaps exposing the lack of creativity in WWEs storylines and segments. Although you don't need three hours to see that.

[KO Bossy]

Originally Posted by Starbuck

First of all, it wasn't Punk on his own and second of all, the quarter before was the lowest rated quarter hour in Raw history. It would have been terrible if they didn't pull a number like that.

2.9 was the nigh point of the show? Says it all really although there isn't much to talk about. We all knew this week was going to bomb hard and it did.

Evidently my sarcasm was somewhat lot on you...

The Punk haters on this site have no problem laying 100% of the blame on Punk when the ratings do poorly. That's been fairly well established, considering all of the comments like "2.5? Punk is just killing those ratings again" and "he's the champion, its his fault." So then the segment he was in on Monday did a good number with one of the best gains we've seen in a while. If he's apparently solely responsible for the ratings overall taking a nose dive, why isn't he also solely responsible when a segment he's in or show does a good rating or gain?

I was pointing out the double standard. When its a loss or bad rating, its Punk's fault. When its a gain or good rating, suddenly its a team effort and everyone deserves credit. Sad to say, Starbuck, but you kind of proved my point, although I'm well aware you are not one of the blind Punk haters.

[swagger_ROCKS]

That double standard is what made this thread a sticky in the first place.

[D.M.N.]

Quarter Hours - October 22nd, 2012
Q1 - 3.44 million
Q2 - 3.40 million
Q3 - 3.93 million
Q4 - 3.55 million
----
Q5 - 4.08 million
Q6/Q7 - 3.47 million
Q8 - 3.22 million
----
Q9 - 3.28 million
Q10 - 3.31 million
Q11 - 2.99 million
Q12/Overrun - 4.04 million

Punk/Sheamus saved Hour 3 from being a complete embarrassment. I remember the days of seeing 4 million for most quarters and 5 million for your overruns, boy, how the dynamics have adjusted down.

Someone green repped me, but asked why I don't put the ratings above, problem is I'm not seeing the hourly ratings being reported much anymore, hence why it is not above.

[Falkono]

Dude Punk was out there with the entire roster.....only a blind Punk mark would give him credit with 40 guys out there....

But hey let's look at it your way. That segment was still LOWER then Vince and Paul Heyman's segment. Seeing as in the past Punk has been standing with these guys in highish rated segments it shows that people don't tune in to those segments to see Punk considering he was not in that segment this week. Vince + Heyman = ratings.

[Starbuck]

Originally Posted by murder

There have been lower quarters in history than that. Let's not exaggerate, the number is already bad enough as it is.

Then, in the lowest quarter going back 15 years and it may be a lot of years before this is broken, an interview with Dolph Ziggler, a Ryback promotional piece and the entrance of the lumberjacks lost 319,000 viewers to a 2.15 quarter.

I wasn't exaggerating.

Originally Posted by KO Bossy

Evidently my sarcasm was somewhat lot on you...

The Punk haters on this site have no problem laying 100% of the blame on Punk when the ratings do poorly. That's been fairly well established, considering all of the comments like "2.5? Punk is just killing those ratings again" and "he's the champion, its his fault." So then the segment he was in on Monday did a good number with one of the best gains we've seen in a while. If he's apparently solely responsible for the ratings overall taking a nose dive, why isn't he also solely responsible when a segment he's in or show does a good rating or gain?

I was pointing out the double standard. When its a loss or bad rating, its Punk's fault. When its a gain or good rating, suddenly its a team effort and everyone deserves credit. Sad to say, Starbuck, but you kind of proved my point, although I'm well aware you are not one of the blind Punk haters.

But it wasn't even a good rating lol. I don't know what you think you have proven with this. That main event gained back all the viewers who tuned out and gave the show its lowest quarter hour in history. What an accomplishment. You blame people for looking at things in black and white and then go and do the exact same thing. Every week you're in here arguing with the same people who aren't going to listen or change their minds. Then you get butthurt when they, surprise surprise, don't listen and don't change their minds. I'm not a blind Punk hater. I'm not even a Punk hater at all. But to call him a draw based on recent numbers really is just ridiculous. He isn't responsible for killing the show like some claim he is but he sure as hell isn't doing anything to help it either. Why waste your time saying the same thing every week and having the same arguments every week, trying to prove points when all you're doing is wasting your time and coming across as severely butthurt and you aren't even a Punk mark. It's just silly.

Double standards are part and parcel of the internet. At Survivor Series 2008, Cena beat Jericho for the WHC after returning from injury and the IWC threw a super bitch fit. On the same night, Edge returned out of nowhere to win the WWE title and the place rejoiced. There's a double standard for you. Accept it, live with it and move on. It isn't going to change and it's utterly pointless to even try and stop it. You aren't accomplishing anything by coming in here and saying the same shit every week and neither are the people arguing with you on the opposite side. It really has just reached childish levels at this stage tbh and is starting to become embarrassing. Is it any bit of wonder this thread is a laughing stock. Some of you really take this shit WAY too seriously. You come in here, say your piece, the Punk marks agree with you, somebody argues for the opposite, the Punk haters agree with that person and it's the same thing every week. What's the point?

[KO Bossy]

Originally Posted by swagger_ROCKS

That double standard is what made this thread a sticky in the first place.

A very good point.

Originally Posted by Falkono

Dude Punk was out there with the entire roster.....only a blind Punk mark would give him credit with 40 guys out there....

And only a blind Punk hater would blame him solely for segments not doing well when he's standing there with Cena, the biggest draw on the roster, currently. Oh wait, that happens...all the time.

Yes, I'm well aware that the million plus gain for the last quarter was not all Punk. When I said it was before, I was sarcastically trying to make a point, which was apparently lost on some people.

Yet the fact that you were so eager to immediately turn around and kick Punk back to the curb again reveals your true feelings about Punk (along with the fact that you have been very vocal against him in the past). You're one of the people who refuses to give him any sort of credit when he earns it. If Punk is in a segment that gains, "well its everybody else in the ring, they had something to do with it." If Punk is in a segment that bombs, "see?! The segment did terrible. I told you guys Punk is a ratings killer, this proves it," while conveniently ignoring who else might have been involved. You're selectively poaching bits of information and then trying to arrange them into some Frankenstein like argument. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, not to mention its a pathetic attempt to push your personal agenda.

[The-Rock-Says]

Does anyone actually take this thread serious? I mean, do people actually get pissed off?

Jeez.