[Starbuck]

This breakdown will be the first one in a while that will actually mean something since they had a lot of segments advertised beforehand and most of them had implications/consequences. The final Foley team pick, the scandalous non-affair of Cena and AJ, the Ryback/Maddox thing, the return of King and Punk/Cena. They advertised these things ahead of time so people had time to consider whether they wanted to watch them or not. I reckon the main event does the top number of the night tbh. People know they're in for something worthwhile when those 2 have a match together.

@THANOS - They don't matter to my enjoyment either. Don't really know what makes you think that they would. If you think that was a defensive post then I really don't know what to say to you either tbh. I have nothing to defend lol. You quoted me crying about something I said and I told you to calm down. DAT DEFENSE.

[The Lady Killer]

That, and the overrun is usually the top drawing segment.

We need THE GAME back to give the ratings a real spike (SIX FEET UNDER BECAUSE HE'D BURY THEM~!).

[Starbuck]

THE GAME would bury every Neilsen box in the world if he came back.

[Choke2Death]

Originally Posted by THANOS

If the overall viewership determines it then no one is a draw on the current roster including Cena, because no matter how much his or Punk's segments gain, the OVERALL viewership is low so they're not draws by your logic. You seem to understand that there are other aspects of the show that occur randomly with no purpose that sink the ratings, yet still seem unwilling to place any validation on people that cause consistent gains on the tired and drawn out show.

The biggest draw factor on the entire show are the, albeit rare but, good storylines. They hardly ever occur but when they do, those are the only things that cause consistent growth in this era. Create creative storylines for everyone on the roster and the ratings will sort themselves out.

Nobody full-time is a draw, really. Even when they come up with good storylines, the ratings are low. Last year, the go-home show for MITB 2011 only got a 2.9 and that's way before the 2s became the norm. And the people that gain viewers when they are on are always given spots that are reliable gainers or always given a reason to make people care about them. Best example is Punk. He gets plenty of TV time, storylines, is the champion and everything. So how can he NOT gain viewers? It's just the standard formula of the weekly breakdowns. All the filler with directionless guys in meaningless matches cause huge losses but when a reliable spot comes around, there's a gain and depending on how many tuned out, they all return which is reflected every time by the number of viewers gained.

And to all the butthurt Punk marks that wanna cry about things said here ("You blame him for viewers lost but give everyone except him credit when his segments gain") - I'm just joking around. Apparently, I struck a nerve with some guy called Mockfrog when I jokingly credited "The Fruit" aka Cena for the 3rd hour numbers as it's his fifth time or something where he tries (& fails) to red rep me as if his non-existent rep power will do anything, lol. And similarly, many other Punk marks are mad at me too since they respond to me like wild animals everywhere I post.

[TromaDogg]

Originally Posted by SinJackal

Putting your lame childish insult attempts aside, your reply to me would be a relevant thing for you to complain about if I actually said all those things. I've never come on here and bemoan one of Punk's segments for being ratings failures. Feel free to check back in the thread, you won't find any posts stating that.

Yeah, OK. You don't actually explicitly state that Punk loses ratings (seemingly, that's your 'get out' clause if anybody ever confronts you about it) but you do imply that it's his fault that ratings go down whenever he's on or if they don't, then it's the other guy that's been just as much as a draw, at least with PPVs.

Originally Posted by SinJackal

I usually give credit to the bigger star, most pushed guy, or guy who usually pulls ratings regardless of who he's put against. Then of course, on occaision. . .rare occaision, you can credit the storyline if it's a good one.

When did Ryback actually lose ratings since being put in the main event btw? The only time I remember him losing ratings on Raw was when WWE ran some Susan G Komen for the Cure commercial and a diva's segment right after Ryback's match and the tally was done for that block of 3 segments, not just Ryback's match.

I didn't see the HIAC buyrate, but I assume people are crediting him more than Punk since every PPV Punk has main evented when not against Cena (excluding this last one) has been lower than the normal buyrate. So if it suddenly does well, it's hard not to look at the other guy since the common denominator with Punk main eventing has been lowish buyrates unless against Cena.

But I do agree that it's stupid to credit solely one guy. In this case in particular, obviously Ryback isn't going to get huge ratings and huge buys if he went against someone like Health Slater at HIAC instead of CM Punk. Though Slater hasn't has Punk's push or had the title for a year.

You implied that Punk has been main eventing PPVs and this caused lower buyrates. I've already completely discredited that with a complete list of PPV main events for the last couple of years (Punk has only actually main evented 3 PPVs as WWE Champion in over a year, and in two of those matches he's been against Cena who's apparently a bigger star/draw than Punk is)...plus there's also the fact that since Wrestlemania 28 (which broke records), buyrates for every PPV have actually slightly increased this year too.

That in turn makes it even more laughable when you automatically assume that people would credit Ryback for a decent Hell In A Cell buyrate, due to the completely false implication that Punk has been main eventing PPVs and causing lower buyrates....I realise that you're a Ryback fan, or at least I've noticed that you seem to defend Ryback against criticism a lot, such as the post above and the Ryback discuassion threads, but that's just absurd.

Whilst this is PPVs I'm talking about and you're talking about segements on Raw, it really isn't hard to see why people would read you as someone who believes that Punk causes lower ratings. I kind of got that impression about you myself.

Apologies if I've got this completely wrong.

[NearFall]

Starbuck worse than Vince. Always keeping Punk down.

Originally Posted by Choke2Death

And similarly, many other Punk marks are mad at me too since they respond to me like wild animals everywhere I post.

Judging by this thread, Punk/Ratings is a money feud imo.

[Choke2Death]

Originally Posted by NearFall

Judging by this thread, Punk/Ratings is a money feud imo.

Ratings have to carry Punk to passable numbers.

[Starbuck]

Originally Posted by NearFall

Starbuck worse than Vince. Always keeping Punk down.



Judging by this thread, Punk/Ratings is a money feud imo.

I hardly keep Punk down. It's my posts that are going downhill though. Apparently anyways. THANOS doesn't like them.

EDIT - @ self fail. Took me 3 goes to get the right Punk smiley there lol.

[KO Bossy]

Did SinJackal actually respond to me? I saw some of what he wrote in ToxieDogg's post. I can't see myself because he's on my ignore list. His posts were so full of fail they hurt my eyes.

[Green Light]

I think you guys just need to hug it out.