It's not the same thing and you know it you're just trying hard to put over this Punk is causing the ratings to go down foolishness. Big difference between a 3 hour Raw every now and again to 3 hours every single week. Maybe you would have somewhat of a point if Punk's segments and matches were losing big numbers or numbers at all for that matter (which that whole segment by segment loss or gain thing is so flawed to me since not everyone changes the channel for the same reason) but that isn't the case. No one man is responsible for holding your interest in whatever else is going on during the show that he isn't involved in. Which is why this trying to blame one or give praise to one guy for the entire show is retarded but it gets done 9/10 times to either be used to diss a wrestler they don't like or stroke the ego of their a wrestler they do like. That's the only reason most people on here care about ratings to push your own little agendas whether it be praise or hate or as to why WWE sucks to them.
I don't have to try hard because the numbers speak for themselves. I'm simply looking at the ratings and comparing them to what's happening in the show, and looking at who's getting the most air time and who's supposed to be the main draw. My only "agenda" here is to view and speak my observation about the numbers in a logical way, whereas your agenda is to rationalize them and make excuses for Punk.
It's a logical way of looking at it. Not a biased agenda way (an example of that would be blaming anything but Punk like you've done). If the show is tanking while a specific guy is having the show centered around him, whereas it never tanked this hard before that (including with the 3 hour Raw) in 15 years, it's logical to assume that it's at least in part, his fault. You can't say "the entire show sucks and that's why", when the show's been a better draw for 5 straight years.
Ratings (and buyrates) also tanked before when Punk was the main star instead of Cena. That's why WWE kept putting Cena back in the main event. So this is not the first time it's happened either. And it happened before the 3 hour Raw change. Here's a history of Raw ratings: http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2011-ratings/
Notice how when Punk takes over as champ, the ratings start slipping down, then consistently drop below 3. Raw's ratings have been trending down ever since Punk got the WWE title back. The only times they went up was when The Rock and Brock Lesnar came back to main event with John Cena. As soon as Brock left, ratings crashed down again with Punk as the star and stayed down. A couple months later, the 3 hour Raws started airing. And the ratings for those Raws didn't start out bad either.
Also, wrong, my point would not "only be valid if Punk's segments were losing numbers". That's ridiculous. My point would be valid if Punk's segments didn't gain big numbers or didn't have a high rating. And most of them don't unless he's in the typical "viewers go up at this point" segments, such as the overrun which I've never seen lose viewers. And btw, ratings are bad even during Punk's segments. The high point was 2.9. 2.9 would be considered a failure for an overall Raw episode as recent as last year, much less at the "high point of the show"!. I gave you the ratings list, so you should know that isn't an agenda comment, it's just the truth. If you could find a compiled 2012 list, I'd bet anything it'd show bad overall ratings any time Punk is spotlighted and Cena isn't. Just like PPV buys were worst when Punk main evented and best when Cena did.
If the ratings were great, Punk would be getting the credit for it since he's the main star. You'd probably be one of the ones saying it. I would also admit that Punk was a good draw despite the fact that I wasn't a fan (exactly the same way I admit Cena is a good draw despite the fact that I am not a fan). But they're not great, they're bad. Therefore he deserves the most blame since he's aired more than anyone else. . . and when he does air, the ratings aren't even good during his segments. They're pretty normal if not below the usual average anyway. A 2.8-2.9 rating is not good. It's low.