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.
Translation: You got called out for getting gotten to by the IWC, since you're responding to specific people as if they were the head of some IWC organism with the same shared brain, despite them not saying anything that you were talking about. Now you're trying to play it off by claiming you have me on ignore when you just
posted a reply to me.
Paranoid conspiracy theories and sloppy cover up attempts for the utter failure, noted.
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)
lol. There's no hidden meaning behind any of my posts. There aren't any black helicoptors either.
but you do imply that it's his fault that ratings go down whenever he's on
No I don't. I specifically said the opposite of that at least once, if not twice.
or if they don't, then it's the other guy that's been just as much as a draw, at least with PPVs.
When the trend is that one guy constantly gets worse buyrates than the previous year under a certain circumstance (him being in the main event and Cena not), then ONE time he gets better buyrates, then yes, I will look at giving at least equal credit for it to the other guy due to the trend.
Quick example: Jimmy plays football. Every time he plays football, Jimmy loses. Jimmy used to always win at football, but only when John was on his team. Jake joins Jimmy's football team, and they win their first game. Who's more likely to have been the cause of the win? Jimmy, who's always lost without John before Jake joined his team? Or Jake, who is undeated with that same team?
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.
No I didn't imply that he loses ratings. I have in fact "implied" the exact opposite; stating that I've never seen a Punk segment lose ratings once. (third time I've said this now). So yes, you do have it completely wrong. You're confusing "ratings" for "buyrates when main eventing". These are two seperate things which are not the same. I'm guessing this is why you're confused about my points.
When speaking about Punk's main eventing, I was (and am) talking about his whole push. I am including as far back as MITB. Going further back would be unfair, but starting there is fair imo, since that's when he first gained the WWE title.
If you want the actual, factual numbers of the PPVs Punk main evented that Cena did not, here they are: the Royal Rumble buyrates were down about 4.2% from 2011 (428k from 446k, and about 8% from the year before that (462k). NoC buyrates were down by about 2.5% from 2010(161 from 165k, and yes, they sucked bad the year before too), and TLC buyrates were down about 16% (182k from 211k. This is the one where Cena didn't appear at all).
Lastly, why are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and crediting Punk for the year's overall increase in buyrates, yet at the same time spouting off at the mouth about how Punk hasn't main evented in nearly a year so you can't discredit him for low buys.
Here's some more facts: From NoC to RR, 3 of those 5 PPVs featured Punk in the main event, and not Cena. All 3 had decreased buys from the previous year. The other two, featuring Cena as the main event, had increased buys. Seeing this obvious trend, the WWE switched gears and just put Cena as the main event for every PPV since the first one, and lo and behold, buyrates are up for the year.
Perhaps these numbers will make it more clear to you why I'm open-minded enough to credit Ryback and the storyline before I will believe that CM Punk is mostly responsibile if HIAC has increased buys. Going on trends, that'd be the least likely scenerio.
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
Whelp, obviously you didn't, because I just posted the actual numbers, and they prove you to be dead wrong and me to be 100% correct. If I said Punk got good buyrates when he main evented and Cena didn't, I'd be a liar.
Punk is 0/3 in getting increased buys without Cena, so yes, I am going to see who he was facing and what was going on before I speculate that CM Punk is main reason why the buyrates were good. Facts and trends matter more than opinions. And it has nothing to do with how I feel about Punk. I don't like Cena either, yet you'll never catch me saying he doesn't get ratings or buys, because obviously that'd be false.