What will Sheamus vs. Reigns do to the ratings?

[Zany Clowny]

they are both of the most hated wrestlers right now lol

this feud can't be good for business

wrestlemania is going to being the memedaddy of them all

 

[C.M. Shaddix]

they are both of the most hated wrestlers right now lol

this feud can't be good for business

wrestlemania is going to being the memedaddy of them all

Reigns was actually getting better with the fans, WWE fucked it even more with Sheamus

 

[Mr. Roman Empire]

Ratings will be stay around the same. Cena and Lesnar are coming back so theres that. Sheamus will only hold the title for a month or 2. Reigns will win it back at TLC or Royal Rumble. Lesnar is gonna win the Rumble and it will set up Lesnar vs Reigns part II at WM32

 

[Zany Clowny]

Ratings will be stay around the same. Cena and Lesnar are coming back so theres that. Sheamus will only hold the title for a month or 2. Reigns will win it back at TLC or Royal Rumble. Lesnar is gonna win the Rumble and it will set up Lesnar vs Reigns part II at WM32

what a shitty fucking idea

good prediction though

 

[Neptune]

what a shitty fucking idea

good prediction though

This is like everything else they do, nothing new there.

 

[Prince Bálor]

Skyrocket the company's viewership to 50 million a week. tunga:

 

[edge4ever]

To the ratings? If anything, they'll stay the same or drop. So prob nothing. I really hated WWEs move on this. Such a lack of creativity and we've seen the same shit so many times. This just happened this year with Seth and the same thing with randy orton. It's gay. Sheamus can suck some dick.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Honestly now that there is only one World Title, I think the MITB match needs to be dropped. It almost guarantees a cheap and easy win of the one major title in the company. It becomes somewhat predictable and I think it's an awkward wild card that almost feels like it HAS to be played. And it's run its course.

I have no problem with Sheamus and I have no problem with him as champion, but having him cash at the end of the tournament and win just completely shit on the entire concept of the tournament. As long as there is a money in the bank contract outstanding, whenever there is a title tournament, it provides an ample opportunity for the contract holder to cash in, thus negating the point and effort of the entire tournament. Plus it leaves us with a feud that we likely don't even want to see because although it was mildly exciting when it happened, now I don't think I really care to see the match.

 

[Mr. Roman Empire]

Honestly now that there is only one World Title, I think the MITB match needs to be dropped. It almost guarantees a cheap and easy win of the one major title in the company. It becomes somewhat predictable and I think it's an awkward wild card that almost feels like it HAS to be played. And it's run its course.

I have no problem with Sheamus and I have no problem with him as champion, but having him cash at the end of the tournament and win just completely shit on the entire concept of the tournament. As long as there is a money in the bank contract outstanding, whenever there is a title tournament, it provides an ample opportunity for the contract holder to cash in, thus negating the point and effort of the entire tournament. Plus it leaves us with a feud that we likely don't even want to see because although it was mildly exciting when it happened, now I don't think I really care to see the match.

It would be more exciting if the title hopped around more, but typically when someone wins they hold it for around 5-6 months, so theres usually only about 2-3 title holders a year. It seems like the only time a title changes is either Summerslam, Wrestlemania, or a MITB cash in

 

[Jacob Fox]

It would be more exciting if the title hopped around more, but typically when someone wins they hold it for around 5-6 months, so theres usually only about 2-3 title holders a year. It seems like the only time a title changes is either Summerslam, Wrestlemania, or a MITB cash in

I disagree. Longer title reigns are more interesting to me. When the title hops around more, it degrades the worth of the title. It makes the champions look weak when they can't hold onto a belt for more than a couple months. Go watch the 23 WCW World Title changes in the year 2000 and see what that did to destroy the belt.


Edit: Not being rude and saying you're wrong, I just see it different

 

[The GOAT]

They'll remain about the same. Sheamus is the worst WWE Champion of this decade and his title reign won't do shit to draw viewers, but I also don't think it'll be bad or boring enough to make the ratings drop any lower than they already have either.

 

[Prince Bálor]

I disagree. Longer title reigns are more interesting to me. When the title hops around more, it degrades the worth of the title. It makes the champions look weak when they can't hold onto a belt for more than a couple months. Go watch the 23 WCW World Title changes in the year 2000 and see what that did to destroy the belt.


Edit: Not being rude and saying you're wrong, I just see it different

I agree. Playing hot potatoes with championships doesn't do anyone any favors.

It's exactly what's pissing me off with what NJPW's doing with their Jr. division.

 

[Mr. Roman Empire]

I disagree. Longer title reigns are more interesting to me. When the title hops around more, it degrades the worth of the title. It makes the champions look weak when they can't hold onto a belt for more than a couple months. Go watch the 23 WCW World Title changes in the year 2000 and see what that did to destroy the belt.


Edit: Not being rude and saying you're wrong, I just see it different

Look back in 1999/2000 and you see guys like Mankind, The Rock, and Triple H switching titles every month, losing the belt on RAW and it didn't hinder their careers or degrade the title 1 bit. Not saying it should be done all the time, but when its properly done it adds a lot of excitement because you never know when anything like that can happen and a new person becomes champion

 

[Jacob Fox]

Look back in 1999/2000 and you see guys like Mankind, The Rock, and Triple H switching titles every month, losing the belt on RAW and it didn't hinder their careers or degrade the title 1 bit. Not saying it should be done all the time, but when its properly done it adds a lot of excitement because you never know when anything like that can happen and a new person becomes champion

Yes but that's because you had guys like Mankind, the Rock and Triple H switching titles every month. The caliber of guys right now is not the same. One exception doesn't disprove the rule.

You can have the same kind of excitement and never knowing when someone new will become champion by having solid matches between competitors who put on brilliant back and forths. You can have exciting matches when you have a strong champion that seems impossible to beat. Brock Lesnar's entire run was great because he was so dominant that you wanted to see if someone COULD beat him. That added a lot more excitement than the belt changing hands a lot.

 

[Mr. Roman Empire]

It still adds to the element of surprise though, if the unexpected happens. Now the only time its unexpected is with a money in the bank cash in.