411 Fact or Fiction 12.21.06: Edge, Samoa Joe, Cena/Federline, More

Posted by Ashish on 12.21.2006

It's week ONE HUNDRED AND TEN of Fact or Fiction with Larry Csonka, Stephen Randle, and whether WWE runs too many PPVs or not...

Welcome to the final edition of 411 Fact or Fiction of 2006! And what better way to close out a great year than with Fact or Fiction ironmen Larry Csonka and Stephen Randle! Let's get to it!


1. The John Cena vs. Kevin Federline segment on the 1/1 RAW or the possible overrun will be the highest rated RAW segment of the past six months.

Larry Csonka: FACT. While personally am not that excited by this, because K-Fed isn't doing a lot to get me excited. He is a loser, and while it will be fun to see him get beat up, I wouldn't pay for it and am glad it is on free TV. I also think a lot of people feel the way that I do, and add them into the people that ARE excited to see the deal go down, and it should pop a pretty damn good rating. Federline got buried on all of the popular talk shows like Letterman and Conan and so on and so forth, Kimmel played the clip to death and people liked seeing him get whooped. Add to the fact of all of this that the divorce deal went down and he has a lot of publicity behind him. People will tune it, people want to see him lose and get beat down and in that sense it is working. That is why it will do good and get the best quarter hour in probably a long time.

Stephen Randle: FICTION. Because I don't see casual people turning in just to see K-Fed get his ass kicked. And because it's just to promote Cena-Umaga in the end, I have my doubts that K-Fed will even get that, or if instead Umaga will run in to save him. Anyway, this ties in to the question about ratings (I don't know which order Ashish is putting these in), and I don't see any giant swing in ratings happening one way or the other. It may be the highest rated segment of the night. It may be the highest rated segment in a while. But it won't be by much, or by any noticeable number that says "hey, lots of people tuned in to see this".

Score: 0 for 1


2. RAW should never be three hours.

Larry Csonka: FACT. It really shouldn't. I was a bit torn on this, but then I reflected back to most of their 3-hour efforts and I haven't ever really came out of the show happy. This last one wasn't bad overall, but it also wasn't a blow away show. There were a ton of guys in the battle royal that didn't need to be there, so it really should have been a 20-man battle royal, which would have flowed better. They once again borrowed some talent from Smackdown, I mean if you are the "A-Show" and are having the big show, why do you need to borrow talent? It just seemed to drag on and on, and felt like Nitro back in the day and this is coming from someone who liked some WCW and always watched Nitro as well. I just think that when they do it well, WWE is the best at producing good 2-hour TV. There seems to be too much down time in the 3-hour shows, and it makes things drag to a bad degree. Stay with what brought you to the dance and get back to producing good 2-hour shows for BOTH shows.

Stephen Randle: FACT. Nitro proved that three hours of wrestling TV can be interminable if you don't have good writing. WWE, currently, does not have good writing. Well, they have decent writing at times, but not good enough to fill a three hour show. And Larry basically pointed out, the talent pool is really thin for a three hour show. You had people wrestling twice, three times in some cases, you had a battle royal filled with such luminaries as Sgt Slaughter and the Brooklyn Brawler just so you can call it "the largest in Raw history", and you had Smackdown talent on the show because they won't decide if the Hardyz are a full time team, or what brand they actually belong to. Sure, Stallone loving wrestling is great publicity, but was there need to do a ten minute taped interview segment about it? Too much filler means that 3 hours is something that should be done only when you know you have the goods to fill the time.

Score: 1 for 2


3. Samoa Joe was 2006's biggest breakout star.

Larry Csonka: FACT. If you mean by break out that he was great all year and was exposed to an exponentially bigger audience than he was the year before, while being introduced to the main stream audience, then yes, sure. Joe had a big year in TNA, running as the undefeated monster, feuding with Scott Steiner, Jeff Jarrett and recently with Kurt Angle. All names people know, which makes Joe seem important by association to people that have no idea what ROH is. Joe is big time, he just beat Angle and the attention will continue to grow as he becomes on of the very top TNA guys, hopefully for years to come.

Stephen Randle: FACT. I'm not so sure he broke out, but there's really no one else to nominate for the award, and he is very popular and becoming mainstream, whereas before he was only an indy darling. Nobody really broke out in WWE (because WWE wouldn't let them without scripting it first), and the best chance out of there, CM Punk, hasn't really done anything that impressive yet. Joe dominated TNA, finally giving them a mostly homegrown star who they'd feel comfortable with holding their major title, instead of old WWE rejects who were already stars. Well, maybe they'd feel comfortable, we'll have to see in 2007.

Score: 2 for 3


---SWITCH!---


4. WWE runs too many PPVs as it is.

Stephen Randle: FACT. Oh hell yes, is that a fact, and November through January are where it comes to the forefront. We just got through a period of 5 PPV's in 5 weekends, 3 of which were WWE brands, plus there was Cyber Sunday 3 weeks earlier, and New Year's Revolution in two weeks, AND the Royal Rumble in two more weeks. At a certain point, something's going to give, and I'm not going to be too shocked to find out if Cyber Sunday, December to Dismember, Armageddon, and New Year's Revolution end up with horribly low buyrates. When you over saturate the market, people are going to start picking and choosing what they pay for. Thus, people will buy Survivor Series and the Rumble, because they're "big" PPV's, and ignore pretty much everything else. You can counter that by having hot cards at the single brand PPV's, but...well...I mean, NYR is about to feature Cena vs. Umaga, so...

Larry Csonka: FACT: ONE MILLION TIMES A FACT! WWE ran 16-PPVs this year, at MINIMUM that is 4 too many. And if you look at it with an objective eye they have suffered greatly in quality, as my year end look at PPVs will prove. This 6-PPVs in three months horseshit needs to end, because it will hurt buys and it is slowly killing me, and I am a machine. There are just way too damn many of these things and in the end it shows in the quality.

Score: 3 for 4


5. WWE's MVP of 2006 was Edge.

Stephen Randle: FACT. And that's not just because he's my boy. He started the year off with a title win that established him in the main event once and for all after nine years of trying, and also established his hot Rated R character by winning with smarts. Sure, they cut him off at the knees at the Rumble, but he didn't give up, and managed to stay hot enough that he got the summer program with Cena as well, even picking up another title win. And now, he's teamed with Orton, fighting D-X, and unlike the Spirit Squad, they're being allowed not only to win matches, but on occasion dominate two guys who are known to pick and choose who they're willing to put over. Most of the cards fell right for Edge this year, and hopefully he keeps riding that in 2007.

Larry Csonka: FACT. Sure, I really can't disagree. Edge has had a great year, but also no one else has really stepped up to the plate. But Edge has done well. 2-World Title runs, good to great promo work, reinventing himself, albeit in a poor-man's Brian Pillman way, but it has worked. A lot of people thought Edge had it, but when he returned from injury they soured on him. Sleeping with Lita was the best bit of business he has ever done. Sure he now has the clap and other assorted crotch critters, but he has risen above that mid-card/great tag guy and cemented himself in the upper card and with his background in the company, he will stay there for a long time to come. He really did have a good year, and yeah, MVP works.

Score: 4 for 5


6. WWE will close 2007 with ratings lower than what they are at now.

Stephen Randle: FICTION. I can't see there being any big swing in ratings. The bad thing is that I don't see it swinging the higher way, either. WWE is stuck on autopilot, and the viewers are too, with a great deal, I'm sure, still watching out of habit and loyalty. I don't really see that changing, unless someone suddenly catches fire in some way that I can't really see happening. But no, I don't see the ratings going down, either.

Larry Csonka: FICTION. Damn I hate having to agree with Randle so much, but he is right. I highly doubt the ratings will change more than 0.3 either way. Sure they could end up a tent of a point lower, but that isn't much and won't impact the product. Randle hits it perfectly with this statement, "WWE is stuck on autopilot, and the viewers are too, with a great deal, I'm sure, still watching out of habit and loyalty. I don't really see that changing." That is it in a nutshell, and I highly doubt that it will change anytime soon.

Score: 5 for 6


These two finish 5 for 6! Fact or Fiction will return on January 5th so join us then for more fun!