Logic of No-DQ Matches

Hi Scott,
Another question about kayfabe logic – when there's a no-DQ/hardcore/street fight/no-holds-barred/unsanctioned match, is there any kayfabe reason why one or both wrestlers don't just bring knives and/or guns to try to just finish the other guy off? Like, why would it make sense to use a trash can lid or a crutch or a chair as a weapon, when you can just use a knife or a gun?
Has this ever been addressed? (outside of Jesse and Schiavone…)

​Because it's still illegal in real life to have those items.  The judge isn't gonna be like “OK, I see you stabbed the victim 15 times with a butterfly knife…oh, but I didn't see it was a no-DQ stipulation.  CASE DISMISSED!”
Although it would be kind of funny if he did.​

Best reunion since Macho-Liz?

Hey Scott – do you think it was the writers at E! or the writer at WWE that came up with the split angle?

Assuming the former, do you think it pisses Vince/Hunter off that their writers haven’t come up with anything close to catching this kind of main stream media attention?

​Why must everyone be so cynical about this story?  What if some internet critic tried to crash YOUR wedding because it was “fake” and “manipulative bullshit trying to drive ratings to a 5th rate reality show whore network”?  It would hurt, I bet.  Think about it.

WWE After Part Timers

On the blog today you said: “It's a completely moot point because they have successfully built a business model where WWE and the Wrestlemania name are the “draw” and the stars don't matter. For the next five years, they can stop doing arena shows completely and sell zero merchandise and still be insanely profitable.”

Not trying to call you out or anything Scott, but I'm getting really tired of hearing this argument. Meltzer was saying something similar on his show this morning.

The reason WWE was able to get all of this money from NBC and Fox for their shows is because they have built this “total package” media empire, like the NFL, NBA, etc. They are seen as big time because they have a successful touring arena show, tons of merchandise that people actually buy, and recognizable mainstream stars associated with them like Cena, Rock, etc. It's because they have a successful network that, while not on actual cable in the US like NFL or MLB, makes them major league. It's not just demand for DVR-proof pseudo-sports that makes them desirable to the likes of the Fox network, because New Japan, Impact and ROH can all provide similar shows and Lord knows nobody is paying billions to show their programming. Same can be said of tons of fringe sports. It is because WWE is seen as a major league level product. And they need to have packed arenas, visible merchandise, and a robust network to complete that package beyond simply producing 5 hours of television content per week…5 hours, by the way, that need actual drawing stars to keep respectable ratings.

Fox and USA don't just want a TV rights package, they want a major league product for that TV to present. And WWE needs all the arms of their company working in tandem. To say that WWE could lose all their part time stars, run no arena shows, and give up on merchandise and still be insanely profitable is foolish. Yes, they will be profitable for THIS TV deal but where will they be when the next deal comes up? And the one after that?

Sure WWE is making money hand over fist now but if they want that to continue in perpetuity they can't rest on their laurels.

– Neil

​It was more of a money comparison model than saying they can realistically stop doing arena shows and selling merch.  Point being, They used to depend on house show and merch revenue along with PPV/Network revenue as the primary drivers, and under that model the biggest profit they ever made was, what, $60 or $70 million in a year?  And that was with their highest TV ratings in history and biggest buyrates.  I'm just saying, with the new TV deals, even if they stopped running arena shows tomorrow and never sold another piece of merch, they'd still have more money than at any other point in their history by a large margin.  I'm not saying they SHOULD do that, I'm just using an extreme example to illustrate the point.

174-0 or 173-1 Clean

Hey Scott,

Two Goldberg Streak Scenarios

1) You've probably answered this question but, if Goldberg HAD smashed Nash, what WOULD have been Chapter 2? Goldberg had run through the roster. Bam Bam was coming in but no one was buying him as a threat. NWO was quickly becoming a parody and even Hogan was fastly becoming irrelevant. As much as I love the WCW mid-card, no one there that Goldberg hadn't already run through posed any threat to him. Really, there only option was, at the very least, re-establishing the NWO as a dominant force and having Goldberg run through them, with or without losing the streak. Unless…

2)  Nash beats Goldberg. Clean. With the Jackknife. HEAR ME OUT!

This would essentially be Brock/Goldberg with Nash as Goldberg. Goldberg can even come back on the next Nitro and destroy everyone all over again, Nash doesn't even need to be Goldberg 2.0 (IE He can lose clean or whatever to other guys) but for every match Goldberg has with Nash, Nash comes out on top.

It would actually make Goldberg stats seem more realistic. Like the Bull in 92, I think, had this amazing year but still lost to the Hornets, who were trash back then. The storyline could be that Goldberg, for all his strength and power, is still a rookie and Nash, while not the monster Goldberg is, has enough to skill and strength to hold off Goldberg for the initial onslaught and eventually beat him.

They could run that for years with Goldberg getting closer and closer but never actually sealing the deal until Starrcade 2000. Big house. Everyone thinks Goldberg has to win and he does.

Big celebration. Babies flying. And WCW lasts another year.


​Goldberg was doing huge business smashing geeks in 30 second squashes.  I don't know why anyone thought they needed to mess with it, but apparently WCW did.

WWE after part timers retire

Hi Scott, 

This is a very open question in case you'd like to ruminate, but where do you see WWE after part-timers like HHH, Lesnar, Cena, Undertaker, etc. hang it up for good? 

WWE's year revolves largely around WM as its focal point. And since WM 29 or so, WWE relies on part-timers to sell the show. This year, we had HHH, Shane, Lesnar, Angle, Rousey, Cena and Taker. 

What do you see happening once these guys are done for good. Can WWE continue to draw just with Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins, Kevin Owens, etc.? Will it influence anything? 


​It's a completely moot point because they have successfully built a business model where WWE and the Wrestlemania name are the “draw” and the stars don't matter.  For the next five years, they can stop doing arena shows completely and sell zero merchandise and still be insanely profitable.  So yeah, they'll be fine.​

Indy Guys You Were Suprised Never Got Signed

I was wondering of all the indy guys from the past decade whose been floating around, who are you suprised WWE never snatched up or wasn't a bigger deal? My number 1 would be Alex Shelley. Always reminded me of Chris Jericho. I felt like he could of always been a big deal whether in TNA or WWE. After him we get to the usual suspects of Jay Lethal, Christopher Daniels, Amazing Red, The Briscoes (although they were probably on their way there before Jays homophobe twitter rant).

​The Briscoes are definitely my #1.  I thought they were a 100% lock that they'd show up one day, and they just never did so far.  Also, the Young Bucks, who I figured would at least give it a try, but again, nope.  ​