“Part-Timer” Another Way of Saying “Special Attraction”?

Scott,


Long-time reader, first-time e-mailer.

When you posted the Piper/McGraw match, one of the best aspects was that Piper hardly wrestled on free TV, making a Piper jobber match seem like a can't-miss segment. Many commentators pointed to how a Cena/Ziggler match or a Sheamus/Big Show match, for example, aren't going to draw on PPV when we get those matches (or a tag team version) on TV every other Raw. In short, there's nothing from the current crop of stars that seems "special" anymore.

If that's the case, why is there so much backlash against "part timers" like Rock, Brock, Triple H, and Undertaker?  Instead of slagging them as "part timers", why not look at them as "special attractions," the modern equivalent of how territory promoters would use someone like Andre the Giant to boost attendance for a few weeks?  After all, Brock's matches obviously helped boost the buy rates of Extreme Rules and SummerSlam 2012 over the 2011 buy rates for the same PPVs, and Rock's match likewise helped Survivor Series 2011 do better than 2010 or 2012.  Seems like smart business to me that if you want to see any of these guys compete, you have to buy the PPV, so WWE is doing the right business move on that part.  Hell, I'm planning on ordering Royal Rumble just to see Rock/Punk and I haven't bought a PPV in ten years.

Of course, since WrestleMania does big numbers anyway it seems foolish to blow all four on that show — especially since Brock's match on a throwaway PPV like Extreme Rules boosted the buy rate by 25%. Also, spreading the group around wouldn't hurt so more wrestlers get the rub.

So which is it — are these guys selfish part-timers or special attractions?

HHH is a selfish part-timer, the rest are special attractions.  
But yeah, obviously I've never been on the side of bitching about Rock and Brock because they're two of my favorite wrestlers of all-time, so I'll take whatever I can get from them.