Booker T

Hey why did you call out booker T for calling Hulk Hogan the n word? But didn't say shit to Roddy Piper for being in black face at WM 6!!! Huh!!?? Why do Canadians drink coffee so much?? You right winged neckbeard. 
We drink a lot of coffee because we have so many Tim Horton’s. 

Scott’s double standards


So why didn't you actually come down on liberal icon Bill Maher for using the N Word like you have Roseanne for comparing someone looking like an ape???  Oh, right;  Double Standards.  My bad.  Continue on with your fake virtue signaling.  

*P.S.-I know you won't print this in your blog because it will make you look bad, but I can assure you your more educated readers already know this.  

​”Fake virtue signaling”?  
Maybe go back to sending in lame questions about wrestling.  This gimmick isn't working out very well for you so far.    

Commentary

Scott,

You mentioned how Vince is in everyone’s ear to the point of sterilizing (sorry….branding) the product so much it makes a guy wanna watch it all on mute.

Why the change? Network deals? Stock prices? Old age? Less trust in the new gen? I so miss the days where Gorilla, Jess, Brain, and even Piper and Macho would reference old “beefs” with inside jokes and jibes. Not listening to Corey Graves tell me Rollins is an architect and Reigns has the biggest yard or whatever.

​Less trust.  It seems to stem from Vince's control issues, because as he was able to bring in new people to replace guys like Gorilla, he made sure to train them to act as his avatars and get across exactly what he wanted them to.  If you notice, the verbiage they use is just what Vince himself used to use when he was doing commentary.  Vince gonna Vince.  ​

Jim Ross to WCW?


Hi Scott

Back in the early days of Invasion, Vince was making life hard for JR, who retaliated by threatening to  “Join Shane in Atlanta”.

Then nothing happened. Were they actually planning on going anywhere with this, or was it just a throwaway comment?

Thanks


Yes, I believe that was the plan at one point.  The whole thing changed wildly by the day anyway. 

MITB card

Jesus christ, we get Roman vs Jinder AND Bryan vs Cass pt 2! Is Vince trying to kill off all smark fans til only children, senior citizens and Indian kayfabetrapped marks are left?

​Yeah, this is a REALLY lazy and lackluster card even by their recent standards.  And don't forget hottest babyface in the biz Seth Rollins defending against Elias and likely the B-Team challenging for the RAW tag titles against crazy old Matt Hardy and Bray!  ​And meanwhile Braun Strowman is the eighth guy in a ladder match and gets colder by the day.  
But, you know, fours to fill and all.

daniel bryan the new Hulk Hogan?



“According to a new report from DirtySheets, Daniel Bryan is insisting for some kind of a “reasonable creative control” clause in his new contract. His intention isn’t to abuse that power. Bryan is focused on his long-term booking and wants more input regarding
who he works with on television. Bryan is also demanding a huge rivalry with Brock Lesnar.”

​I somehow don't see Daniel Bryan doing that, but I guess DirtySheets are the experts.  ​

Money in the Bank


Hey Scott, which member of New Day do you think will be in Money in the Bank? Personally hope its Kofi and New Day helps him win. I feel Kofi has earned it. Maybe have the New Day turn heel and help Kofi win. Sadly, I think its Big E.

​I gotta say, I care so little about anything scheduled for this PPV that I don't even know who else is in the match.  New Day needs a drastic repackaging in the worst way, and I don't mean coming up with a new breakfast food for Big E to throw at the crowd or whatever.  Kofi's potential as a singles star has come and gone and Woods is a non-starter, so Big E is probably still the best bet they've got. 
I would definitely say a Smackdown guy is the best bet for winning, at least, because if you're on RAW with the briefcase you're chasing Brock Lesnar, who is never there, so what even is the point?  ​

Roseanne without Roseanne


I mean, I think we all knew Disney would be open to trying to keep the cash cow going without Roseanne, but now there's real financial stakes for them to find a way to cut her out and justify the giant contracts that the main stars signed.  I bet The Connors or Darlene or whatever is gonna be on the fall schedule even if it means cutting ol' Racist Rosie a big fat cheque.  

Over Achievers



We tend to always talk about whose underrated or who should of been a bigger deal so my question is who got farther then they should of given talent level? Look at a guy like Boogeyman who they always trot out for reunion shows like hes one of the legends.
Yeah, he did a LOT with nothing.  Ditto for Charles Wright, who lucked into the greatest opening match gimmick of all time.  Right time, right place. 

Too soon for Ronda





What's up Scott, just wanted to get your take on the Ronda Rousey match at money in the bank. Seems obvious she's gonna make Nia tap and take the title. Seems like a bad idea, Ronda as champion now might make the crowd turn on her sooner than WWE might want ala Cena 2005. I was thinking maybe Ronda locks in the armbar and all the Raw women jump in and attack Ronda right before Nia taps. Simple explanation being they were all jealous Ronda was given a title match so soon. Then Ronda could take them out one at a time before getting the title at a later date. Thoughts?
Too fancy. I’m pretty sure it’s gonna be a 30 second tap situation so they can avoid exposing Rowdy Ronda too soon. Frankly it’s a dumb match to book in the first place but it’s a difference business now anyway.  

CM Punk have a crystal ball?


Scott –

I've been watching the “Summer of Punk” 2011 stuff on the network. The
promos Punk cut with HHH, and especially the contract signing on RAW
with Vince where he basically called him out on everything that was
wrong with the WWE, as well his not knowing how to book talent properly
no matter how over they were with the crowd, are quite telling. Fast
forwarding to today, not much has changed and it's seems to only have
gotten worse. Did Punk see the bigger picture way back then? Where his
“pipe bombs” hitting a little too close to home for management to
tolerate, thus letting him go?

Thoughts?

Punk is a smart guy, but let’s not get too deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole here.  

DDP-Stalker Justification


Hey Scott,


Been listening to the Prichard Podcast and one of the running themes has been BP defending WWE no matter what.

Surprisingly, one of the topics I don't believe they've covered fully has been the WCW Invasion angle, which shocks me just because of the demand.

I know, the general WWE justification for that angle was that the big names were caught up in K-Payouts so they were left with DDP, Booker T and a bunch of midcarders. BUT THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN DDP.

Even Booker T got a modicum of respect, getting to keep his initial gimmick somewhat, main eventing Summerslam & Survivor Series and generally being treated as an upper-midcard threat. DDP was immediately & completely changed, treated like a bitch by UT and completely disregarded afterwards. What possible justification could WWE have had for that?

Especially when there was some legitimacy to their contention that most of WCW, at that point, wouldn't have been considered a threat, wouldn't you then want to build up the few credible main eventers you DID have?

​I don't think there was a lot of respect from the WWE side for DDP, based on his relationship with Bischoff and his style of planning out matches.  So that probably contributed a lot to his treatment once he debuted.  ​

Rowdy Roddy Piper in WCW


When Rowdy Roddy Piper debuted in WCW at Halloween Havoc 1996, it was right after Bret Hart announced he was staying in the WWF and turning down WCW's offer.  So was Piper the back up plan, and would Bret have debuted
in that spot if he decided to sign with WCW, or was WCW trying to get both Piper and Bret?


Also Piper was with WCW until 2000, but was he always coming in for that long or was the original plan just to come in for 1 year, and because he drew money they kept him on?

​WCW was signing anyone that would allow Bischoff to screw over the WWF, so Piper was always coming in regardless of Bret's status.  And yeah, he drew so well that they would have been nuts to let him go after that.  ​

What Would 1988 Scott Say?


Hey, Scott:

Let’s say the Samoan wrestling family tree finally causes the space-time continuum to collapse on itself and you go back 30 years in the past to meet your 1988 self. Besides the 2018 existence of just one major promotion, what would 1988 Scott be most shocked to learn from today?

That I can just watch everything on the WWE Network for $9.99 a month!  Also maybe the internet and Trump, but mostly the Network. 

Monday Night Raw


Is Monday Night Raw still 3 hours in 2019? The reaction to this question is, of course it is, for the amount of money they are being paid for the deal.  However if reports are accurate….Fox, Amazon Facebook, and USA all really wanted both RAW and Smackdown. USA was able to hang onto to at least RAW. 


Was WWE in a position where they could have used Fox as leverage to make USA cave to 2 hours? If they went with Fox it definitely would have meant a 2 hour RAW. I don't think they had that luxury in 2013-2014 when they last dealt with negotiating with them. Let's not forget there was also Amazon and Facebook that were willing to offer MORE money than Fox. So WWE had plenty of leverage. It seemed like in the past WWE had to basically bend over and offer anything USA wanted. 

​I think it's pretty much been confirmed that RAW will remain three hours.  Thankfully Smackdown will only be 2, but I can't see USA Network giving up that third hour of sweet, sweet ad revenue without a major fight.  ​

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.
#LoveIsReal  
#HustleLoyaltyMaritalBliss
#SeasonPremiere

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.

Thoughts?

​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? 

Thanks. 

​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.​