The current crappy status quo in the WWE


———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Jesse Baker 

Just curious; why the hell have the WWE not tried to salvage what they can out of Bryan's injury/forced to give up the belt, by coming up with some sort of quick fix type thing to end the Authority storyline once and for all and allow them to move forward with the Shield as the main focus?

Say, have Bryan at last month's PPV lure Steph and HHH out to the parking lot to get his answer about being forced to give up the belt after Steph/HHH had Kane injure Bryan only for Bryan and his wife run the two down like dogs?

Steph and HHH get their comeuppence and have the injuries to justify their removal from TV. And then have, on the next night's Raw, have Vince come out and take over as the authority figure who states outright that HHH and Steph are gone until further notice AND have Vince strip Bryan of the belts as punishment for attempted vehicular homicide while at the same time acknowledging that HHH and Steph ran things into the ground and fucked thins up so badly, Vince had to come back and clean up their mess?

That way, you can then set up Vince convincing Seth Rollins to turn heel (say, he was Vince's personal mole in the Shield), have Vince fire Batista in humiliating fashion (to set up his return to promote GOTG since you then have the angle of Batista coming back to get revenge on Vince), and have Orton hook up with Paul Heyman because, why not have Heyman have a guy under him who is not a lazy fuck (Brock Lesner) or boring as hell (Cesero) and can get shit done. Let alone the angle of Heyman "saving" Orton resurrecting his career after HHH spent nearly a year castrating Orton. 

Stock would literally triple overnight if that plan was implemented.  It would destroy Wall Street and I wouldn't want that on my head.  

Nikita Koloff on crappy reality show?

I know you're a Cracked fan so I was curious if you had "The 4 Least Anticipated TV Shows of March 2013", which is found here? 


One of the shows is called Preachers' Daughters, a reality show for which the title is pretty self-explanatory. I kinda skimmed through the article but what caught my eye was that one of the preacher dads is listed as an ex-pro wrestler. I assumed it was some indy bum but I looked it up and to my surprise…it's Nikita Koloff! The show probably won't even make it a full season but if they want me to watch, just have Nikita go back to kayfabing not knowing English whilst he interacts with all of these people, feature Ivan in a cameo, and maybe have him hit an atheist with a chain. It'll draw MILLIONS!

Here's the AVClub's review of the show:  http://www.avclub.com/articles/preachers-daughters,93536/
What I want to know is what's up with the "Nikita Koloff" thing? I thought he was just going by Scott Simpson outside of his wrestling appearances?  And why is his daughter using Koloff as a last name? Is this like a "Brooke Hogan" deal where they're using the name for TV purposes?  

Totally Crappy Match of the Day: Tito Santana v. Randy Savage

Yeah, it sucks, but it’s from the legendary Puerto Rico outdoor show in 1985, where they had to work in a torrential downpour.  Just as a sheer historical curiosity it’s worth a look for that, plus the answer to the question “Can Randy Savage save a terrible match while trying to escape a rainstorm?”  The answer may surprise you.  (Spoiler:  No.  No he can’t.)

Crappy Mains

I found the TNA BFG PPV review that was posted on your website earlier this week interesting. It seemed that it was an excellent PPV until the poor main event, and as result everyone bashed the PPV as a whole.  While it would be awesome to have a PPV that was excellent from top to bottom, that rarely happens. So my question to you is do you think it is better to have a excellent undercard (but a crappy main event), or a crappy undercard but a excellent main event.  Also, can you think of any PPV’s (from any company) that fit either criteria? Meaning ones that had an excellent undercard, but blew it with their main event, along with ones that had a crappy undercard, but were potentially saved because of an awesome main event.  Is one situation better than the other?

I’d rather sit through a crappy undercard and get blown away by the main event, because usually that’s what you remember anyway.  Like with Royal Rumble, I’m spending the $50 because of that one match, not anything happening before it.  As noted, WCW used to do the opposite all the time, where you’d get an awesome 2 hours of matches and then Hulk Hogan stinking up the main event.  The Roode thing just really bugged people because that’s why most were spending the money on the show, I think.

Crappy Mains

I found the TNA BFG PPV review that was posted on your website earlier this week interesting. It seemed that it was an excellent PPV until the poor main event, and as result everyone bashed the PPV as a whole.  While it would be awesome to have a PPV that was excellent from top to bottom, that rarely happens. So my question to you is do you think it is better to have a excellent undercard (but a crappy main event), or a crappy undercard but a excellent main event.  Also, can you think of any PPV’s (from any company) that fit either criteria? Meaning ones that had an excellent undercard, but blew it with their main event, along with ones that had a crappy undercard, but were potentially saved because of an awesome main event.  Is one situation better than the other?

I’d rather sit through a crappy undercard and get blown away by the main event, because usually that’s what you remember anyway.  Like with Royal Rumble, I’m spending the $50 because of that one match, not anything happening before it.  As noted, WCW used to do the opposite all the time, where you’d get an awesome 2 hours of matches and then Hulk Hogan stinking up the main event.  The Roode thing just really bugged people because that’s why most were spending the money on the show, I think.