Questions on playing the long game.


With rumors that WWE will be setting up up to two matches for Wrestlemania 31 tonight or Monday (Sting vs. Taker, Punk vs. Austin), I thought I would get your opinion

1) Is there a correct way to do a year-long build to a match?

2) How long is too long to build up a single match?

3) When do you think feuds culminating in Mania matches should begin, ideally?


1.  Sure, and they used to do it all the time before the "Reality Era".  Set up two guys as allies, push them as partners on top of the promotion, then one guy turns on the other because he's jealous and BAM, there's your money feud.
2.  Anything more than a year, I'd say.  You don't want to risk your audience cycling out while you're in the midst of telling the story.  
3.  For a tippy top level one, the day after WM is fine.  For anything below that, you wouldn't even need to start until Survivor Series or Royal Rumble.  Unless it's something where the audience is going to be emotionally invested in it, there's only so much you can do (or more accurately, the writing team can do) with more than 8 weeks of build.  And there's only so many times guys can compete against each other in gimmick matches or four-ways ordered by the authority figures before you burn out the feud.  

Big Brother – Is Dan Gheesling playing for second place?

Hi Scott,
What a crazy last half this season of Big Brother has been.  I was really curious what your thoughts were regarding the latest back stab by Dan and his chances of winning.  Will a shell shocked Shane enter the jury house and only stir up the bitterness towards Dan?  I am a huge fan of Dan but I'm worried now that he cannot beat either Danielle or Ian.  Danielle looks to have Frank, Shane, and Jenn locked up as votes and that leaves Britney, Ashley, Ian, and Joe where she'd only need one of those.  Dan vs Ian it looks like Ian would have Britney (Coach loyalty?) Frank, Ashley, Shane and possibly a bitter Danielle — Could Danielle even vote for Dan after he lied to her 100 times and then got her voted out? With the up coming HOH, it almost feels like Dan has to lose on purpose so he won't have to cast the final vote and lose a jury vote. I think ultimately, Dan has no shot vs Ian, and can only barely beat Danielle depending on bitterness of the jury – Thoughts?
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mabhadSlHe1qz82gvo1_500.jpg Danielle's amazing jaw drop face =D

I think Dan would destroy Danielle in a jury vote, like not even close.  Everyone knows she's his puppet at this point.   I think Ian definitely beats Dan, though, although even if Dan only gets second he's still getting the $25000 from the online poll so he'll make out well either way.  And yeah, Danielle would still vote for Dan, because he's probably already used the DAN MIST on her and convinced her that voting out Shane was for her benefit.  Honestly I'm fine with any of the three winning it, they all deserve to be there and they all played a great social game.  Ian will be back for the inevitable All Stars 2 next year even if he doesn't win this, and I'm sure Frank will too if WWE doesn't sign him to a developmental deal.  
And not to spoil anything, but it doesn't appear like Dan's in the comp throwing mood now.  

Playing Dumb

Hey Scott,
I need to know if I’m alone in something or if this is the norm.  Do you or any of the Blogamaniacs ever pretend to be a casual wrestling fan when talking to peers in the workplace or other possibly uncomfortable situations?
My boss is a huge Mets homer.  The other day was the 25th anniversary of the Billy Buckner game, and on a group email he called it "the greatest game in any sport ever!"
Of course this prompted other people to chime in with their thoughts including one guy jokingly picking Wrestlemania 3.  This led to a discussion with my boss in which he talked about being a huge fan in the 80s, and then it started.  He vividly remembered watching Wrestlenania 3 at a huge party like the super bowl in 1985.  Of course I knew he was wrong about the year, but I let it go and said cool.  Then he mentioned Hogan winning the belt in 1980 – again wrong, but still I just said "yeah somewhere around there.". Then I realized t his happens in my real life convos a lot.
Co-workers talk about the 3 different Ultimate Warriors and how they all died.  A friends brother talks about Hogan and Beefcake being brothers.  They even think there is more than one Undertaker!
So am I a poser for not defending the sport like someone would hockey or baseball etc?  Or do you do this too?

I don’t generally act like super-smark trivia machine around my casual friends, no.  And when I go to shows I generally cheer for the babyfaces and boo the heels as well, because it’s more fun that way and I don’t feel the need to be “better” than everyone around me unless the crowd trend is to boo Cena or something.  It’s more a matter of social etiquette than anything.  If I’m chatting with someone and they show an interest in wanting to know anything beyond “John Cena could kick Del Rio’s ass” then I’m more than happy to talk about Vince McMahon losing his mind in recent years or John Morrison’s romantic troubles or whatever, but generally there’s no need to go much beyond “Yeah, I used to like HHH a lot in 2000, but then he got really bloated and boring” and I’m OK with that.  And there clearly was 2 Undertakers.  They had a match at Summerslam.  Your friend’s brother has evidence on his side there. 

Playing Dumb

Hey Scott,
I need to know if I’m alone in something or if this is the norm.  Do you or any of the Blogamaniacs ever pretend to be a casual wrestling fan when talking to peers in the workplace or other possibly uncomfortable situations?
My boss is a huge Mets homer.  The other day was the 25th anniversary of the Billy Buckner game, and on a group email he called it "the greatest game in any sport ever!"
Of course this prompted other people to chime in with their thoughts including one guy jokingly picking Wrestlemania 3.  This led to a discussion with my boss in which he talked about being a huge fan in the 80s, and then it started.  He vividly remembered watching Wrestlenania 3 at a huge party like the super bowl in 1985.  Of course I knew he was wrong about the year, but I let it go and said cool.  Then he mentioned Hogan winning the belt in 1980 – again wrong, but still I just said "yeah somewhere around there.". Then I realized t his happens in my real life convos a lot.
Co-workers talk about the 3 different Ultimate Warriors and how they all died.  A friends brother talks about Hogan and Beefcake being brothers.  They even think there is more than one Undertaker!
So am I a poser for not defending the sport like someone would hockey or baseball etc?  Or do you do this too?

I don’t generally act like super-smark trivia machine around my casual friends, no.  And when I go to shows I generally cheer for the babyfaces and boo the heels as well, because it’s more fun that way and I don’t feel the need to be “better” than everyone around me unless the crowd trend is to boo Cena or something.  It’s more a matter of social etiquette than anything.  If I’m chatting with someone and they show an interest in wanting to know anything beyond “John Cena could kick Del Rio’s ass” then I’m more than happy to talk about Vince McMahon losing his mind in recent years or John Morrison’s romantic troubles or whatever, but generally there’s no need to go much beyond “Yeah, I used to like HHH a lot in 2000, but then he got really bloated and boring” and I’m OK with that.  And there clearly was 2 Undertakers.  They had a match at Summerslam.  Your friend’s brother has evidence on his side there. 

Playing Dumb

Hey Scott,
I need to know if I’m alone in something or if this is the norm.  Do you or any of the Blogamaniacs ever pretend to be a casual wrestling fan when talking to peers in the workplace or other possibly uncomfortable situations?
My boss is a huge Mets homer.  The other day was the 25th anniversary of the Billy Buckner game, and on a group email he called it "the greatest game in any sport ever!"
Of course this prompted other people to chime in with their thoughts including one guy jokingly picking Wrestlemania 3.  This led to a discussion with my boss in which he talked about being a huge fan in the 80s, and then it started.  He vividly remembered watching Wrestlenania 3 at a huge party like the super bowl in 1985.  Of course I knew he was wrong about the year, but I let it go and said cool.  Then he mentioned Hogan winning the belt in 1980 – again wrong, but still I just said "yeah somewhere around there.". Then I realized t his happens in my real life convos a lot.
Co-workers talk about the 3 different Ultimate Warriors and how they all died.  A friends brother talks about Hogan and Beefcake being brothers.  They even think there is more than one Undertaker!
So am I a poser for not defending the sport like someone would hockey or baseball etc?  Or do you do this too?

I don’t generally act like super-smark trivia machine around my casual friends, no.  And when I go to shows I generally cheer for the babyfaces and boo the heels as well, because it’s more fun that way and I don’t feel the need to be “better” than everyone around me unless the crowd trend is to boo Cena or something.  It’s more a matter of social etiquette than anything.  If I’m chatting with someone and they show an interest in wanting to know anything beyond “John Cena could kick Del Rio’s ass” then I’m more than happy to talk about Vince McMahon losing his mind in recent years or John Morrison’s romantic troubles or whatever, but generally there’s no need to go much beyond “Yeah, I used to like HHH a lot in 2000, but then he got really bloated and boring” and I’m OK with that.  And there clearly was 2 Undertakers.  They had a match at Summerslam.  Your friend’s brother has evidence on his side there.