TNA's peak rating was 1.2 WWE's last rating was 1.75

>>2719072
Y'know, the petty contrarian in me wants to point out that Roman doesn't actually hold any titles right now, but in truth, I think "Under Roman Reigns" does accurately describe Raw's title picture.
Big Dog is like a big wet blanket over any tension leading up to a match. Because he'll either win or (best ending) lose dirty.

can we stop with this "it's this one wrestler fault" meme?

raw has an awful booking, the midcard is boring as fuck, most of the matches are pointless, boring and with nothing at stake and all of the superstars and anti draws in general

>>2719109
They need to go back to the days of enhancement talent

>>2719072
It's kinda funny how TNA/Impact/Owl, whatever they're calling themselves now, has actually been much more watchable than Raw this last year.

Their episodes the last two weeks have been probably even better than SDL.

>>2719085
Current Raw is entirely about Roman.

Brock being champ is about Roman.
Strowman's push is about Roman.

So let's not pretend that the belt actually matters.

>raw has an awful booking,

Mostly due to the fact that the show is entirely dedicated to pushing one guy, so it's that guy's fault.
Noone is allowed to become popular until Roman is. Roman Reigns is the ceiling and a very low one. If someone is better, like Balor or Rollins, he's buried.

So yes, it's 1 guy's fault and whoever decides to make him the very crappy beacon of the show and lower everyone's performane to his standards.

File: 7037-Raw-autoplay_gif-crying-gif-vince_mcmahon-wwe.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>2719072
But Roman gets such a great reaction every time, just like Cena!

>>2719072
>TNA's peak rating was 1.2


the first Monday Night Impact got a 1.5 (and a .9 on the replay) and that was head to head vs Raw that featured Bret returning for first time since 97.

>>2719127
>so it's that guy's fault.

He only does, what they tell him to do and has no say in matters.

It is the fault of the guys that push him into that position instead of using him properly.

Also: Who else really is there? Neither Finn nor Seth really have to quality to be a top guy either. AJ is too old. I don't see anyone on the roster to be a top guy, because they prevent everybody from becoming a top guy.

>>2719138
He could try to be better. Improve his mic skills, develop charisma, but nah...He's a talentless hack

>>2719138
>Seth doesn't have the quality
>Roman does

>>2719152

Yeah, he is. And you don't really "develop charisma" you have it or you don't.

Still: This isn't a secret and yet they still push him.

>>2719153
Neither one has.

For casuals Roman is probably slightly better, because he looks more buffed or whatever.

But none of them has a chance to become mainstream like Cena, let alone like the Rock.

>>2719109
Except it is Reigns fault. Fans have learnt that ultimately the show will always be about him, and that's why they aren't watching anymore.

>>2719109
when Roman Reigns is pushed as the face of the company and number one guy he deserves more of the blame than anyone else

If smarks give Steve Austin the credit for saving WWE then Roman deserves some of the blame

>>2719158
dude where the fuck are the casuals wanting to watch Roman?

WWE's audience has been declining fast and nonstop since they pushed him.

Stop pretending a talentess boring idiot can attract casuals.

And Cena was never mainstream. Wrestling under Cena went from mainstream to a corner audience. His movies are rubbish too.

>>2719127
Not really.

I mean, I get the impulse, I do. Roman is the face of the company and has been for pretty much...this entire drop. And the loss in quality has definitely been because everything's centered around Roman and it's very clear creative doesn't care about anybody else. I get that. I do. I agree.

But that doesn't make it Roman's fault. It makes it the fault of the guys who want to push Roman in a role he's not fit for. I know "TURN HIM LE HEEL" is a meme, but you've seen it work for so many other guys. Neville, The Usos, AJ Styles. It does work in WWE, but only because the faces aren't allowed to have any real personality.

It's really a shame that this abysmal era is going to get blamed on Roman when all is said and done because the fact is, there's a lot to like about the guy, he's just not allowed to use it and we're not allowed to see it because Vince has to have it his way or the highway.

>>2719138
There's totally guys that could be a top face, problem is WWE treats all its faces like garbage. The level of talent on the roster right now is so off the charts ridiculous, you could probably throw a dart and find a guy who could carry that role if they booked him right.

>>2719109
Don't forget all the commercials during the matches. It's like if the NFL went to break when a team is driving the ball, and then come back to their opponents with the ball.

>>2719072
What were the viewer totals for each?

Ratings are nice but I would rather know that.

>>2719260
>OH MY GOD THESE GUYS JUST DID A GIANT FUCKING TOWER OF DOOM SPOT WHERE THREE MEN CAME CRASHING DOWN AT ONCE IN A PILE OF HUMANITY! THE CROWD IS LOSING THEIR FUCKING MIND! THEY'VE SAT THROUGH THREE HOURS OF BULLSHIT BUT THEY'RE STILL INVESTED IN THIS MAIN EVENT!
>Who can capitalize, live, on Raw!
>[Commercial]
>[Restholds]

It's not Roman's fault, at all.
The booking of the rest of the show is the issue.

>>2719072

From 9th February 2009 - 16th April 2009, TNA iMPACT did consistent 1.3 ratings.

TNA iMPACT! on 4th January 2010 (3 Hour Live show head to head with WWE RAW) drew a 1.45 cable rating & 2.2 million viewers (new RECORD). Hogan's debut with Hall, Pac, Nash, Bischoff did a 1.88 quarter hour rating. TNA iMPACT! Thursday replay drew a 0.90 cable rating.

TNA iMPACT! on 14th October 2010 drew a 1.41 cable rating. TNA added 200,000 viewers through DVR viewership.

TNA iMPACT! on 3rd March 2011 scored a
1.37 rating (rounded up to a 1.4), compared to a 1.26 rating (rounded up to a 1.3 rating) on previous week’s show.

Roman Reigns is actually saving WWE, he's one of the few wrestlers normal people tune into watch. Take it from me, not the OP. As you can see, he's wrong and I'm right. The fucking moron thinks TNA's peak rating was a 1.2

File: 9d4.jpg (8KB, 215x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 215x200px

>>2719072
>WWE under Roman Reigns is closer to TNA than to WWE under Daniel Bryan (ratings around 3)
Okay, what is with you faggots and always blaming ratings on whomever is in the main event at the time? I'm not a Reigns mark by any means, he's over pushed to shit but it is NOT his fault. It's the piss poor job of the writing and general booking of the show.

It's the fact that some of you seriously think that all of Raw's problems can be generalised into who's main eventing is fucking laughable. If Stone Cold himself came back and was watered down and the rest of the show was horrible, sure it would pop a rating at first, but then it would quickly die. Why? Because no one wants to see Stone Cold? Or is it more likely that people don't want to sit through 3 hours of the most mediorce at best, horrifically bad at worse programming.