411 Fact or Fiction 11.02.06: ECW, Lawler, Cryme Tyme, More

1. Dropping ECW house shows signifies the beginning of the end for ECW as a seperate brand.

Andy Clark: FICTION. But that’s a tentative fiction. If WWE doesn’t right the ship over the next couple of months and make people actually care about, not just mildy enjoy, ECW, then they could be in trouble. The problem was that they rushed the ECW house shows immediately without building the brand. At first it was actually probably a good idea to put them out there in the short term as they had the novelty factor going for them. But the fact that people are now used to these characters, the loss of Kurt Angle, and because WWE felt compelled to run in bigger venues than they should have, and the demand for the ECW product is less. I think once ECW builds up it’s brand to make it something more memorable then house shows might be more profitable.

Ari Berenstein: FICTION. Agreed on all those points but the main thing is the TV programming on SciFi. As long as SciFi wants to keep the program on their TV and they have a stable home for the product, ECW is going to continue. Realistically, ECW was never ever completely separate at any rate. Running televised shows with Smackdown crowds and having both Raw and Smackdown wrestlers appear on the show any given week–that’s about as separated as Siamese twins.

Score: 1 for 1

2. WWE should do away with the Cyber Sunday fan interactive voting concept.

Andy Clark: FICTION. Look, I know WWE often steers the the voting in most cases. I know some of the stuff isn’t on the up-and-up. But you have to admit, the last two years have been interesting and provided some pretty good matches. There is something inherently cool about not officially knowing all the matches heading in, which adds a certain interest level to the whole show. WWE could certainly improve on the concept, but it’s unique enough to generate some buzz. Add to the fact that it’s become a nice lead-in to Survivor Series and Cyber Sunday has become a highlight of the PPV schedule.

Ari Berenstein: FICTION. But with the caveat that WWE NEEDS to do away with SOME of their pay per views—there are just way too many right now and some of the more generic PPVs have to be cut down. This PPV has something special going for it in much the same way that Survivor Series, Royal Rumble and King of the Ring have and had concepts that were special, unique and captivated fans’ imagination. Now, we all know that we can never know for sure whether or not the true voices of the fans have been heard or if WWE staffers have logged onto WWE.com and voted all day for what they want…but at least it is something different and unique, which should, all things equal, lead to more compelling matches.

Score: 2 for 2

3. WWE needs to replace Jerry Lawler with a new color man.

Andy Clark: FICTION. While I don’t think there would be as much outcry over Lawler being replaced as there was when JR was, Lawler can still deliver when he needs to. Lawler’s horny old man routine is often tiresome, when there aren’t Divas involved he can still provide some insightful commentary. This past year’s WrestleMania and last year’s Taboo Tuesday are prime examples of where he is at his best. In fact, more often than not Lawler is on during PPVs, and really only lets himself go on TV. Even still, while JR is still the preeminent play-by-play man in all of wrestling, it is often Tthe King” who helps steer the conversation and focus things down. Lawler could be replaced by any number of color commentators and probably wouldn’t even be missed, but that doesn’t mean that he needs to be replaced.

Ari Berenstein: FICTION. I don’t see the need to replace Lawler. He and JR have been the voice and soul of Raw for years. They have been mistreated at different times yes, but they are still there and they are part of what makes the show go. Any time replacements have been made these last few years, from Coach to Joey Styles, it hasn’t worked. Paul Heyman did great as color commentator back in 2001, but that realistically can’t happen now. No, Lawler, misogyny and all, gets to stay.

Score: 3 for 3

—SWITCHAROO!!!—

4. WWE should have Stephanie McMahon return as an on-air character.

Ari Berenstein: FACT. Oh yeah, this is going to rankle some people. My first gut reaction to reading this question was “absolutely freaking NOT! Are you out of your mind??? HELL NO!” After all, I’ve always subscribed to the policy that less McMahons = better for WWE fans (and my sanity). After all, Stephanie McMahon is just a step above Linda on the depth chart of WWE divas…er, females, that I want to see on my TV. After all, Stephanie McMahon is a horrible, horrible on screen character and the last thing I want to hear is her screeching her lines one more time. Wait, why was I arguing for fact? Oh, because simply put, there is much to do with her character that has already been hinted at or foreshadowed in the last few months that could and should be paid off with an on screen return. Stephanie joining up with HHH, the father of her child–they’ve been saying it without saying it all along–well, its not the freshest angle in the world, but it makes sense and juices up this DX vs. McMahon angle that just refuses to die. After all, the likelihood is she’s coming back whether or not the fans want it, so she might as well be used where it makes the most sense, progresses storylines, makes for good (well, relative term but still) television. So sure, why not bring Steph back? Just remember to put the TV on mute.

Andy Clark: FICTION. Big, fat, freakin’ fiction. What is wrong with the world when the ROH guy wants a McMahon around and the WWE mark doesn’t? Seriously, for the most part I enjoy the McMahons on TV as long as Vince isn’t doing a longwinded, pointless promo (something he has relied way too much on lately). But the fact remains that Stephanie is an atrocious on-screen character, one that I could see sending more fans fleeing than tuning in. Ari’s suggestion that they use her in some capacity with Triple H is the ONLY way she would be remotely tolerable, but quite frankly I’m not willing to take that chance. Keep DX-McMahons boring, but don’t let that woman near my TV screen.

Score: 3 for 4

5. By this time next year, RAW’s ratings will be flirting with falling below 3.0.

Ari Berenstein: FICTION. It’s possible, but I don’t imagine it’s going to happen. I admit I don’t know much about the recent numbers, just that this past week was a 3.5 or 3.6, so for it to drop .6 in one year’s time, I think might be even a bit much. WWE programming can get really horrible, but I think things have stabilized to a certain level of apathy and horribleness that is consistent and will remain consistent. That means the hardcore fans that are sticking around will still stick around regardless. In fact, if WWE makes a few big picks up like Monty Brown and the Kings of Wrestling (Chris Hero and Claudio Castagnoli) and uses them right, who knows? As JR would say, business might be picking up. The only thing is, I know that I won’t be watching.

Andy Clark: FACT. Ah yes, Ari, how could we forget your own boycott of all things WWE that don’t consist of “vanilla midgets.” Because the ROH crowd is definitely what brings in the cash. I kid, Ari, I do. Actually, I would foresee more doom and gloom than you as I think it is pretty likely that there will be a few weeks on 2.7-2.9 ratings going on. Plus, the question is whether or not the ratings will be “flirting” with falling below 3.0, which means hovering dangerously close to 3.0 counts. Wrestling is not the attraction that it once was, and there has been a steady decline in ratings and overall popularity for years. At this point I think it’s useless to try and pull in non-wrestling fans (outside of the impressionable child demographic) and instead focus on turning casual fans, or fans like Ari that have given up on the product, into hardcore fans. If TNA, what is supposedly the “alternative” to WWE can’t do better than a 1.0, how can the established brand manage to maintain its status?

Score: 3 for 5

6. Cryme Tyme won’t last a year.

Ari Berenstein: FACT. Inasmuch as ANY WWE tag team doesn’t have much of a chance of making it past a year. Sure, you can point to The Spirit Squad and Cade and Murdoch as long time teams (ignoring the fact that C&M broke up for no reason and reformed for no reason; also the Squad is heading for an inevitable breakdown) but the fact of the matter is stable tag teams in WWE are a thing of the past. Cryme Tyme as a gimmick may have the legs to keep going past a year, but thinking about the history of WWE booking tags over the last few years, I wouldn’t count on it.

Andy Clark: FACT. But just barely. The only reason I can say fact is because I don’t see much potential for them as singles wrestlers. That hasn’t stopped WWE from breaking up tag teams in the past before though (see Cade & Murdoch), so who knows. Perhaps Shad Gaspard can make it on his own, but I see Cryme Tyme sticking around for a while, even if someone like Shad gets traded out with another wrestler, keeping the gimmick alive, a la La Resistance.

Score: 4 for 6