The Development Of The Brand Split Angle: Now With More Teddy Long

The WWE furthered the brand split drama this week. Most notably, they had Teddy Long come back and audition to be in charge of Smackdown when it goes live. That is, he was was hoping to audition for the job. It was a funny return.

Might it be a good idea to have more former authority figures return to try to get a job running either Smackdown or Raw? It might lead to more fun segments. Vickie Guerrero could return. There's John Laurinaitis. Paul Heyman could be used for this. There is a list of men and women that could take part. I doubt it would be a big draw, but it could be fun.

Overall, however, there still doesn't feel like the WWE has really done a great job creating a true storyline off of the brand split returning and Smackdown going live. It feels like all they are doing is promoting it and using it for some segments that might have entertainment value.

Look at how the WWE has handled the WWE Network. They have frequently been promoting it. It is even mentioned now and again in segments. Kevin Owens gave a little bit of that on Raw this week in that opening segment. But they never really made a storyline revolving around the WWE Network. Why would they? It isn't really something to make a storyline out of. It was a business move by the WWE and it would be awkward to make a storyline based on it.

The brand split is something else. This should not be treated as just a business decision. Go back to the first brand split. They had Ric Flair coming into some power after The Alliance crumbled. Vince McMahon and Flair couldn't get along. The rest is history. It was more than just a business decision. It was kayfabe. It was a storyline. It was a storyline that led to changes in how the shows were being featured. And the WWE should have been able to do something like that again. They could have continued having Shane and Stephanie not get along. Just have history play out like it did with Ric Flair and Vince McMahon, with some obvious differences, of course. Instead, it seems the WWE is going about this in a business-like way that lacks some of that storyline drama.

This looks like the WWE's big summer angle. The big summer angle is usually something that causes a lot of drama and shakes things up. The brand split coming back definitely falls into that category. I just wish they handled it better. The WWE's website and news sites breaking the news of the brand split and live Smackdown isn't as impactful as it playing out in a segment on Raw. And that New Day segment last week wasn't exactly an epic way to introduce it. Even Teddy Long coming back this week doesn't change things much. Let's see how the WWE improves things.

Speaking of improvements, I have mentioned various things that have happened on Raw, but what about Smackdown? Smackdown going live will help it, but there is also the roster split to hinder it a bit. The WWE will need to be efficient with the roster and start having big things happen more frequently on the show. Have they become more efficient with Smackdown to prepare for the brand split. Looking at spoilers this week, there doesn't seem to be anything to talk about. And that will have to change. Is the WWE just being lazy now because they don't plan to put effort into the show until it goes live? You can't always flip a switch and expect magic to happen. Some of the WWE's bad habits might not go away easily.

Smackdown Gets An Upgrade

The WWE has announced that several changes will be made to Smackdown. First, it will be going live on Tuesdays. Second, there will once again be a brand split. That has a lot of fans talking about which titles will go where and which McMahon will run what show.

The best decision the WWE made here was to make Smackdown live. Regardless of anything else, that should help the show's ratings. A lot of fans just read spoilers and skip the show. Fans can just read a recap of the show and still skip it, but it seems more likely that more fans will now tune in to watch it live. Besides that, there will be no regular NFL action for the WWE to compete against on Tuesday.

How about the brand split? That is where I think there might be a problem. If this were a short-term brand split just for the sake of pushing a feud between Shane and Stephanie McMahon, then it would be fine. A long-term split is another issue. The WWE couldn't handle the brand split that ended just a few years ago. Their star power on the roster has not really improved since then.

Raw stands to suffer more from this than Smackdown. Important things are going to start happening on Smackdown. Raw, the show where big things are usually expected to happen, will be losing its full deck of talent. How can they fill three hours with the guys they will have left? Some fans are speculating that Raw goes back to two hours. That might be a good decision to further put Raw and Smackdown on equal ground. If they do not do it, Raw's ratings might suffer even more than they already are.

Let me bring up something else I do not like. I do not like how this whole thing just came about. The WWE just said it is going to happen. It is on their website. Why not have an angle? Announce it in a segment. They had a segment a few weeks ago where Vince McMahon named both Shane and Stephanie in charge. He could have made them both in charge of their own brand. They could then later announce on one of the shows that there would be a draft. The McMahon running Smackdown can announce making Smackdown live so it could be better competition for Raw. Everything that was announced on WWE.com could have played out in segments on TV. And it should have. Instead of making this feel like a storyline, it just feels like a business decision.

The WWE has had Stephanie McMahon act friendly towards her brother. The idea many fans expected was that Stephanie would eventually betray her brother. That payoff will not matter now. If the two McMahons go their separate ways with their own brand, then whatever angle the WWE had planned here doesn't matter anymore. Why not continue to tease tension between the two? Act like they cannot coexist sharing power. Have Vince McMahon come back and say that the only way to stop the chaos between the two is to have a brand split. That would have been a better way to handle things.

Go back to Wrestlemania. Shane McMahon had to beat The Undertaker to get control of Raw. He lost. The next night on Raw, Vince just gave Shane control. That was a mediocre way of handling things. You just made the storyline irrelevant. I feel like recent developments fall into the same area as what happened back then. The WWE is not doing a good job creating a storyline with this power struggle. After acting like he hated his son, Vince McMahon just hands him power. After acting like there was tension between Shane and Stephanie, which should have led to an obvious brand split, the WWE announces the brand split without the televised drama that might actually have had some entertainment value to it.

Of course, fans don't care too much about this stuff I have brought up. They are busy making mock drafts and talking about what they should do with the titles. I won't do that. From the standpoint of a writer, the WWE didn't handle this in a creative, linear way. Let's see if they make up for it in the coming weeks.

Both Shane And Stephanie In Control

Vince McMahon made his decision at Payback. Which of his children would be in control? Both. Both Shane and Stephanie McMahon get to run things.

I would have had Shane run Raw and Stephanie run Smackdown. Same thing as both sharing power? No. They are going to directly be stepping on the other person's toes now. You got a little taste of that in the main event of Payback. Imagine them getting into it for multiple decisions on a single Raw. That can get annoying. This situation can become just as bad as The Authority became very quickly.

Of course, this is a situation that won't last for years. There will eventually be something to decide which McMahon gets overall control. When should that be? Ideally, it would be Survivor Series. Have an elimination tag match to settle things. Problem is, I don't think the WWE can keep this thing going for that long. I am sure fans will be irritated by it before the end of May. If the WWE is able to make this truly enjoyable, I would love to see how they do it.

Shane Keeps Rolling

Wins and losses really don't matter. Shane McMahon lost his Wrestlemania match to The Undertaker, losing the chance to run Raw. Vince McMahon still let his son run Raw, giving in rather easily last week. Shane was pretty much an afterthought. Shane did such an amazing job at that, they let him do it again this week.

This week, at least, he looked more like the guy running the show. That is an improvement from last week. But it has been a little bit boring. The show just feels too face-friendly. The WWE is putting emphasis on wrestling and letting new talent shine. But things just don't feel that exciting. It might be heaven for wrestling fans, aside from Roman Reigns being pushed, but I do not feel the WWE is doing what they need to do to excite the wider audience.

So far, has Shane been better or worse than The Authority? It's always good to shake things up a little now and then to break the monotony. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with giving fans a break from Triple H and Stephanie McMahon. I wouldn't say those two really became just boring. They became irritating. Shane is at least fresh. There hasn't really been any big change with him that will blow you away, but he isn't as annoying as The Authority became. Because of that, I would say Shane being in control is better than The Authority.

I don't think the problem with either Triple H or Stephanie McMahon is that they were terrible performers. The WWE just portrayed them in a terrible way. And because Triple H and Stephanie do have backstage power, perhaps they do deserve some of the blame for this. Their characters are just inconsistent. Back when there was a legitimate stable around them, they were frequently teasing tension with guys on their side. They often looked like they were making the kind of decisions or announcements that a face authority figure would make, even though they were heels. Example? How about when Stephanie McMahon was a part of the debut of Charlotte, Becky Lynch, and Sasha Banks? Are fans supposed to like her for caring about the women's division? Are they supposed to view her as just feeding her own ego? It was just until these last few months that they really started to embrace the heel characters they should have been playing all along. Don't tease being heels. Be heels. And just throw in regularly getting their comeuppance, these two could have been better heel authority figures.

The angle many fans are expecting is for Triple H and Stephanie to come back and feud with Shane over control of Raw. Sounds like the makings of a good summer angle. Thing is, why didn't they just have Shane win at Wrestlemania? They are working around the fact that he lost. They could have had him win and work around the fact that Undertaker can never compete at Wrestlemania again. It could have made for a big angle for Undertaker to somehow get another Wrestlemania match later on. It would have been better than the mediocre way they had Vince let Shane run Raw. I have seen someone suggest that Vince just decided to let Shane run things a few hours before Raw last week. Whatever the case, the WWE needs to plan things better than this.

Is That All, Shane?

Shane McMahon jumping off the top of the Hell in a Cell and crashing into the announce table was one of the most memorable moments of this year's Wrestlemania. But he ended up losing the match to The Undertaker. That was a disappointing outcome. A lot of changes could have taken place if the WWE did decide to go in a new direction. You have had some changes with the women's division, but there could have been more.

On Raw, however, it seemed like there was still a chance for something to happen. Vince McMahon came out to start the show and gloat. He got that lock box. He's still in control of Raw. Shane McMahon came out for one last farewell. Vince decided to let Shane run Raw for that night. For a little while, it looked like something big might still happen. This was the Raw after Wrestlemania. These Raws are known for big things happening, in addition to the rowdy crowd.

More disappointment followed. It didn't feel like Shane really left his fingerprint on Raw. A 4-way match was made to decide a new #1 contender for the WWE Championship. Sami Zayn was taken out by Kevin Owens. Cesaro replaced him in the main event. Wrestling fans love Cesaro, but this isn't really a big return. Nothing big happened. Shane didn't really seem to make an impact.

What would I have done differently? Where do I start? Here's an idea, how about Shane actually wins at Wrestlemania? No? Okay. How about Shane tries to create some drama with that lock box? How about he reveals what's inside to spite his father? How about he threatens to do it unless Vince at least lets him run Raw for the night? How about a bigger return in the main event of Raw than Cesaro? How about Raw ends in a controversial way to generate some buzz? The whole situation on Raw this week just felt like a huge disappointment.

One of the reasons it felt disappointing, the way they just had Vince so easily let Shane run Raw was just so weak. These two looked like they were having a real blood feud for a month. Vince was busting out the profanity. He was acting like Shane was no longer a part of his family. I don't care if Vince showed a little bit of heart towards his son on Raw prior to letting him run the show, simply letting it be so easy is dull. I also don't care if Vince thought Shane would flop if he ran Raw. Vince still let him do it that easily. It's like the WWE just decided to cruise through Raw.

Some fans have speculated that the WWE will run an angle where Vince is happy with how Shane runs Raw and they eventually do Shane McMahon feuding with Triple H and Stephanie McMahon for control of the WWE. I would say Shane did a mediocre job on Raw. If the WWE wants to sell that as amazing, I am not going to be surprised. Nevertheless, the WWE has to really handle this better. The story is not that intriguing.

What if that is officially it for Shane McMahon and this storyline? If it is over, then the WWE really did do this just to create drama to help save Wrestlemania. They didn't intend to create a big storyline off of this that would last months or even a year. They didn't intend to create legitimate, lasting change. They didn't even handle the angle right on the Raw after Wrestlemania. It was just a stunt to save the mediocre Wrestlemania season. I hope they are happy with the results.

Aside from the mediocrity of the night, how did the night after Wrestlemania do in terms of ratings? This is a night that does tend to do great numbers. Even last year, which was a mediocre Wrestlemania season in terms of ratings, saw the Raw after Wrestlemania get over five million viewers. Not this year. Just a little over four million viewers. Only the second highest viewership of the year, trailing the night after the Royal Rumble. 2.93 in the ratings. That ties the Raw post-Royal Rumble. The excuse is the college basketball championship game. Okay. NBA playoffs are coming up very soon. Raw will be in trouble there, too. It is pretty much all downhill from here. I doubt the WWE will create a great summer angle.

Something that stands out to me about the mediocre ratings this week is that the third hour lost almost 400,000 viewers. The last hour typically loses, but this last hour should not have lost that much. Sami Zayn was taken out of the match. Weren't fans interested in seeing who would get his spot? Cesaro is no huge star, but the situation should have drawn. You also have Shane McMahon running the show. Weren't fans wondering if he would do something controversial to end the show? He didn't, but once again, the situation should have drawn. And I don't think the WWE did anything in that third hour to get more fans interested for next week. As I said, it's all downhill form here.

The Undertaker Vs. Shane McMahon: Overkill?

Shane McMahon coming back to the WWE was huge. Having him face The Undertaker at Wrestlemania was huge. Making this a Hell in a Cell match was huge. The stipulation that Shane would get control of Raw if he won was huge. It just seemed like you had enough huge things right there.

Vince McMahon raised the stakes this week. If The Undertaker loses to Shane, he is barred from competing at Wrestlemania. Is this just a little too much? Is this overkill? If Taker was refusing to wrestle Shane, then you can understand this stipulation to force him to fight. If this feud had been developed to make it seem like the odds were in Shane's favor, then you can understand Vince doing this to add some motivation for The Undertaker to win. You don't have any of this going on. Was it really necessary?

As an analyst, I can see some good reasons for the WWE to do something like this. Ratings are terrible. Wrestlemania has not sold out with a little over a week to go. The WWE always has to put in work to keep subscribers to their network coming. If the WWE can cause some buzz to draw for them, why not? Some people might believe this could be The Undertaker's last Wrestlemania. That might get them to tune in. That might get them to subscribe to watch Wrestlemania. That might put a few more butts in seats in the arena. Moreover, this can lead to a big storyline involving The Undertaker following this year's Wrestlemania. He won't be fired. Even if he was fired in kayfabe, that still wouldn't be the end of his career. The WWE wouldn't let it end like that. In any case, the WWE's can create an odyssey for Taker to make it to another Wrestlemania, if he loses this one coming up. What the WWE is doing has potential to draw and to lead to an epic storyline.

As a critic, I do not like what the WWE is doing. I do feel it is too much. The WWE already has a big storyline here and what they are adding to it this week does not feel justified or necessary. It damages the focus of the big story that this feud is about. This is supposed to be about Shane vs. Vince, with the fate of the WWE hanging in the balance. The Undertaker is the instrument of destruction. He is remorseless and just out to destroy. There is no need to make this feud more complex. With just two weeks left until Wrestlemania, they could just ride what was already there.

As a writer, what would I have done? Just have Vince go out there this week and continue to push the destruction of his relationship with Shane. Have Vince bring up that he has feuded with every member of his own family. Show clips of that. Have Vince bring up how ruthless The Undertaker has been inside Hell in a Cell, at Wrestlemania, and even against Vince, himself. Show clips of that. It adds more steam to the feud and hypes the match without adding a new direction to it.

What do I think as a fan? As a fan, I am tired of the WWE and don't really care.

All in all, even though the new twist to things does seem like too much to me, it is probably a smart move by the WWE. Despite everything they have done so far, the fans aren't rushing back to see what all the drama is about. The WWE just has to create more drama. It would be nice if they added it to other feuds with other individuals. It would be nice if they did more to create more stars out of guys in their 30s or younger and not rely on guys over 40. But this is arguably the biggest storyline they have going. And they just added even more to it.

Since I brought up ratings, let me talk about that a little. Raw had 3.4 million viewers this week. That's not great. The WWE has no sports competition right now on Mondays. This is an election year. Call it a coincidence, but you do see a ratings drop during these years at times. 2012 was the last election year. Raw's annual ratings average in 2011 was 3.21. It was 3.0 in 2012. Pretty big drop for the election year. 3.01 for the year after. Pretty much the same level. Dropped to 2.95 for 2014, which is no big deal. Dropped all the way to a 2.64 for last year. You can't blame that on people being more interested in primary results.

What is causing the poor ratings so far this year? Is it the election excuse? Or is it the poor quality of the product? Regardless, this is supposed to be the hottest time of the year for WWE. You can usually expect around a loss of 500,000 viewers between this time of the year and what you'll get during football season. That's a rough estimate. How many times will Raw average less than 3 million viewers this year? They dropped below that benchmark once last year. Expect it to happen more this year.

Triple H Wins Royal Rumble 2016

Triple H won his second Royal Rumble last night. In the process, he won his 14th World Championship. It came down to him and Dean Ambrose, who had retained his Intercontinental Championship earlier in the night. Since Triple H was one of the likely candidates to win this match, this outcome is not shocking, even though he was not announced for the match prior to Sunday. People just saw it coming.

The feud they will be going with for Wrestlemania is obvious. Triple H and Roman Reigns have had issues for a while now. That branched into Vince McMahon specifically targeting Roman Reigns. His son-in-law is the man that takes the title off him. You can talk about the WWE being predictable, but would you want an obvious feud to sit right there and for them not to do it? The only other feud that was there for Roman Reigns was Brock Lesnar, and that one is not going to happen. Any other option would likely not have had the seeds already planted like Triple H vs. Roman Reigns.

I have seen some mixed reactions from fans about Triple H winning. It's 2016 and this guy is WWE Champion again? On the other side of that, there are fans glad that it was anyone but Roman Reigns. The WWE is going to use other top stars to work with Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania as they continue his centerpiece push. You are going to see him work with the likes of Triple H, John Cena, and Brock Lesnar. Cena is injured. Reigns worked with Lesnar last year and will likely do it again down the line. Triple H is the guy this year. If you dislike Triple H winning the title, just realize that it is mainly for the benefit of Roman Reigns in the end. Not much of a comfort for some fans.

How about Roman Reigns in the Royal Rumble? Something I brought up when previewing the Royal Rumble match last week was how the WWE might handle Roman Reigns during this long match. He wasn't the last guy tossed out of the ring, but he was just as close to being the last guy. How did he handle being in the match that long? Well, he didn't. They ran an injury angle to take him out for much of the match and had him return later. It is not surprising that they would take him out for a while.

I do not think they handled the situation right. I said that I might go the route of Reigns doing something like chasing after Vince to the back. It would still serve the same purpose, but it would be handled differently. This guy won over his haters last month by being violent and intense and attacking authority figures fans disliked. He's not the guy that overcomes odds. Reigns obviously has not solidified an A+ connection with the fans. And a trick like what the WWE pulled last night will not help. Casual fans might buy that Roman Reigns is a fighter for being taken out of the match and refusing to quit. But smarks are going to read it as a lame attempt to keep Roman Reigns fresh because he can't handle being out there for the entire match. I am not saying my way of doing it would have won fans over, but it would at least fit what first got him cheered by those that were against him. Luckily, he didn't actually win. If he had, this Royal Rumble might have been another mess, despite a certain someone making his WWE debut last night.

Previewing The 2016 Royal Rumble Match

The last two Royal Rumbles have been terrible. The Royal Rumble isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, but the WWE just made decisions that were definitely not popular with the vocal fans. And those vocal fans let the WWE hear it and definitely made things look bad.

Will that happen again this year? I do not think so. First of all, Daniel Bryan, the man many fans wanted to see possibly win the Rumble match in the last two years, has not been cleared to compete. I doubt fans will be going crazy in anticipation of him. Moreover, there is no one as hot as he was right now, so you don't have to worry about fans rebelling if that person gets tossed out to soon. You also have the fact that this is an intriguing Royal Rumble match this year with the WWE Championship on the line. With the odds so against Roman Reigns, who is still in the process of winning over his haters, it is likely he will lose. That should make angry smarks happy.

Moving on to the possible candidates to win the title, let's at least look at Roman Reigns to start out. He is the guy currently holding the title and he is the new centerpiece. But that does not mean he will retain here. He won the Royal Rumble just last year. It is unlikely he wins two in a row. He will also be the #1 entrant. The odds are just too against him. I have seen some fans groan that Reigns will retain. I think they are just being pessimistic. Austin and Cena, two other centerpieces, were put in certain situations where their back was to the wall and did not overcome. They would eventually usually still get the title back, and that is what you can expect with Reigns. He will lose the title and win it back at Wrestlemania as part of his first successful Wrestlemania moment as the centerpiece. And those groaning fans need to realize that Roman Reigns will still be the centerpiece regardless of who wins this Sunday.

Looking at the list of potential new WWE Champions, should the title change happen, Brock Lesnar has to be at the top. It isn't just because he is pushed as such a dominant guy. The WWE went with Reigns vs. Lesnar last year for Wrestlemania. That got spoiled and the WWE continued to work on Roman Reigns. They have since pulled the trigger on Reigns as the new top star. They would definitely want to revisit this feud now. The Rock beat John Cena at Wrestlemania in a match that was supposed to be once in a lifetime. The WWE ended up doing it again one year later. Cena won the rematch, which also happened to be for the WWE Championship that time around. I would not be surprised to see Roman Reigns overcome the beast he did not beat at Wrestlemania last year at this year's Wrestlemania, and get his title back in doing so.

There is Triple H. He is on no one's radar, officially. He is not in the Royal Rumble. The WWE has not teased that he will be in the match. And yet, it would not be shocking to see him get involved. Roman Reigns attacked him a few weeks ago and he has been out since. He will want revenge. Triple H being in the Royal Rumble would be a shocker many fans probably expected would happen. At the very least, you might see him run out and try to screw Reigns out of the match. The WWE would definitely want to have some kind of feud between Roman Reigns and Triple H. Whether that is for Fast Lane or Wrestlemania is the question.

How about The Wyatts? Specifically, Bray Wyatt. He has looked strong the week heading into the PPV. Is that just a red herring to get fans thinking he stands more of a chance than he does? Are they actually building up to Brock Lesnar vs. The Wyatts? Or is this just to make the group look strong heading into the match and have Lesnar have his revenge there by decimating them? I'm expecting the last option. History shows The Wyatts only look strong to usually put over someone else. When I said the WWE should push them better, I meant separate to the main angle going on. That is how you create creative depth. They deserve their own top angle. A feud with Ryback isn't it. Let's see what happens with them after Sunday, but I am not expecting Bray Wyatt to win the title. I also doubt his henchmen do it.

Let's look a little more at some unlikely possibilities. AJ Styles is looming. Many anticipate his debut to come after the Royal Rumble. If he should debut at the PPV, should he win the Royal Rumble? That would be a big way to debut. Not only does he win the Royal Rumble, he wins the WWE Championship. I do not think he is likely to start so high. There are too many other priorities, even with the injuries right now. Roman Reigns potentially could be feuding against either Brock Lesnar or Triple in the coming months, possibly both. And the title will be involved in that story. To just insert AJ Styles in that would ruin the potential storylines already there. AJ Styles is likely to get a feud against someone like Jericho.

The most unlikely possibility of all that fans would love to see is Daniel Bryan in this match. He may not be cleared by the WWE, but he thinks he's ready to go. Will the WWE have a change of heart and put him in this match? Will they go so far as to put the title on him and give him that Rumble win he's never had? I do not think that would be the end of Roman Reigns being pushed as the centerpiece, but it might go a long way in pleasing smarks. There is a lot to be said about this possibility, but why bother if it is not likely?

Consider how the match should play out. Specifically, if Roman Reigns is #1 and not likely to win, when should he be tossed out? Stamina in a match like this matters. If the WWE exposes Roman Reigns too much and he irritates fans with his performance, that can be a setback in his getting over. He got cheered by just destroying people. It is unlikely the WWE just has him beat everyone up the entire Rumble match. They can run some angle where he is out of the match unofficially for a good portion of it. For example, have him chase after Vince McMahon ten minutes into the match and not show up again until the final minutes. It would be a cheap trick, but something they might do if they want him in there that long. Or they can just have him eliminated in the middle of the match. Would it ruin the story? It might create suspense that the fans are guaranteed a new WWE Champion. Just as good.

One more thing I want to say about this whole situation. This is how The Authority should have been for years. Vince and Stephanie are just evil. They are out to screw Roman Reigns. That is their main focus. The Authority with Triple H and Stephanie has just not been a strong heel group. They would regularly play with tension within the group. Most of the time, it would not even go anywhere. If the WWE was writing the current storyline the same way they have in recent years, Vince and Stephanie probably would have started turning on each other last week. It is just inconsistent storytelling. It can be confusing to fans. Moving forward, Triple H and Stephanie should be that focused on screwing their face enemies or helping their heel allies.

Roman Reigns Vs. The World At Royal Rumble 2016

Roman Reigns found a way to overcome the odds on Raw this week. But Vince McMahon had another trick up his sleeve. Roman Reigns must now defend the WWE Championship at the Royal Rumble. And he'll be defending against 29 other men in the Royal Rumble match.

Even John Cena has never been put in this position. These are some huge odds to overcome. And I do not think Roman Reigns will be overcoming them. It is not just because he just won the Royal Rumble last year. This is about building to a bigger feud for Wrestlemania. Roman Reigns will lose the title at the Royal Rumble, have to run through some obstacles in the weeks after, and regain it at Wrestlemania.

Some fans might be hesitant to buy into this scenario. Why would they have him drop the title so soon? His first reign lasted a few minutes. His second one is now only going to last a few weeks? As the centerpiece, Roman Reigns will get a lot of title reigns sent his way. I have seen fans say that Triple H, John Cena, and Trish Stratus had a stranglehold on the main titles available to them. That is what it means to be pushed as the centerpiece. The company wants to push certain individuals more often in the title scene than others. It isn't really so much about backstage politics. But something else that also matters is Wrestlemania moments. Reigns was on his way to getting that last year, when he could have beaten Brock Lesnar for the WWE Championship at Wrestlemania, but the WWE went in a different direction. Reigns climbing back up to the top at Wrestlemania this year is a story the WWE might very well like to tell. And if you are looking for a title reign that will last a few months for Roman Reigns, it might start there. Triple H, John Cena, and Trish Stratus all had at least one title reign that lasted at least close to a year. Numerous title reigns. Lengthy title reigns. Wrestlemania moments. As long as Roman Reigns is the centerpiece, these are the kind of things that will come his way.

Overall, I like the decision to have the Royal Rumble match be for the title this year. That shakes things up. That makes things more interesting. I will not speculate now on the winner, but it does feel likely that there will be a title change. Who wins? Brock Lesnar? John Cena? Triple H? You can imagine the WWE thinking about Roman Reigns going against any of those guys as worthy of Wrestlemania. And Reigns will get a big rub from beating any of those three for the title at Wrestlemania. You also have to consider scenarios of how Vince McMahon might try to screw Reigns to make sure he loses. What obstacles will Reigns have to face leading up to Wrestlemania. The WWE has the potential to do things that might actually draw for them in the coming weeks and months.

Roman Reigns: A Victory For The Status Quo?

The status quo in the WWE is not one in which everyone is given an equal, fair opportunity and it is up to each performer to be the best they can be and earn the top positions for themselves. It is one in which the company chooses whom they want to be their stars and grooms them to be stars. They will take advantage of people not getting opportunities to be pushed as top stars to put over top stars. They will stifle success they do not want to have. They will force things. Even if things do not look like it is working out, the WWE will stick with what they want. Not surprisingly, this status quo can sometimes lead to failure.

Roman Reigns is a benefactor of this status quo. Problem is, it looked like he would be a flop. He can connect moderately well with some fans, but there is a vocal fanbase out there that has crushed him at times. He seemed to win those fans over a few weeks ago and the WWE wasted no time in putting the WWE Championship back on him for a proper run.

Is this a win for the status quo? Considering the issues the WWE has had with John Cena's connection with the fans, it has been a while since they had a centerpiece with an A+ connection with the fans. But I am not ready to say that Roman Reigns has clinched that level of overness for himself. Fans reacted well to him attacking Triple H, but is the connection genuine? I have seen people get cheered just for doing a certain thing the fans loved seeing. It doesn't mean they were over. It is not always enough to truly make them over. But the WWE definitely wants to make Roman Reigns over.

The WWE might think they have found the winning formula. Fans seem to like it when Roman Reigns is a badass attacking authority figures. Sound familiar? People have already made the comparison between him and Austin. They say they are making him into another Stone Cold. He doesn't have the mic skills to be like The Rock. If the WWE can continue going in this direction and solidify the overness Roman Reigns has, it will be a win for the status quo.

What does that mean for guys on the wrong side of the status quo? There are some talented wrestlers out there that wrestling fans would like to see pushed better. With Roman Reigns possibly succeeding with his push as centerpiece, it is unlikely many of these guys will ever get a shot to be the top star.

Speaking of Austin, he seems to be a Cesaro fan. Cesaro is one of those guys on the wrong side of the status quo. He currently has injury issues. Austin suggested that Cesaro come back swinging and fight to get that better push. Easier said than done. Even if Cesaro does somehow reinvent himself and gets very over, will the WWE automatically push him at the level he deserves? No. Will they possibly use him to put over whom they do want over? They have done this kind of thing before.

In general, you usually see the WWE take someone that has the look and character they like, and usually lacks great wrestling ability, and then struggle to get that person liked by wrestling fans once they start getting pushed as the centerpiece. How about taking someone already connecting well with wrestling fans and groom him to get over with the wider audience? If someone like that is already getting a better reaction than pretty much anyone else on the roster, it would make sense to build around someone like that. Give him the creative interest and hype to connect with the wider audience. But that is not how the status quo of the WWE works.

Back to Roman Reigns. His storyline now involves Vince McMahon even more. You can't get a bigger rub than this. Sheamus will get his rematch for the title on Raw next week. Vince will be the referee. Big match for Raw. Does Sheamus regain the title? The odds may be stacked against Reigns, but that was the way things were when he won the title on Raw a few weeks ago. The WWE will find some way for him to retain again. I don't expect any heel turn for Reigns? Might Cena and/or The Usos get involved? Will Triple H show up? Let's see how it plays out.

New WWE Champion: Roman Reigns

The WWE could probably smell the blood in the water at TLC. They went in for the kill on Raw last night. At TLC, despite not winning the title from Sheamus, Roman Reigns seemed to win the crowd over with his assault on Triple H. The WWE didn't take too much time after that to give Roman Reigns a rematch on Raw, where he finally captured the WWE Championship. It looks like this reign will last longer than 5 minutes.

I like that they had a title change happen on Raw. That does not happen often. They should do exciting things like that to help ratings.

The WWE didn't simply give Roman Reigns the title. It is how they did it that deserves to be mentioned. At TLC, the WWE saw that having Roman Reigns attack Triple H helped him win the rowdy fans over. They gave a little more of that on Raw. This time, it was Vince McMahon himself out to screw Roman Reigns. And if Reigns lost, he would be fired. The League of Nations would also once again get involved. The odds were just stacked against Roman Reigns. And he overcame it all himself. He even knocked out Vince. If attacking Triple H got fans to cheer him, knocking out Vince shouldn't hurt too much. The WWE has certainly put work into creating Roman Reigns.

Where does this leave Sheamus and his group? Sheamus was obviously a stepping stone. He will get his rematch. But how will the WWE continue The League of Nations? The group has only been official for a few weeks. I am getting the feeling it might already be starting to fall to pieces. I definitely do not see it remaining a main-event stable for long. If it does survive any meaningful length of time, it will be an upper-midcard/midcard angle. I have said before that I dislike when the WWE invests in a group when it is obvious they might not last long. They come up with a stable name, a group theme, and whatever else. And then the group just falls apart. I would really hate for that to happen here, especially so soon. This group had potential, despite some issues. I was going to talk about the WWE's handling of Lana in relation to the group, but I now have to wonder if the group will be around long enough to even bother bringing that up.

Back to Roman Reigns. This might be the true start of his centerpiece run. Yes, John Cena was not around the last few months, but this has not been a filler run. A few years ago, John Cena had to take time off due to injury and Daniel Bryan got pushed as filler in his place. Cena came back, won a World title, was in a match to unify the titles, and then you had Batista. While that went on, Daniel Bryan was getting phased out. That is how you know his push was just meant to be filler. Circumstances and fan backlash led to him getting back in the title picture. Roman Reigns is someone they actually want to be a top star.

The storyline with Roman Reigns is similar to the storyline with Daniel Bryan back then. Authority figures don't want a certain face to win the title and screw him. But what happened with Daniel Bryan wasn't just a storyline. The WWE legitimately did not want to push him at the level he deserved. Running the storyline they did was the dumbest thing they could have done. It just riled fans up even more. Danial Bryan was already connecting with the fans very well prior to that whole thing getting blown up further. The WWE should not have messed with that. This is not the kind of storyline you should do with someone you do not intend to eventually get a proper run at the top, especially when that someone is as hot as Daniel Bryan was.

The WWE has obviously pulled the trigger with Reigns, but what if they didn't? What if they had him win, then had Vince somehow strip him of the title right after? What if they actually had him lose and get "fired"? Would fans threaten to riot or start a petition to get him rehired? What if they screwed him out of the title and just moved on, like they tried to do with Daniel Bryan a few years ago? Would there be that same backlash? Roman Reigns may have gotten a great reaction at TLC, but you never make too much out of one thing. I would not yet say he is as hot as Daniel Bryan was back then. If the WWE decided to play with this situation and dragged it out, it probably would have not worked. They wasted no time in pulling that trigger. Probably a very smart move.

Previewing The 2015 Royal Rumble Match

The WWE has done a pretty good job developing up to the Royal Rumble match. You even have a little bit of guys having to earn their way into the match. Dolph Ziggler, Ryback, and Erick Rowan experienced some of that. The first two got in. Rowan did not. I have seen some fans chuckle at that. Some feel bad or shocked about it. I even saw one suggestion that Rowan will come out and cost Harper the Rumble match to set up a feud. As I said before, Rowan is a guy that will eventually be lost in the shuffle. That push he has gotten in recent months was more out of lack of depth than anything else. Even then, he was more a supporting player than someone being groomed to be a star. There is no need to shed a tear for him here. You can't hand the faces all the momentum. Have to give the heels something now and then. And Rowan was just not a priority and took the bullet in this instance.

Who wins the Royal Rumble? You can talk about returns and surprise entrants, but I am just going to talk about 3 guys already active on the roster and their chances to win it.

First, there is Roman Reigns. He was the likely candidate to win for the longest while. The fact that the WWE has been consistent in grooming him to be a star further supports the idea that it could be him. They have been doing a lot of things here and there to make him seem like a big deal. But is he ready? People can talk about his wrestling ability and mic skills, but how well the fans are connecting to him is what matters. He has fans, but he also has his critics that will let their voices be heard. There are likely to be many smarks at the event this Sunday. Those are the type of fans likely to boo Reigns. Their voice counts, but they are not the only ones that matter. Of course, the Royal Rumble is not some popularity contest. It is about setting up a storyline and feud for Wrestlemania, in addition to handing someone a big piece of hype. Roman Reigns remains a likely candidate in that regard.

Daniel Bryan has said that he wants to face Brock Lesnar. It is a bit of a dream match for him. Can you have that without the title involved? Lesnar loses the title, Daniel Bryan does not win the Rumble, and the two face in a non-title match. That works. Daniel Bryan does not need to be in the title match at Wrestlemania two years in a row. Of course, many might say that he should have won the Royal Rumble last year. Will they give it to him this year to make up for that? You also have the negative reaction that the WWE received over their treatment of Daniel Bryan last year. This year, I do not think fans are that hot over the subject. Daniel Bryan is still over, but I do not think the fans are as riled up. Regardless, in comparison to Roman Reigns, Daniel Bryan might be the better option. He has more credibility and a match between him and Lesnar might be more interesting.

Let me bring up someone that might not be that likely. How about Dolph Ziggler? A few months ago, they were doing certain things with him that made him look like an A+ player at times. He won the match for his team at Survivor Series. I will be the first person to say never make too much out of one moment, but there you have one big moment. I am not suggesting they were grooming him for a big push, but I have seen some fans bring him up as a likely candidate to win. I think it would be refreshing. Everyone talking about Reigns and Daniel Bryan, as if this is a two-man race, but it would be nice to see someone else that fans like and is a good worker get the big push. Roman Reigns can use more time and Daniel Bryan does not need this push again so soon. In this regard, Dolph Ziggler would be a good option.

Who do I think is likely to win the Royal Rumble? I will go with the WWE booking Roman Reigns to win it. They dared to book Batista to win it last year. I do not think they have learned their lesson since then. They are still trying hard to make stars out of whom they want to be stars and are not opening up the playing field for others. If they are serious about Roman Reigns, a Royal Rumble victory for him is likely.

Let me go back to what I talked about a few days ago about the New England Patriots and Bill Belichick. It seems that recent cheating scandal has really taken off. Let me make my stance clear. I am not saying taking shortcuts and doing unethical things is good. I am saying I understand why it is done and people might allow it in some certain situations if it leads to great success. Being so determined to succeed might be seen as admirable. You can view it as the old philosophy of the ends justifying the means. It is Machiavellian to some degree.

Look at the WWE. Look at Vince McMahon. There are certain controversies over some of the things he does with his company. I already mentioned the Daniel Bryan issue. Look at the diva division. You want to talk about the ends justifying the means? What happens when you are no longer attaining desirable results and you are still pushing those questionable means? The system that makes the diva division what it is was never great. It did lead to the division being golden for roughly half a decade, but the fatal flaws in the system have led to the dark age you now have. And the system still stands, even though the WWE does not seem to have the gas to run it properly. It is a system that does not give all its workers equal opportunities to earn a better career, picks whom the stars will be, and often relies on women that are not great wrestlers. When it was working out under Trish Stratus as centerpiece, the ends were justifying the means. Things were golden. How about when the ends stopped justifying the means? The women being pushed to be centerpiece after Trish flopped. The most over diva is a credible jobber that got over on her own. No way there was any lying going on in that situation with Mickie James, right? Machiavelli was above that? After years of continuing to force the same system, they have dug themselves a deep hole that they may never get out of. When the ends stop justifying the means, you lose the protection of that philosophy. What excuse do you give next as to why you are still pushing that failing, corrupt system? It is no longer a decision based on success. It is a decision based on ego. It is based on what you personally want.

Let me make up one hypothetical situation. Let's say I have a rich uncle I never knew about and he left me a sports franchise. I am obviously not in a position to manage it myself. I have to hire people to do it. When it came to my options for general manager of the actual team, let's say my only options are Bill Belichick or Vince McMahon. Both have experience running things. Both have had success. Both have also done questionable things that might hurt their image. But I have to choose one of these guys to run my team. Whom do I pick? I would go with Belichick. Even if he does get involved in questionable things, success is his goal. For me, the main thing about Vince McMahon is that he will force something even if it is not succeeding. Success has to be your goal, not simply having things your way. And you cannot stop being efficient when you start not getting your way. That is not strong leadership. If I did make the mistake of hiring Vince McMahon and he put his ego ahead of success of the franchise, he would be fired.

Various Sports Analogies

Just a few different sports comparisons I want to make to certain issues in the WWE.

First, whenever I am following the score of a basketball game, one stat I like to pay attention to is free throws. I can't tell you how many times my favorite team, the Brooklyn Nets, have had a lead early in a game and blown it in the end. A lot of times, they lose by a handful of points. And when I check how many free throws they missed, the game is usually decided by those shots. It does not help when you know you have that one guy on the team that is horrible at making free throws. Free throws are some of the easiest shots you will get. They are only worth one point each. No big deal, right? It's just a single point. Thing is, those little things add up. It happens to every team all the time.

Small things add up. How does that relate to the current WWE? In the last decade, you have seen the WWE make a lot of mistakes here and there. I am not even talking about "botching" a storyline. I am talking about how they push their workers. The quality of the product has declined. There is a lack of momentum. Ratings are not booming. Ratings are not even staying steady. You have a slow decline and the WWE has to rely on tricks and part-timers to generate hype. This all did not start last year. This all has been building up for many years. Count all the times the WWE has crushed someone that got over that they obviously did not want over, or even attempted to. Count all the times the WWE has tried to force someone that is not connecting naturally with the fans. You have Zack Ryder getting over out of nowhere and remaining a lower-midcarder. You have Mickie James getting over while being pushed to put over whom they wanted over and being used as filler when needed and the WWE continuing to push her like that. You have John Cena getting a mixed reaction and still being pushed hard. You have Michelle McCool connecting with fans even worse than that and being overpushed. You have the Daniel Bryan fiasco from last year. How did that make the WWE look? These are all self-inflicted wounds. The WWE did this to themselves. These are their own workers they are not managing correctly. You might say that these cases are no big deal. So what if Zack Ryder got screwed? So what if Michelle McCool was booked to make history a few times during her run as centerpiece? Individually, you may not see a problem with these things. Problem is, it adds up. The diva division has collapsed. The tag division is starting to have issues again. The midcard is bad. A lot of your main-event stars don't seem to be able to actually draw. And John Cena continues to be John Cena. If the WWE had taken control earlier on to correct some issues, things would never have gotten this bad. Instead, the WWE has seemed to develop this attitude where they will block out the issues and just do what they want. With that kind of mentality, there is nothing that will stop them from going in the direction of what they want to work out. When that does not work out, they end up with a bruised ego that will make it harder to be efficient. And more problems will be added on to those small problems over the past decade. With that, major problems will get worse.

Sticking with basketball, there was an issue that came up last year involving Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers at that time. He made racist comments that eventually spiraled out to his downfall. Thing is, the real issue was really only over his words. When it came to how his team was being run, he did not let a racist mentality dictate that. How could he? If he makes it blatantly obvious, he would have gotten in trouble sooner. He had black players and even had a black coach. It didn't matter. He still got in trouble.

People say Vince McMahon is out of touch. Being out of touch is obviously not as bad as being racist. Thing is, does Vince McMahon really need to be making the decisions he is making? If he cannot put aside issues that can hinder how he utilizes his workers and how he runs his company, he can just have someone else make these decisions. A lot of people have certain biases or other issues. People in power tend to have ego issues. They might be pushy. They might try to force their way, even if their way is not ethical or not working. Even if Donald Sterling is a racist, there were people to hold him accountable even for just making racist remarks. No one really holds Vince McMahon accountable.

Let me talk about another owner of a sports team. Jerry Jones owns the Dallas Cowboys. He also happens to be the GM. Prior to this recent season, the Cowboys had done mediocrely for years. They made a lot of poor moves that angered a lot fans. Fans wanted changes that were not happening. Jerry Jones took a lot of blame for things. Some people accused him of caring more about making money than winning games. Does the owner really need to be GM? A lot of people were calling for Jerry Jones the owner to fire Jerry Jones the GM. Even Jerry Jones once said he would have fired himself as GM. It never happened.

This season, the Dallas Cowboys did great. They got a 12-4 record, tied for the season best in the NFL, and won a playoff game. Jerry Jones won an "Executive of the Year" award. You know why some people say he won it? Because he put his ego in check and made decisions to help strengthen the foundation of the team, namely the offensive line. There was a strong possibility that they would have drafted Johnny Manziel last year, instead of an addition to the offensive line. That is the kind of thing Jerry Jones would do. And he supposedly did come close to doing it, but his son, who is also an executive on the team, stopped him. When you are in power, when you have some freedom in having your way, it often helps to have someone to put you in check.

Is Vince McMahon deserving of any "Executive of the Year" awards? Some people have compared Vince McMahon to Jerry Jones, and not in a good way. You have a goofy rich guy making bad decisions. You can say Jerry has redeemed himself to some degree. Some credit should go to the people he has around him to advise him. What about Vince? Is there anyone to really hold his ego in check? What if the people that are surrounding him are the ones having a negative influence on him? Regardless, you sometimes have to put aside what you personally want and do what is right for the team. Whomever you want to blame in the WWE, the people running the show deserve blame for the state of the product.

One last football comparison. The Patriots have become a dominant franchise. They are going to another Super Bowl. You owe it all to Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. You owe it all to the "Patriots Way". What is that exactly? No easy way to put it. Belichick is a strict, efficient coach, who also happens to be GM. Winning is the goal. They keep on coming up with different strategies to win games, even if some of them might be seen as cheating. They have been known to let star players slip from them. They watch their pocketbook. Tom Brady, one of the best ever, just restructured his own contract to help the team. Despite his success, he is not the highest-paid quarterback. And part of it does have to do with the possibility of whether or not they get rid of him in the future should he suffer a decline. Can you imagine releasing a quarterback that has done the things Tom Brady has done? The point has been brought up by many, if Tom Brady is no longer able to help the team win, he is gone. No favoritism. Just results. That is the Patriots Way.

Is John Cena comparable to Tom Brady? Well, John Cena is as much the centerpiece of the WWE as Tom Brady is the centerpiece of the Patriots. Aside from that, should Cena be looked at in the same way as Brady? John Cena is not bringing elite results and he is being pushed like he is elite. What you always hear is that John Cena should be the top guy because of his work ethic and the charity work. All professional sports teams seem to get involved in charity. You can have a quarterback that has a great work ethic, does a lot of charity work, and is just the nicest guy ever, but if he cannot bring results on the field, should he remain as the starting quarterback. Regardless, he certainly does not deserve big bucks, especially more than those quarterbacks that do bring elite results. If John Cena cannot go out there and get a proper reaction from the fans and the quality of the company is bad with him as the top guy, why shouldn't the WWE move on?

What is the "WWE Way"? Is Vince McMahon comparable to Belichick? Is Vince McMahon really concerned about success? That is what it comes down to. It's one thing to cheat and do shady things to hurt your competition and help yourself win, but Vince McMahon is doing things that result in him shooting himself in the foot. He screws his own workers that he does not want to succeed and does not give some of them fair opportunities. He overpushes people that don't connect well with the fans. In recent years, he just rarely gets it right when it comes to people being pushed as top stars. You sometimes hear that no one person is above the WWE. Yeah, nice philosophy. It is the same idea as releasing a quarterback like Tom Brady if it is best for the team. Problem is, is the WWE really practicing that idea? If they did, that fear to move away from Cena would not be there. You don't have to release him, but a legitimate depush would be nice. But that is not the WWE Way. They stick with what they want to work out. Even if the fans hate it. Even if it leads to a collapse in quality. Even if numbers start getting bad. They go their way. You can say Vince McMahon runs a strict system, as does Belichick. Difference is, Belichick's system actually leads to success. I have seen some coaches run strict systems and see their teams do poorly. They usually end up getting fired. And why shouldn't they? It's one thing to be a jerk and run a system that leads to success. It's another thing to be a jerk and suck at what you do. Not only do such individuals not help the team to succeed through their leadership, but they might have a negative attitude that makes it worse. You want someone that can take charge, but to help the team succeed. You don't want someone that is just looking for power and to push people around. What kind of boss in Vince McMahon? Out of touch? Egotistical? Victim of bad people around him? A guy that needs to hand off some power to someone else? Whatever the case, his way is not working right now.

Intro To Charlotte & Earning It Vs. Taking It

Ric Flair's daughter, Charlotte, had a match on Raw last week to help promote the NXT special they would have later that same week. Some people had an issue with Charlotte losing that match to Natalya. There is nothing wrong with that. It is one match. She has not even officially debuted yet. One match either way does not define what type of career you are getting and will not make or break your connection with the fans. Cesaro had a huge Wrestelmania moment this year. He was hot. Since then, the WWE has not followed up with him properly and he is not as hot with most fans as he was at one time. Once again, I don't see anything horrible with that one booking decision by the WWE. It was not like they were going to start pushing her consistently on the main roster from that point to keep her momentum going.

How will Charlotte do when she does eventually get on the main roster? I am a Ric Flair fan. Been a fan of the guy for a long time. Bought his book back in 2004. Got it autographed by him. All that being said, I am not going to say that the WWE should hand his daughter the keys to the diva division just yet. She is good in the ring. That could be the makings of a credible jobber. I don't want to believe that the WWE would do that to Ric Flair's daughter. They do it to Natalya, a relative to Bret Hart. But Bret Hart has had some issues with those in power in the WWE. Ric Flair seems to be on better terms and I don't think they would want to do anything to offend him. Just give her a fair shot. I can see her getting a good career in the periphery. She can benefit from the current dark age to win a few titles. I don't think she'll be a 16-time Diva's Champion, but she'll do well.

Nepotism can get annoying in pro wrestling. It is especially worse when the child of a former great performer is made to be another version of the parent. Ted DiBiase Jr. never really stepped out of his father's shadow. You look at Randy Orton. He comes from a wrestling family. But he has a unique style and character. He isn't a cowboy. He has found his own self. How will Charlotte work out in that regard? She does do some of her father's old tricks. She doesn't really have his charisma, but that might not be a bad thing. Let her show her own personality. If she does connect well with the fans on the main roster after her official debut, I just hope it is because of her own merits, not just because of who her father is.

Let me switch topics slightly. You hear all these stories, especially recently, of guys having to go backstage and complain and put their foot down to get a better push or just to get one match outcome to go their way. You know some fans get very upset when one match does not go the way they would like. I always knew there were some wrestlers like that, but there seems to be more these days than I would have expected. And in some cases, I don't feel some of these guys have a right to demand anything.

Recently, the "brass ring" metaphor has been used again by certain individuals in wrestling. You ride a carousel and you reach for that elusive brass ring. If you grab it, you've earned it. That is success. That is success that has been earned. Now, can you imagine some spoiled brat going up to the worker operating the ride and just demanding to be given the brass ring? Just for the sake of avoiding a scene, the worker hands the kid the ring. All the kid has to do is take it. You can say that is success for that spoiled brat. But did he really earn it?

The job of a pro wrestler is supposed to be to go out there and perform to connect with the fans. If you succeed at doing that at a high level, you have grabbed that brass ring and you deserve the great career. It seems that too many people are getting ahead through backstage politics or intend to get ahead through that. Let me just make it clear, there is nothing wrong with speaking up to get a legitimate opportunity. You have to sometimes let your voice be heard to not be pushed around. But to do it just for preferential booking, that is something else. If you have earned it and are not getting it, that is one thing. If you have not done anything to earn it and you are just given it, that is a problem.

Back in the day, I used to hear from some dirtsheets that some wrestlers got mistreated because they are hard to work with when it came to storylines and booking. These days, the opposite seems to be true. The idea now is that Vince McMahon loves it when guys step up. Vince McMahon should love it when guys are getting over with the fans. You play all these backstage games to earn yourself a better career. You go out there after that and connect with the fans. But are they cheering you for the performer you are? Or for all the hype and creative investment you have? If you are really so great, why couldn't you overcome a bad booking decision or a mediocre career? I wonder just how much substance some of these guys have. How great are they? There is no shortage of guys on the roster being pushed, but ratings are still horrible, the quality of the product is still bad, some top stars still have questionable overness, and all those other issues are still there.

They key to success should not be complaining backstage to take a career you never earned and be hyped to greatness. The key to success should be earning it through doing your job and connecting with those fans. If the WWE thinks they can just hype anyone to success, they will never turn things around. Pro wrestling in general isn't as great as it once was. It needs to be more about entertaining, less about overrating.

Tag Division Developments

There are a few things going on in the tag division. That is good. First, the Tag Team Champions, Miz and Sandow, are feuding against The Usos. There also happens to be a storyline there. Second, you actually have a feud developing outside of the title scene in the tag division. That is between The Dust Brothers and New Day.

They had a match on Raw to determine new contenders for the tag titles. When The Usos won, I anticipated that this would just be a dull jobber push for them. They would be developed just to put over Miz and Sandow. And you might get a little tired seeing so much of The Usos in the title scene. However, they are actually developing a little bit of a storyline with this feud that goes beyond the titles. Jimmy Uso is married to Naomi. They are running a little jealousy storyline with Miz involved. You can just chalk it up to a heel playing mind games with a face, but it is still good to put some creative interest in these tag feuds. Would these kind of storylines be going on right now if Total Divas was not around? Would this creative interest be here if Miz was not involved? He is someone the WWE wants to push as a star. That's fine. I just do not think he needs to be handed so many titles. His overall overness may not be great, but he can make for some interesting storylines. And the fact that Naomi is involved shows how divas can make men's feuds interesting. You have to improve that periphery.

The other feud being developed is between Stardust & Goldust and New Day, the new faction consisting of Kofi Kingston, Big E, and Xavier Woods. When New Day did not win that #1 contenders match on Raw, I was thinking the WWE would drop the ball with them. No, it looks like they will develop a feud for them. It is obvious the faces will win this feud. They just debuted the new gimmick. Stardust & Goldust are not top priorities now. New Day will still likely be facing the Tag Team Champions down the line. This can just build some momentum for them. Smart development.

Which of these two feuds should involve the tag titles? Let's say you had the option of undoing the title change that happened a few weeks ago and everything else stays the same. The feud between The Usos and Miz and Sandow is just a grudge feud over Naomi. The feud between The Dust Brothers and New Day is for the tag titles. Would you make the switch? Obviously, you do not want to rush the titles on New Day. On the other side of that, if you are going to put the titles on them, you don't want to wait too long until they lose that momentum. That is the mistake they made with Stardust and Goldust. Reading about the kind of promo that happens on this week's Smackdown, I just got the feeling like this is a feud between good and evil with New Day and Stardust & Goldust. You can say every face vs. heel feud is like that, but this really feels like it is just the good, righteous guys against the bad guys. Would that feud mean more if the tag titles were involved? I think it also would have been a defining feud for The Dust Brothers recent title reign. That title reign was very brief and lackluster as it was. They could have kept the titles on them and this feud right now would have been a step back in the right direction. Where does that leave Miz, Sandow, The Usos, and Naomi? A lot of great storylines have been over women, without any real title focus. Remember the triangle you had between Test, Scott Steiner, and Stacy Keibler? That story wasn't focused around a title at all. They could have had a non-title tag feud right now that put great focus on Naomi. As it stands, she might end up just being a pawn Miz is using to help him retain the tag titles. Nice story, but you could have told it without the tag titles. And the story might have ended up being even better. As it stands, I think either way of doing it would be good. This is a step in the right direction for the tag division.

How about the diva division? You are seeing a little right now how divas can be utilized in the periphery to help make storylines more interesting. This is a dark age. The first dark age remained interesting primarily because of periphery divas. It is about time they start doing more with these women, outside of AJ Lee and The Bellas. What more can the WWE do? More mixed-tag matches. Trish and Lita wrestled a ton of those during the first dark age. Lita was paired with Matt and Jeff Hardy. Trish was with Test & Albert. They also teamed with multiple other guys, including main-eventers. Naomi is unlikely to get into any mixed-tag matches with the current storyline she has, but a feud against Tyson Kidd and Natalya might happen. Tyson Kidd might have Cesaro as a partner for that. Outside of the tag division, you can pair some of these women with midcarders you are willing to push. And I don't just mean Lana with Rusev. Pair some of the other divas without anything to do with guys. Ivory was a part of Right To Censor during the first dark age. Why not add a diva to some kind of midcard or upper-midcard stable? Could a diva have fit in with New Day? As for your A-tier periphery divas, now might not be the good time to pair a diva with a top star. The Authority is gone, a lot of main-eventers are still out, the depth at the top is bad, and it just might not be smooth to do right now. But these are the kind of things they need to do to make this dark age as interesting as the first. You are not going to have women parade around in their thongs and expose their breasts like you did back then, but you can be more efficient in how you utilize them.

Let me go back to what I was talking about yesterday. I was talking about how having an ego can be a problem, but can also be good to some extent. I want to bring up one last example to consider.

I have been following my alma mater's football team regularly since last year. They have a quarterback that is very good and has helped them reach the FCS playoffs two years in a row. As the story goes, this quarterback was actually at a college in Connecticut. The coaches there would not let him be the starter on the football team. What does he do? Does he put up with being a backup? He transfers to my school in New York City. I cannot imagine making a decision like that hinged primarily on whether I can be a starter on a football team. Of course, I never played sports in college. Students make decisions based on sports every year. Would you say that quarterback must have had a somewhat high opinion of himself? Did he make a little bit of an ego decision right there? Thing is, he actually went out there and proved himself. He has won awards. He has broken records. If he ever gets a Wikipedia page, there will be a lot of positive stuff on there that might not have been there if he had chosen to stay in Connecticut. He thought he was worth more than staying in someone else's shadow and he happened to be right. Instead of waiting around for an opportunity to possibly come to him, he made a decision and moved on. You have to know your worth. Don't sell yourself short. That is how you are often able to go out there and do great things.

Now, let's look at a different scenario. Let's say some other quarterback in the same situation turns out a little different. He doesn't get to be a starter on the school's team. He thinks he's better than that and transfers to a different school just because he feels he is good enough to be a starter. What happens? He sucks. He gets benched. He switched schools just to get benched. What would you think of a guy that thinks so highly of himself, makes a big decision like that, and then fails miserably? He's a big doofus? Well, you might say that. As I said last time, having an ego can be a problem when you have this high opinion of yourself and you are really not that good. Knowing your own worth does not mean thinking you are better than you really are.

Back to Vince McMahon. Whether you believe his problem rests in he thinks he knows what the fans want, thinks he is some kind of genius, thinks he can make a star out of anybody, or whatever, that problem is magnified due to his ego. If he didn't have such a belief in what he was doing, he might be more open to doing things differently or stepping aside to let someone else do it. You look at what Vince McMahon is ultimately responsible for. I don't want to blame him for everything, but some major blame has to fall in his lap. Does the quality of that product look like it is the work of a man that believes in himself and his ability to know what the fans want, believes in his intelligence, and believes in his ability to make stars? Or does it look like the work of someone that has that high opinion of himself and really isn't that great? Is Vince McMahon essentially just a big doofus?

The Rise Of Erick Rowan & Assorted Thoughts

Raw ended with Erick Rowan looking like a hero. A while ago, I mentioned that some fans were saying Dolph Ziggler was looking like an A+ player because of how much focus he was getting during Team Authority vs. Team Cena. Although I have not seen anyone say the same thing for Rowan, could you say the same thing? A few weeks ago, this guy had no direction. He was the weakest member of The Wyatts. Thanks to Sheamus being out, a space has opened up that has benefited Rowan.

Think about what the WWE is currently doing. Lower-midcarders are being pushed in the midcard. Midcarders are being pushed as upper-midcarders and main-eventers. Ryback is feuding with Kane. Rowan is feuding with Big Show. John Cena and Seth Rollins will face each other. This is all due to depth. Some of these guys will definitely be depushed when guys like Roman Reigns and Randy Orton return. Until then, is this way of doing things good? There is some good. There are some fresh feuds here. However, they are still not developing good storylines for a lot of these lower-midcarders in the midcard. Why bother, right? Nevertheless, they could do better.

Let me do a few asides. I recently opened up a new Twitter account. I am using it primarily for trying to get what I say about the diva division out there. That has manifested itself in me frequently dropping a wall of tweets on some people. Vince McMahon, Triple H, Stephanie McMahon, and Mick Foley have been recipients of that. When it comes to talking about the diva division, I do not like being contained to 140 characters or less. I enjoyed doing flash fiction when I was taking writing courses in college, but I don't like limits like that when I am trying to argue a point. I know it can get annoying when you tweet a lot like that. I'll apologize for doing it, but I want to get the message out. Prior to creating that new Twitter account, I spent a few weeks e-mailing wrestling news sites to try to get them interested in this. I was not aggressive. I was not rude. I was civil. I never got back one reply. Maybe I got sent straight to junk mail. Whatever happened, I decided to try something else. Not going good so far.

Anyway, while I was checking on things on Twitter last night, I noticed a "#WeWantPaige" hashtag going. And people say that she's not over? Of course, you cannot mistake that Twitter support for true A+ overness. How well can she connect with fans across the board? How many A-tier fans does she really have? These are the kind of things you have to consider when determining how over someone really is. Right now, I would still say Paige has a B connection with the fans. A few hardcore fans only count for so much. Funny thing is, she's only been not featured for about a week. She was a part of Survivor Series last week, although it was only in a filler match. And some of those fans are already irritated? You should be more irritated that she is a credible jobber like Mickie James and is only getting filler and jobber pushes. Mickie James is another diva that had a "#WeWant" campaign back in the day when she was released. As I have mentioned before, Paige could very well follow the path of Mickie James. There are already a few fans crazy for her. If she can connect better with a wider range of fans and at the same level as AJ and The Bellas, or better than them, then you might really have another Mickie James on your hands. Expect Dave Meltzer to botch analyzing what is going on and end up making Paige look like it is all her fault that she is being mistreated. It has happened before.

A lot of people say that Vince McMahon's problem is that he is out of touch. I wouldn't say that. I am out of touch. I can admit that. I don't keep up with the latest technology. I don't follow the latest fads. There are celebrities out there today that I never heard of. I don't know how they got famous. I don't care. I am perfectly fine without keeping track of all that. Moreover, I don't go around criticizing people that do keep up with the latest trends. I don't try to get people to be like me. Being out of touch does not automatically mean you have to let that dictate your relationship with others.

What is Vince McMahon's problem? I would say it is ego. Being out of touch is one thing, but that does not mean you have to allow your philosophy on things dictate what is going on. Some people are able to put their personal views aside to run things in a great way. In some situations, they delegate those responsibilities to others. The way Vince McMahon runs things, he just creates a rigid system. He goes in the direction of what he wants to work. If it works out, then things go great. If it doesn't, you have big problems. A lot of fans get annoyed. Workers get annoyed. Ratings and other numbers decline. Is the company really making as much money as it could? If Vince McMahon cannot go beyond what he personally wants and what he personally sees, that is a problem. And if he insists on being in control, that is an ego problem.

You might say that it is easy for me to talk because I have never been a boss of a big company. That is true. I have never really been any kind of boss. The closest I came was when I went back to work as a temp at my college library for a few months. I was a supervisor. And on Sunday nights, I was the only supervisor there. I had to empty the cash register, close the computer lab, and all that other stuff. I was also the only one there to supervise the student-workers. I never pushed my weight around just because I could. I never handed them any busy work just to stop them from doing their homework while they sat there. I never did my homework when I was sitting at the circulation desk when I was a student-worker. But I'm not going to force my own work ethic on anyone else. As long as they were there to help the patrons and no problems came up, I just let them do their thing. I only stepped in when they asked me to or when I felt they needed help. I have known some supervisors that have given student-workers things to do just to stop them from doing homework. In most situations, I didn't feel they were being egotistical and just ordering people around because they could. Most situations. But I was never like that. And that is the only experience I have being a boss. For one night a week for a few months, I was in charge. And that's now on my resume.

A meaningless personal story? I don't think so. Why can't the WWE have that same kind of "laissez faire" approach? Not completely, but their role should be to just oversee things more. Let their workers do their thing and connect with the fans. Have a true GM whose job it is to keep track of how well these performers are getting the job done and push the best to be the best. Guys like Vince McMahon should only step in when things are going horribly or when asked for input. Even if Vince McMahon is out of touch, is it really a problem if he's not the one making decisions on who is pushed and how they are pushed? The fact that Vince McMahon wants to have so much control over things is the problem. And I see that as an ego problem.

One last thing I want to bring up about Vince McMahon. He was obviously on Austin's podcast last night. That is one of the reasons I am talking about him today. One of the points he made was pretty much burying the majority of the roster. Some of them lack ambition, charisma, or some other thing. He is making excuses for why they are not pushed better. And I don't think it is an excuse. If they lack things to be top stars, fine. What about pushing them better in the midcard? The midcard is a mess and could use popular guys getting good pushes there. The midcard should not only be a building ground for future main-eventers. A guy like Zack Ryder could have made a solid midcarder. I would agree that he is no main-eventer, but is that really what fans wanted back then? I never saw one fan say they wanted Zack Ryder to win the WWE Championship. A midcard push would have been fine. But the WWE acted like that was like getting a tooth pulled out. 

Just reading some of the things Vince said, I was reminded of a football analogy I once made. Imagine a head coach that puts all his effort in when his starting quarterback is out there. When the starting quarterback is injured and the backup comes in, the coach pretty much quits on him. No help from the sideline. That is essentially quitting on the team. I have seen some players show that lack of emotion during some games. I don't think I have seen a coach be that way. Would you say he is egotistical? It is either his way or no way. With the attitude Vince McMahon put out there last night, he will put his effort into someone if he sees what he likes in them. For others, they get the short end of the stick. And that's not fair. It's not fair to them, not fair to the fans, and not right in terms of maintaining the quality of the product. You are supposed to motivate your workers. Instead of wagging your finger at their weaknesses, how about doing more with their strengths, especially if fans want to see them? That is what good head coaches do. That is what good bosses do. 

Let me just make it clear, there is nothing wrong with having a little bit of an ego. It can motivate you to want to succeed and do great things. It is good for mental health. When you succeed or are good at something, why shouldn't you be proud? Other people are usually going to be proud of you, so why shouldn't you be proud of yourself? When ego becomes a problem is when you become too arrogant. Moreover, if you suck at something and have this attitude that you are still good at it, that can get annoying sometimes. You should be honest with yourself. And in situations where you are in power and hold the livelihoods of others in your hands, that is where having too much of an ego can be a problem. You have to put your self aside and do what is best for your workers, patrons, and the overall company. Dare I say it? You have to do what is best for business. One of the things that make The Authority heels is that they say they do what is best for business, then further what they want ahead of what is best for business. And it is not all a kayfabe problem. Ego is a driving force for those heels, but it is also a driving force for the problems behind the scenes.

Is It Over For The Authority?

Vince McMahon came back on Raw this week. He dropped a bombshell, and I am not talking about the WWE Network announcement. The elimination tag match at Survivor Series was taken to another level. If The Authority's team loses, they are out of power. With no Brock Lesnar around, it is good to raise the stakes for the matches they will have main-eventing PPVs. But will they actually put an end to The Authority?

Let me start out by talking about why it might be a good idea to end the stable. Triple H and Stephanie McMahon have been running the show for over a year now. They have dominated main-event matters. I sometimes like it when authority figures get involved like that in the storylines. Nevertheless, it can get stale after a while. It gets annoying. Get rid of The Authority. Bring in a GM to change the pace of things. It might even be some legend that they bring in. Let the main feuds involve just the wrestlers, not Triple H and Stephanie.

Why might it be a good idea to keep the stable in power? For one thing, it can give a rub to a lot of workers. A lot of people being groomed to be stars are getting rubs from the likes of Stephanie McMahon and Triple H. Stephanie McMahon even returned to the ring this year to feud with Brie Bella. If the group does break up, will that stunt the development of Seth Rollins? Without the stooges and The Authority backing him, will he still look like a top heel? Aside from what the stable means for other workers, how about Triple H and Stephanie themselves? They have worth in the roles they play. Triple H can deliver on the mic. He has lost a lot the few times he has wrestled in the last year. He put over other guys. Some people say the character Stephanie McMahon plays right now is her best work ever. And she's still hot. Male fans can be interested in her. You can pick a new GM and most of your available choices probably will not deliver as well as Stephanie and Triple H can.

Looking at both sides, I personally think the group should stay in power. Despite how overbearing it can get at times, the stable still helps a lot of workers and makes for some great promos and segments. Is the WWE likely to keep them together? They just lost Randy Orton. You can say that is the beginning of the end for the group. You can also say that paves the way for someone on Team Cena to screw the faces and help The Authority, joining the group officially. I think the latter option is likely to happen. A new member will be a great way to refresh the stable.

Austin Vs. McMahon & Bryan/Punk Vs. The Authority

Wrestlers feuding against authority figures is nothing new. One of the biggest feuds of this type was "Stone Cold" Steve Austin feuding against Vince McMahon during the Attitude Era. In recent times, you have Daniel Bryan and CM Punk feuding with The Authority. Needless to say, what you have going on right now does not have the same feel to it as what you had over a decade ago. Why not compare the two situations?

When Austin feuded against Vince McMahon, the first thing you have to realize is that Austin was the centerpiece. They didn't just toy with the idea of whether he was or wasn't or should be or shouldn't be. He got very over, they gave him the title, and they ran with him. A lot has been said about that feud between Austin and McMahon. It was the common worker standing up to his boss and getting the better of him. Austin frequently got the better of Vince McMahon, and his family. There was even that segment where Austin laid out the whole family. It was fun and the fans enjoyed it.

What you have had recently is CM Punk and Daniel Bryan having issues with authority figures, and all of it does not seem to be just a pure storyline. While Austin became the top star of the company during his time, neither CM Punk nor Daniel Bryan have been pushed as the centerpiece. That has still been mostly John Cena. Both of these guys have gotten very over, have had some title reigns here and there, but the WWE has not been running with either one well enough to please the fans, especially in the case of Daniel Bryan. And are these two really owning the authority figures as much as Austin did Vince McMahon. Not really. Go back to when John Cena was the one that ended John Laurinaitis as GM. That should have been CM Punk's storyline. He fit better in that based on the big angle he had the summer prior to that. And what about The Authority? I am not going to say they are untouchable, but they are when compared to how much abuse Vince McMahon took back in the day. You have fans going crazy for Daniel Bryan and CM Punk, while John Cena, the centerpiece for all these years, and Randy Orton, the storyline "face" of the company, are not connecting with the fans like that. And while the fans are so hot over what is happening, it is not because they are so entertained. They are pissed off.

Let me just focus on Daniel Bryan for a moment. He has gotten extremely over. The WWE's mistreatment of him is what has really agitated these fans. If they had just given Daniel Bryan a legitimate run with the WWE title for 2 or 3 months at the end of last year, I don't think the fans would be so upset. Yes, a lot of these fans seem crazy and demanding, but if the WWE had not toyed with them as they have, I don't think they would be like this. The fans want to see Daniel Bryan succeed, the WWE screws him out of title reigns, they run this storyline where they say he is not good enough, they have him lose the feud to Randy Orton, send him down to a feud against The Wyatts, then have him lose even that feud, and how much are the fans supposed to put up with? Not only is the WWE not treating Daniel Bryan properly, they are pretty much telling those fans crazy for him that what they want doesn't matter. And this isn't a storyline about authority figures screwing someone over. This is the company actually mistreating an over worker. They can blend it into the storyline to make it seem more trivial, but they are playing with fire.

Back when Austin was the top guy, my favorite wrestlers were actually Kane and Mankind. Kane won the World title and held it for a day. Mankind also had a 1-day reign, as well as some other short reigns before he retired from the WWE. Did I get upset over this? No. I didn't cry. I didn't rage. It didn't bother me so much. Short title reigns are nothing unheard of. But could you imagine if Austin was struggling to connect properly with the fans and it was Kane or Mick Foley that were doing it? And what if the WWE continued to shove Austin down the fans' throats, while mistreating Kane and Mick Foley? That is pretty much what you have going on recently. The centerpiece is not working out. The fans are crazy about guys that the company wants to be stars, but doesn't want to push better. The company would rather rely on their own favorites. When the company's favorites matches the fans' favorites, things go smoothly. When they don't, you have the current failure of the status quo.