January Raw Viewership & Network Numbers & Other Stuff

My last update before the Super Bowl. I feel like I should do a football metaphor. I can see people heading to the exits already.

Instead, I'll do something else I like doing. I'm going to look at some numbers. For the purposes of what I am doing, January is already over. I am going to look at Raw viewership this month. I think it is interesting. I am going to compare it to January 2014 and January 2013, which was the first January to have weekly 3-hour episodes. I get my numbers from TV by the Numbers.

2013
Week 1 (CF): 4,420,000
Week 2: 4,550,000
Week 3: 4,317,000
Week 4 (RR): 5,020,000
Average: 4,577,000

2014
Week 1 (CF): 4,537,000
Week 2: 4,403,000
Week 3: 4,869,000
Week 4 (RR): 4,719,000
Average: 4,632,000

2015
Week 1: 3,763,000
Week 2 (CF): 3,905,000
Week 3: 4,100,000
Week 4 (RR): 4,420,000
Average: 4,047,000

Hopefully, I did all the math right and didn't botch anything. "CF" represents the Raw that went against the top college football game, whether by the old system or the new playoffs system they are now using. "RR" represents the Raw the night after the Royal Rumble.

You can look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. Let me tell you what stands out to me. 2015 is bad. Yeah, you can bring up the fact that they went against the most-watched show in cable history and still did the kind of numbers you would expect during football season. However, the BCS game in previous years would put up strong numbers and the WWE would do well against it. You can also bring up the weather causing the Raw event to be canceled this week. Instead, they did interviews and gave away the Royal Rumble match and title match from the PPV for free. I was almost going to leave the number out just to be fair. I thought it would be horrible. It ended up being the best for the month, so I still included it.

It is not a very auspicious start to the year. This is where Wrestlemania season starts. It is usually hot, as you can see from viewership averages in previous years. You had Brock Lesnar appearing regularly. Sting made a surprise appearance. The Rock made an appearance. Knowing that these top guys can appear at any time, like how The Rock did on Raw a few months ago, should get fans interested to tune in. Daniel Bryan is back. Cena is around. Roman Reigns, whatever his worth is, is there. I sincerely doubt people are waiting on Randy Orton to come back to tune in.

If the WWE does not turn things around, you can imagine how bad these numbers might get. What can they do? I can't answer that right now. Guys that are supposed to be draws don't seem to be able to keep the audience coming in. They need to change how the full-time talent is utilized, but things are very messy now. These part-timers just cannot do it. If things remain mediocre for Wrestlemania season, the WWE will get murdered in the dry months and football season after that.

While on the subject of viewership, TNA's numbers have grown. Their last episode averaged 517,000 viewers. That is good. That is where I expected them to be for the debut episode on Destination America. The fact that they got there with taped episodes is a good sign. I am not saying they will get back to a million viewers, but they are certainly a top draw for their new network and that might help them in the long run.

Back to the WWE. The WWE Network finally reached a million subscribers this week. They finally reached that benchmark. The announcement was made against this attempted protest to "#CancelWWENetwork" after what happened at the Royal Rumble. It's good they finally got there. Their stock even rose a bit due to it. Just keep in mind, that number was the initial goal back when there was a 6-month commitment. A few things have been changed. The WWE is also giving away another free month in February. Remember when the WWE used to actually make money off of PPVs? Obviously, these kind of things are good ideas, but you just did this in November. Two months later, you promote another one? I would have waited six months. Congratulations on getting to a million, but now you have to try to maintain it and go further. And it would help a little if you could do it while making a profit.

Let me go back to when I was talking about making a kind of spectrum to rank the divas. Let me try to explain why it might be useful. Last year, I talked about grading the performers in various things. Categorize them based on their position on the roster, grade them on their talent, and grade them on how well they are getting over. Imagine doing that for various divas, whether you want to split it up by those currently in the company, those to have held a title, or whatever. By putting it into some kind of diagram, it might make it easier to evaluate these women. Separate the periphery divas from the credible jobbers and separate those women from the centerpieces. When I was talking about this last time, I talked about wrestling ability as the deciding factor to determine where the eye-candy divas to have held titles in the diva division would be placed. You can also do it based on overness. You can do it based solely on whom your favorites are. A lot of ways to do it. The important thing is to just understand that these women are being pushed differently and being utilized differently. Why do I bother putting so much thought into analyzing? Well, someone might find it useful and do something with it.

One last aside I want to make about what I talked about last time. I was talking about what it would mean for Stacy Keibler to have won the Women's Championship. One major point that relates to what is going on now, a title reign does not change your position in the division. Look at the men's division. Look at the saga involving Roman Reigns and Daniel Bryan. Daniel Bryan is a 4-time World Champion in the WWE, in addition to some other solo accolades and the tag titles. Prior to last Sunday, Roman Reigns had never won any solo titles or distinctions. Just looking at that, you might say that Roman Reigns deserves to win the Royal Rumble, get this push, and eventually win the title at Wrestlemania. Daniel Bryan has also gotten his Wrestlemania moment last year. You can say he got two in one night. Roman Reigns has never had that. Thing is, despite those booking accomplishments and moments, Daniel Bryan is still not pushed as an A+ player. You might even get the sense that Roman Reigns, a guy that does not even have all that stuff on his resume, is being groomed to be ahead of him. 

What do those Daniel Bryan fans want? Do they want to settle for him getting a bone tossed to him whenever the WWE feels like it. That is, do they want to settle for a guy they love so much getting some accolades here and there, but never really being pushed as a true top-tier star? Do they want him to live in the shadow of guys that might not be better than him? Or do they want him to actually be treated the way he deserves? Treated. It doesn't matter how many times you have been booked to hold a title, even a World title, it comes down to how you are actually treated. That is what determines what your place in that division is. If you want to work your ass off to earn something, work to earn the treatment of a top star. Don't settle for just holding a title and not really being that guy they want to be a star.

Sometimes when I am on Twitter, I try to tell other Paige fans not to settle. They get excited for the most trivial of things and sometimes make excuses when the WWE isn't booking Paige well. Other times, they are dumbfounded by what the WWE is doing. I like Paige. She has a ton of potential. I also recognize she has been pushed as a credible jobber. It doesn't matter what the WWE booked her to be last year and what PWI has to say. She should be treated better. She should be given a legitimate opportunity and if she capitalizes to get very over, she deserves the better push. You do not see Daniel Bryan fans settling for Bryan just getting a moment here and there and getting a title reign occasionally, while someone not better than him gets the better career. Why should Paige settle for even worse? And why should her fans settle?

How about Mickie James? She was in the same position as Daniel Bryan. She got over with the fans and the WWE continued to treat her the same way they would have had she never gotten over at all. Fans obviously did not know what they were seeing. They never even considered whether she was winning the title because the WWE was actually developing her to be a star in that diva division or to put over the star and be used as a backup when the star was not there. Even I settled when she would win the title in 2008 and after. I knew they weren't actually pushing her like Trish or Lita. I didn't do a very good job realizing what was coming.

I once saw someone justify that the WWE must have wanted Mickie to be the top face of the diva division simply because she held the title so much. He then even measured how long each title reign was, as if holding the title a little bit longer means they care about you that much more. This guy fails to actually pay attention to what was going on in the diva division when Mickie James was being pushed. A lot of these pushes were obvious filler pushes. He fails to pay attention to the depth in the division at the time. Mickie James was often the only face with wrestling credibility when one needed to be pushed. And he fails to actually pay attention to the manner in which Mickie James was being pushed. Centerpiece push? Filler push? Jobber push? If simply counting title reigns and moments is not enough when talking about how the WWE is treating Daniel Bryan, why are people only looking at those things when understanding whether or not the WWE actually wanted Mickie James as a top star? Actually analyze how she is being pushed. You will find that she deserves to be in the same discussion as Daniel Bryan and other men that got over that the WWE never intended to get that over.

Stacy Keibler: What Might Have Been?

I recently came across people saying that Stacy Keibler was originally booked to win the Women's Championship in the middle of the golden age and turned it down. I searched around to see whether that was something said by a particular figure in wrestling in an interview or dirtsheet lore that is now considered absolute fact without proper confirmation. Didn't find anything aside from more people mentioning it without referencing a source. I wasn't a consistent member if the Internet Wrestling Community (IWC) back then.

If someone was to bring up the WWE strongly intending to follow through with giving Chyna the WWF Championship in 1999, I would believe that. It fits with what was going on back then and fits with how they were pushing Chyna even before that situation. During the golden age, no eye-candy divas won the title except for Trish. Even after Trish left, the only eye-candy divas to win it for years were women being pushed as centerpiece, as Trish was. Booking Stacy Keibler to win the title back then just seems out of place. Of course, she was very popular. You can debate whether she or Torrie Wilson was the most over eye-candy diva during the golden age to not be pushed as centerpiece. But would the WWE really book an eye-candy diva with limited wrestling ability to win the title during the golden age just because of overness? The first eye-candy diva to win a title without being pushed as centerpiece since 2001 was Eve Torres in 2010, and that wasn't because she was over. That kind of push was a filler push. Alicia Fox got a title run. Eve got another run where she was not being featured as centerpiece. Before you knew it, the WWE had become comfortable giving those kind of divas title reigns, even if they were not being pushed like Trish. Regardless, all those women had more wrestling credibility than Stacy Keibler back then, even though they did not have her overness.

Let's say the WWE was legitimately serious about putting the title on Stacy Keibler. She is one of my favorites, but she never needed the title. I like that she would turn it down out of respect to other women more deserving, if the story is true. It's like what I sometimes say about AJ Lee. She does not need the title. She might even do better if they started pushing her in the periphery again. Stacy Keibler never needed a title reign to be over. She could get a great career without it.

What could have been the WWE's intentions for legitimately wanting to put the title on Stacy Keibler? I do not think they were trying to further "divafy" the golden age. That is, I don't think they were trying to make it more about eye-candy divas. Of course, you did still have Playboy pushes, the start of the Diva Search, and other "diva" things going on during the golden age. What you didn't have, as I mentioned before, was a variety of eye-candy divas winning the title. Just Trish Stratus. If the WWE's goal was truly to start integrating those eye-candy divas more into the title scene, Stacy Keibler declining a title reign would not have stopped them. They certainly wouldn't have waited until 2010 to start putting titles on eye-candy divas beyond the ones pushed as centerpiece. If the story is true, I think it would have been a booking decision just to reward Stacy's popularity. It was not like the WWE was having any issues getting Trish to work out as centerpiece.

Let's say they did get the title on her. A title reign does not determine what type of career or push a diva is getting. How they are actually being treated is what determines the type of career and push. How would they have likely handled Stacy Keibler? They were not going to give up on Trish Stratus as centerpiece. Stacy Keibler does not have the wrestling credibility to be a credible jobber. I think it would just be the kind of eye-candy filler push you get during the first dark age, but a little more respectable. I have a tough time believing they would do that. Stacy would continue to do what she was doing at that time, just holding a title for a short while. While researching to find the source of this topic, I came across some fans discussing it. Some said that the reason Stacy declined was probably because she didn't want to risk injury in the ring. What they are overlooking is that putting the title on Stacy did not mean she would be forced to wrestle a certain style or even wrestle more often. During the first dark age, you saw a few women holding the Women's Championship and not do anything major with it in terms of wrestling for the bulk of their reigns. Stacy Keibler was wrestling some matches here and there even before this time they supposedly wanted to give her the title. If she was that afraid of injury, she would not have even done that. If she was fine with that light work rate, she could continue that during a title reign. Besides, Trish vs. Lita still would have dominated the diva scene around then. And there were credible jobbers to help carry Stacy.

Would this have changed the golden age? What determines the era the diva division is in isn't simply what the WWE is doing or trying to do. If it was that easy, you might say the golden age lasted even after Trish and Lita left. I would not say that. Things still remained efficient for years and the WWE was doing the same practices they did in the golden age. Difference is, it was not bringing the same results. And as things did not work out, you could see the WWE slowly making mistakes and heading towards this dark age. The WWE diva division didn't just go from a golden age to dark age overnight. I like to call that era in between the era of failed centerpieces. In addition to looking at what the WWE is doing, you have to look at how it is working out. The golden age is looked at fondly for how respectable it was in terms of women's wrestling. There were issues, but they seem to get buried under people talking about how great Trish and Lita were and how the WWE treated women's wrestling. Giving Stacy Keibler a title run would be something out of a dark age. Would it have completely ruined the respectability? Probably not. Would fans have complained about it like you have seen just earlier this week? You didn't have Twitter back then and fans were not as rebellious. I do not think this one booking decision would have ruined the quality of the golden age. Stacy Keibler winning the title might not have helped women's wrestling, but it might have been a nice gesture and some of her fans may have liked it. And if she was flopping horribly in the ring, they could just take the title off her.

There is also the idea of Torrie Wilson being originally slated to be the first Diva's Champion. That is something I can buy as true. Smackdown did not have a centerpiece back then. If she had gotten the title, she also would have been pushed as centerpiece. Michelle McCool ended up getting that push. She never got over, despite becoming very solid in the ring. Would Torrie Wilson have been a better Smackdown centerpiece than McCool? I think so. She already had a good connection with the fans and was doing well in the ring. Injuries screwed her over. She was already the top star on Smackdown for years. She was the face there. The only thing keeping her from being centerpiece is that she was not getting a title and was not being booked like Trish was, with credible jobbers rotating around her. You want to talk about what might have been? If Torrie Wilson had remained healthy, she might have been pushed as a centerpiece, worked out, and that might have slowed the demise of the diva division. Just another example of injuries hurting divas in line for those A+ careers.

Let me create a spectrum. Since the diva division started in 1998, many eye-candy divas have won a title, whether it be the Women's Championship or Diva's Championship. Not all of them were pushed as centerpiece. Not all of them were great in the ring. Let me create a spectrum for these divas based on how they were utilized and how well they improved in the ring. On one side, you have Trish Stratus, the greatest centerpiece the diva division ever had. She certainly became great in the ring. It is probably debatable whether Michelle McCool became more solid than her. McCool is probably the second best centerpiece, just in terms of wrestling ability, not overness. On the other side, you have Debra. She was an eye-candy diva that was just a manager and held the title for a few weeks in the first dark age. She was not a wrestler at all. The Kat isn't too far away from her. In the middle, you have those eye-candy divas that became solid, but were pushed as credible jobbers. Layla fits there.

If Stacy Keibler had won the title, where would she fit in that spectrum? She obviously would not have been pushed as centerpiece and did not have the credibility to be pushed like that, but she was not as horrible as Debra or The Kat. She would still be on the "periphery diva" side of the spectrum, but would be a little bit closer towards those eye-candy divas that knew how to wrestle somewhat.

How about Torrie Wilson? If she had won the Diva's Championship, she would be on the "centerpiece" side of the spectrum. Would she lean towards the side of those centerpieces that were good in the ring? Or those that were just jokes or flopped? Hard to say. This is just speculation because her injuries ruined her. Just going by how she performed on Smackdown as the top star there, if she had continued to improve from there, I think she would lean towards the centerpieces with the more respectable wrestling ability.

Where in the world would The Bellas fall? I am talking about during Nikki's current title reign. The two have each held the Diva's Championship once prior to their current push. They had wrestling credibility, but were not pushed as centerpiece or as proper periphery divas. Back then, I would put them in the "credible jobber" area, leaning towards the side of eye-candy divas that were not great wrestlers. Now, they have improved. I do not see them getting booked as true centerpieces, yet. I would put them on the periphery side, leaning towards being good in-ring workers.

Most fans might just rank the divas. Who are the best models-turned-wrestlers to win a title in the WWE diva division? Or something like that. Trish Stratus and certain other women would obviously dominate that list, while certain other women get dumped on. I don't think that is entirely fair. Some women were just not pushed like Trish Stratus and might not have even had the wrestling credibility to get that push. The WWE just happened to book them to win a title anyway. It might be hard to visualize that spectrum. I probably should have drawn it out or diagrammed it somehow. I just hope you can picture it. If nothing else, it's a more elaborate way to rank them.

Cena Vs. Rusev

Because of weather issues, there was no regular episode of Raw this week. I could talk about the interviews Roman Reigns and Daniel Bryan gave, but I have already spoken about that situation a few days in a row. Let me talk about a different feud going on.

John Cena is starting his feud with Rusev. This was a likely feud for a while. Even before rumors and reports, it was a feud you could have just anticipated. Rusev was being kept strong. His undefeated streak stands. The WWE just loves creating situations like this to put over Cena. If this feud only lasts up to Fast Lane, that is one thing. If this spills over into Wrestlemania, which is a possibility, that is another issue. For the sake of discussion, let's say this is a feud that lasts a few months.

This would be the second year in a row that John Cena has feuded with an upper-midcarder for Wrestlemania. He feuded with Bray Wyatt last year. And it was very similar to what you have now. Bray Wyatt attacked Cena at the Royal Rumble last year. Issues going on at the time led to them killing the development of the feud for a few weeks. Cena and Rusev had a confrontation this past Sunday. Much like Rusev, Bray Wyatt was also protected and made to look strong heading into that feud with Cena.

Comparing Rusev now to Bray Wyatt then, I personally think this is a step down for Cena. Bray Wyatt did not have any title credibility then. And I will admit that Bray Wyatt is not as great in the ring as Rusev. But Bray Wyatt had his stable and a gimmick that made him look like some kind of demented threat. Rusev has a midcard title and a manager. His gimmick is really one of a foreign heel people are supposed to hate. He got a positive reaction from fans on Sunday, but that is really because of what was going on in that match. Aside from that, I just don't think he has been properly protected. He has had a few losses, although not by pinfall or submission. And he doesn't really look unbreakable. Bray Wyatt was not 100% undefeated back then, either, but he just seemed like he was better built. Rusev has looked very beatable against some guys. The WWE can try to spin it however they want, but this is not the biggest threat in Cena's career. He has overcome worse.

What about the United States Championship and Rusev's feud with Ryback? Cena will obviously not need a midcard title. Ryback winning it would be nice. But should that happen during or after Cena's feud with Rusev? You can have Cena help Ryback win the title. Problem is, that's the end of Rusev's undefeated streak. That is something they would want to give to Cena. Of course, they could have Rusev drop the title in some multi-challenger match and not get pinned. The problem with having Rusev hold the title until after he is done with Cena is that you could have some other guy holding it and defending it during that time and it could leave Ryback with nothing to do for a few months if he's left waiting for that feud to end. The midcard is not good these days. He could feud against Barrett. Either way, it would have been nice to bring proper closure to the feud between Ryback and Rusev before starting to tease Cena vs. Rusev.

John Cena is the top guy. It is Wrestlemania season. Does he deserve better than this? I have already said that I felt Rusev is a step down from last year's opponent, Bray Wyatt. Any other time of the year, it would be a great idea to have this kind of feud. If they wanted to have Cena be the guy to beat Rusev, I would have done it last month. But this as Cena's Wrestlemania feud? What else is there? They can try forcing him into the WWE title feud, but he is not the answer to that situation. The only feud I think he can fit in would be Triple H vs. Sting. It has been over a year since Sting's last match in TNA. He will be 56 by the time Wrestlemania gets here. Maybe for the sake of match quality, you would want to turn it into a tag match. Ease Sting into the action. John Cena and Sting vs. Triple H and his partner. Who? Ric Flair? Probably not. Shawn Michaels? That would be epic. How about Hulk Hogan? He has said he wants to wrestle one more match. A tag match would be safe. Just pair Triple H with a legend to go with Cena's legend. That is something worthy of a Wrestlemania for John Cena. And it still keeps him out of the title picture for the big event. And there is an obvious story there. Cena has had issues with The Authority in recent months. I think it would be better than Cena feuding with a guy that is not at Cena's level. Save that for any other PPV.

Royal Rumble 2015 Aftermath

Brock Lesnar retained the WWE Championship. Roman Reigns won the Royal Rumble. Put those two things together, you have your Wrestlemania main event, as of now.

Of course, there is a lot more to the story than that. Daniel Bryan was eliminated early in the Royal Rumble. Fans did not like that. Roman Reigns was treated like a bad guy. The Rock made a special appearance to help Roman Reigns and give him a little rub. Even that could not appease the fans.

To start with, the WWE made a terrible mistake by eliminating Daniel Bryan as early as they did. That just soured the fans for the rest of the match. If you are not going to have Daniel Bryan win for whatever reason, that's one thing. To eliminate him so early and not even let him be part of the final four is something else.

Roman Reigns, a man that supposedly had more fan support just one month ago than Daniel Bryan to win the "Superstar of the Year" Slammy, did not get a very good reaction last night. He is looking like the new Batista. Time will tell whether or not they turn him heel. The crowd was obviously killer last night and smark-minded. Other crowds are less likely to be like that, but things are still not looking good for Roman Reigns.

The Rock returned to help Roman Reigns. The Rock! And he still got booed. That goes back to what I was talking about with rubs. When certain wrestlers get over, some fans like to look back and see who gave them a rub. It doesn't always work like that. Some wrestlers get over because they simply went out there and did a great enough job being something the fans enjoyed seeing. There are few wrestlers alive more over than The Rock. And even he could not save Roman Reigns last night. That moment, that rub, could have helped Roman Reigns to elevate a bit to The Rock's level or at least nullify some of that negative reaction. In theory, that is how it is supposed to work. In reality, good luck with that.

As it stands, it is Roman Reigns vs. Brock Lesnar. Lesnar will likely hold the title into Wrestlemania. Will Reigns hold onto his title shot? Will Daniel Bryan be added, again? I do not think the WWE can do the same thing they did last year. And Roman Reigns really is not deserving of this big push. Maybe next year, but not now. The WWE has really worked themselves into a hole. Luckily, they can just lean on other matches on the card. Triple H vs. Sting should be a good feud. Cena will likely be left out of the title scene. Tossing him into Reigns vs. Lesnar will not make fans happy.

Let me go back a decade. Remember this gem?

Talk about forcing something? That was back when they were starting to really push Batista hard. They were turning him face, in addition to building up his credibility. He would win the Royal Rumble, win the title, and mow over Triple H a few times. He did get over. He does have the credibility. Back then, many fans would say this Batista push was a success. Go back to last year. What went wrong? Batista was a product of the WWE. He did not have a natural connection with the fans when he was first being pushed hard a decade ago. When he returned last year, there was another guy on the roster that was a lot hotter than him and had a natural connection with the fans. That would be Daniel Bryan. And he is still hot.

Roman Reigns is following in the path of Batista. They are forcing him. And he might not even get that period of success connecting with the fans during this big push that Batista got back then. I have seen some fans point out that Roman Reigns actually got a good reaction at the Royal Rumble last year. Yeah, it was either him or Batista. But as the WWE has continued to force him, while mistreating certain others, his connection with the fans will be hurt. Just like the WWE ultimately deserves blame for the issues with John Cena, I blame them for the 2015 Royal Rumble fiasco, not Roman Reigns.

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.

Previewing The Royal Rumble 2015 WWE Championship Match

A few months ago, it seemed the title match you would be getting this month would be between just John Cena and Brock Lesnar. It was a good idea to add a third performer into this match. As for the decision to make it Seth Rollins, I already talked about that. I will not complain about that.

As far as feud development goes, there was a point where it seemed the two heels would be on the same side. That would make the story of the match kind of obvious. They start out working together to beat down Cena. One little slip up somewhere or greed on the part of Seth Rollins leads to the alliance falling apart and everyone fighting each other. The WWE could have gone in that direction. I am glad they didn't. Seth Rollins and Brock Lesnar are not buddies. Seth Rollins, despite having the briefcase, wants to win the title this Sunday. Should be a good match.

Who wins? It should not be Seth Rollins. He is being groomed to be a star and just being in this kind of match is huge. He has the briefcase. He can cash in later on. And he does not need to cash in right after the match at the Royal Rumble. That leaves Brock Lesnar and John Cena. Brock Lesnar should retain. After everything they did with him last year, Lesnar finally losing the title is a Wrestlemania moment. I have heard some rumors about Lesnar not staying after the Royal Rumble. Regardless of that situation, I am expecting Brock to retain.

A lot of fans have said that Seth Rollins was only put in this match to take the fall so Cena can regain the title without actually pinning Brock. Let me talk about that possible match outcome. The possibility of Lesnar losing the title in that kind of situation did cross my mind months ago. Now that it is a reality that it could happen, I do not think it should. I think it is a cheap way out. After everything they did for this guy last year, how can you not use him to put anyone over before he leaves? They invested a ton into him. It was good to cause some buzz when he beat The Undertaker and crushed Cena for the title. But nothing lasting. Using him to help really put over someone else would make all those big wins mean more. If you do not get all you can out of Brock Lesnar, you should start to wonder if doing all that for him was worth it. There is no changing the past, although that does seem to happen in pro wrestling at times. Anyway, Lesnar does not need protecting. It's not like he's a full-timer, anyway.

What Do You Do With The Eight?

A few days ago, I talked about how cutting down on the number of divas featured on the main shows could help the division. With the way the WWE utilizes their divas, you might think they have cut down. Regardless, they are still not efficient. Even if you do cut down to the 8 divas I recommended, what do you do next? How do you utilize them?

You are obviously not in a position to run a great women's wrestling division with the women I would feature. That is not the point. The point is to utilize these women efficiently, entertain the fans, and regain some momentum to eventually get back to a diva division that also features respectable women's wrestling. That is why I selected a range of divas. You have twins, a pair of female wrestlers with "anti-diva" gimmicks, two eye-candy divas that have no great wrestling credibility, and two eye-candy divas that do have wrestling credibility. I think that is a great mix.

Go back to the first dark age. It was obviously not as respectable as the golden age that came after, but stars were made in this era and it was entertaining. One of the reasons it worked out is because you had a lot of periphery angles. You had a lot of mixed-tag matches. Start doing that again.  You have seen some of it, but you can do more. You will not see much in terms of male-on-female violence, which I would say helped a lot of women gain respect points back in the day, but you do not need it if these women are getting good rubs and actually getting involved in storylines in the men's division more. You have seen some of that over the years with AJ Lee and The Bellas. It might be time to return there more often. The hottest thing a few years ago in the diva division was what they were doing with AJ Lee in the periphery. The actual title matters were an afterthought at times. When The Bellas started to get their big push involving Stephanie McMahon last year, it was AJ Lee getting the shorter end of the stick while in the title scene.

What do you do with the actual title scene? Don't try to force it. If you downsize the diva division the way I am saying, you are obviously not going to have enough credible wrestlers to run a great women's division. Even now, do you have that? Whether you do or you don't, the will is not there. The WWE does not have the drive to be efficient. During the first dark age, you had eye-candy periphery divas with worse wrestling credibility than The Bellas holding the Women's Championship. Right now, the Diva's Championship cannot be the crown jewel of a great women's wrestling division. How about you use it more for storyline purposes and less as a "reward" for being a great wrestler or trying to make stars? That might involve putting the title on someone like Eva Marie, or even Lana. I can hear the complaints already. You have to feature these women.

They should do a lot more with Paige. During the first dark age, you had Chyna and Lita being featured very well without even looking at the months they held the Women's Championship. During this dark age, only AJ Lee has been pushed at that level. And she hasn't had that in a while. Paige has never been pushed like that. Give her some of those main-event storylines. It will really help her to get over.

How about Layla and Naomi? The Bellas, AJ Lee, and Paige are the divas I would treat as the top stars. Lana and Eva Marie are primarily eye-candy divas. Layla and Naomi are hybrid divas. You can treat them as eye-candy periphery divas, but they also have the wrestling credibility to be pushed in the ring. And I would let them do a little bit of both. Give them some angles alongside midcarders. They don't need the main-event rubs. They can also be pushed as credible jobbers.

Even if you are doing more in the periphery and not even trying to give that half-hearted attempt to maintain the wrestling aspect of the division, you might not be able to go far with only 6 divas with actual wrestling credibility. Luckily, you have NXT. You can pull women from there when needed for jobber duties. How about to be extra bodies in 12-diva tag matches? No. No more of those right now. Some women that I have not included in my 8 divas I would keep on the main roster would end up on NXT. No need to release them all. Women like Natalya and Alicia Fox would go there. It might sound insulting, but these women are pretty much credible jobbers already and are not going anywhere. If they are content with their current usage, they should be content with doing more to help the women on NXT and doing their part to help the main diva division be efficient again. How do these divas and women currently on NXT become priorities on the main roster? By either making the most of their opportunities when they are utilized on the main roster or really being amazing on NXT. Besides that, when the diva division does regain momentum and is ready to grow again, you will definitely need these women.

Will this work to get some momentum back into the division and help some women to get over? It wouldn't hurt. You are basically trying to do what you did during the first dark age. You are cutting down the main roster divas to women you are going to commit to featuring on a regular basis. You are going to feature them primarily with periphery angles. Right now, the title is not a priority. Work to entertain and get these women over. Once you have that momentum, keep it going. You will have women's matches. As you regain momentum in terms of making stars and featuring them properly, you can separate those that are good wrestlers from the eye-candy divas. You will obviously need women with wrestling credibility to put over your stars with wrestling credibility, so bring those women out from NXT. If everything works out, you have another golden age. They should try something different. After how hard they pushed AJ Lee, it is amazing to see them start pushing her mediocrely in comparison to back then. And the same is even true for The Bellas now. A lot of these title feuds are just boring. And it gets even worse when you don't give these women a lot of time and the storylines and feuds you develop are bad. Just stop trying to force it and focus on entertaining and making stars and featuring them for now. Be efficient. It will help you to be productive.

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.

Cutting Down To Eight

Recently, I talked about how TNA is able to run an efficient women's division with even less women than the WWE has. Downsizing might help the WWE diva division right now. If the WWE could only keep 8 women on the main roster, whom should they pick? Before getting to that list, have to cover a few things.

First, why a pic of Shakira? Because I felt like it.

On to the stuff that matters, why eight? Because I felt TNA was capable of remaining efficient with just that number. Even if Awesome Kong had not returned, they could still be respectable and utilize the women they have like they usually do. If TNA can do it with a low number, how about the WWE try it?

Aside from going small like TNA, this is not about turning the diva division into the KO division. I am still keeping the same philosophy and system the WWE likes to run. It has major issues, but if you try to change too much at one time, it might be a bit of a culture shock for some people. First, get the diva division efficient again. After that, you can go back to getting female wrestlers legitimate opportunities. From there, you should be getting respectable women's wrestling again and never have to experience another dark age like this.

Another thing to keep in mind, I am not including women like Lilian Garcia. I am only including women that are regularly involved in angles or serve some purpose in the actual diva division. Stephanie McMahon will also be left off the list. Just take it for granted that she is going to be around. This will be 8 actual divas that I think should remain in the division.

It is obvious that some women are only relevant because of Total Divas. For the purposes of what I am doing here, forget Total Divas is going on. This is about keeping women that you can use efficiently to help the diva division regain momentum. Total Divas is an extracurricular activity that has not had too much of a positive impact on how the divas in the actual diva division are being handled. It might make it easier to create certain feuds and angles, but the WWE has not been handling it in a great manner to really entertain and create stars.

Downsizing is not necessarily a bad thing. It is not a sign of weakness. You can talk about the financial benefits of downsizing, but this is about being efficient. Smaller class sizes are usually praised. With less students in a classroom, the teacher can give each student more individual attention and help them better. That is the same idea with downsizing the diva division. You have too many divas on the main roster. A lot of them are irrelevant. Even many that are being pushed are being pushed inefficiently.

All that out of the way, let me talk about the 8 divas I would keep.

The first two happen to be twins. The Bella Twins have been in that diva division for a long time. They have improved in their wrestling ability over the years. Being twins makes for some interesting storylines and angles the company could do with them. They have also been pushed hard recently. I am not going to say they have amazing overness, but they certainly had to have grown on some fans over the years.

Paige is still very young and has a lot of potential. Of the female wrestlers on the roster right now, I would say she is the best. She has a unique look and could be a unique diva, if the WWE allows her to be. And she also has a good connection with wrestling fans right now. Her presence might hold down their complaining about the diva division for a bit.

After everything the WWE has invested into AJ Lee, you cannot just cut her loose. Forget the CM Punk drama. If she wants to be there and they want her, she should be there. I think Paige makes a better "anti-diva" diva, and how many of those do you really need at one time? And I also think Paige is better in the ring. Regardless, having two female wrestlers like that won't hurt too much.

Lana doesn't even wrestle. It doesn't matter. As I said, I'm not changing the diva division into a KO division right now. I am just trying to run this type of women's division efficiently again. And women like Lana help. She is an eye-candy periphery diva. She is exactly what an eye-candy periphery diva is supposed to be. She is hot and has an interesting character. When the sun does eventually set on Rusev, the WWE should continue to utilize Lana.

The most useless diva on the roster? Am I serious? Eva Marie is the same type of diva as Lana. She is an eye-candy periphery diva. She does not have the wrestling ability to be anything else. Eva Marie can be useful if utilized right. Besides, if you are going to keep around two "anti-diva" female wrestlers, why not keep around two eye-candy periphery divas? Eva Marie has a different look from the typical blonde and she is definitely sexy.

Let me get to some eye-candy divas that have become good in the ring and have gotten the kind of pushes you would expect of credible jobbers. Those are the true hybrid divas. Layla is one of the best in that category. She has become good in the ring, is beautiful, and has charisma. It is a shame she is not more over than she is. She would be a great choice to develop as centerpiece, although not likely. Even though she is 37 and will likely be out of the WWE soon, she is still one of the divas currently on the roster I would want to keep around.

Naomi has become an entertaining in-ring performer. She has great agility that can make her matches fun to watch. And like some of the women I have mentioned, she happens to be in a relationship with a superstar on the roster. That can make for some interesting storylines. You are seeing some of that now. The WWE could do better.

Barrett & Rusev

The WWE midcard continues to have issues. I am just going to focus on the two midcard heels currently holding the midcard titles.

Wade Barrett regained the Intercontinental Championship from Dolph Ziggler. They did not follow through with a face turn for him. That exchange he had with Cesaro was probably either meant to take a shot at CM Punk or just humiliate Cesaro. There were other ways they could have brought him back, especially if they intended to keep him heel. Or is this just very bad inconsistency? They could have had him return to confront Ziggler in some manner. Barrett did deserve a title shot since he never lost the Intercontinental Championship. Just not good development.

The man you would expect him to be feuding with, Dolph Ziggler, is currently fired as part of a storyline. What is left for Barrett? A minor feud with Sin Cara? And it is very minor. It feels like Wade Barrett has already lost the momentum he had when he returned. When he returned the way he did, that got a lot of fans interested in him. Is he really turning face? He also had some freshness on his side. Even keeping him heel and giving him back the title was not necessarily horrible. The problem has been everything since then. It seems like he is back in the same position he was in last year prior to his injury. Sin Cara is not a guy that can elevate him. That is just filler.

Rusev is still holding the United States Championship. Much like Barrett, the guy Rusev is supposed to be feuding against is not around. That would be Ryback. It was only a matter of time before Rusev ran out of worthy opponents to go against the kind of gimmick he has. I think they have reached that point. Is John Cena the last guy left? Another thing, the WWE was doing a good job of taking Rusev up that ladder. He started off beating clear jobbers, then Big E, then Jack Swagger, then Mark Henry, and then Big Show. He beat Sheamus for the US title. He was a part of Team Authority at Survivor Series. But after all that, where do you really go with him? His feud with Ryback seems like a step back down from some of the guys he was feuding against. The climb up the ladder was good, but it seems the WWE's desire to prolong his push like this might hurt his momentum.

There is also the fact that he is undefeated in terms of never being pinned or tapping out. He has gotten some cheap finishes here and there. And he isn't exactly completely dominant. There have been a few nights where he has been made to look human. To put it simply, I do not think he has been developed to be the dominant threat that he should be. If this guy is really supposed to feud with John Cena, does he have the credibility? Or is he really just an overrated midcard act?

Go back to when I was talking about TNA's Havok recently. They built her up to be dominant. It wasn't just about winning matches. They had her destroy other KOs. The only issue was her not being around long and TNA not having enough time to monitor if she was connecting well with fans prior to making decisions on her. On the other side, you have TNA's Crimson. His main claim to fame is an undefeated streak that most fans would agree was lame. He really wasn't that dominant and never really got over.

If they are developing Rusev to be a top star or put over a top star, his dominance should be leaning towards how TNA has handled Havok. Instead, it is starting to lean towards Crimson. They were doing a better job for a few months, but right now, Rusev needs better focus. Feud development is hurt with Ryback involved in a bigger angle. His gimmick isn't leading to anything fresh. His dominance is questionable. And I don't think that undefeated streak is enough to carry him.