Handing Out Gold Stars

Imagine a teacher. This teacher has mastered everything there is to know in the subjects she will be teaching. She has mastered every teaching technique that she has come across. She has innovated several ways to educate students while she was studying to become a teacher. She is professional. She is nice. When she applies for a job at a school, she says and does all the right things. She impresses the other teachers and the administrators. Not surprisingly, she gets the job.

Problem is, when it comes down to actually teaching the kids, it ends up not working out. She utilizes all these impressive, innovative ways to try to connect with them and get them to understand the material, but they just aren't getting her. They cannot adapt to what she is doing. She, sadly, cannot adapt to get through to them. Is it hard to imagine that another teacher with simpler means can get through to the students and teach them better?

Let me give you another example. Remember that time SpongeBob broke his trusty spatula and bought a new one? The new one had all these fancy qualities. It cost SpongeBob everything. It was an elite spatula, if such a thing could exist. It even had a French accent. But things did not work out. The fancy spatula refused to work for SpongeBob and left him. In the end, it was SpongeBob's old spatula that came back to him.

In both of these situations, you have someone or something that presumably had all the skill and potential in the world to get the job done, but could not. And it is not even a situation where the playing field was rigged against them in either case. The "perfect" teacher could not adapt herself to the needs of the students she had to teach. The "perfect" spatula just refused to do his job for SpongeBob.

Why do I bring this up? Because I sometimes see a lot of fans praising this wrestler or that wrestler simply for their talent and potential. You can be a fan of any person for any reason you want. But when it comes to talking about the greats in a given field, you have to actually look at whether or not they are getting the job done. How many times has there been a sports star coming from the college ranks or from a trade from another team with a ton of hype? They usually have that hype surrounding them because they had proven they had tremendous skill playing from wherever they came from. And how many times have you seen them fail to live up to that hype and get the job done? Yes, they sometimes need some time to transition. And certain people just do better in certain systems than others. Moreover, if it is the coaching staff to blame or poor play from those around them, that can hurt the supposed star's potential. You cannot just look at potential without paying attention to whether or not they are delivering and what is going on around them.

To me, praising someone just for potential and talent is like handing them a gold star for not actually delivering. You should get a gold star for utilizing that potential and talent to get the job done. If you give someone too much praise for the talent they have, you might run the risk of overrating them. Yeah, they have all these qualifications to get the job done, but are they getting the job done? If they are not, do they still deserve that high praise? While they are unable to get it done, there just might be someone out there that can get it done. Hand the person with all the potential and not getting it done a silver star, if anything. Save the gold star for that person that can actually get the job done through their own merits.

I just got through saying how much I dislike handing gold stars just for potential. Now, let me be a hypocrite and talk about someone that I would give a gold star to, even though she is not considered a major star. Of all the female wrestlers I have seen that have neither become very over nor gotten a great career to help her to get over, Sarita (Sarah Stock) is my favorite. As a fan, I think she is hot and I liked her character in TNA. As a critic, she obviously has amazing wrestling ability to get through to the wrestling fans, I think she is beautiful enough to connect with some fans that are looking for that, and I think she has a charisma that was worth her getting better storylines than she had in TNA. She obviously has a ton of potential. Pro wrestling, of course, is about using your skill to perform to connect with the audience. Sarita did not become very over. How much of that is TNA's fault? They didn't absolutely bury her during her time in TNA. She had some title reigns with the tag titles. But they could have done more. Of course, TNA's greatest mistake is not properly developing any of their women to be stars and promoting them properly to actually draw for them. They drop the ball with everyone. This is a situation where bad coaches are leading to the mediocrity of a team, not the inability of the players to deliver. Nevertheless, Sarita has not become a major star. I don't care. I would still give her a gold star. Given an opportunity in a major global promotion that would use her right, I think she would deliver. Anyway, I am always mentioning that I don't like this wrestler or that wrestler, so I just decided I would give some praise to a wrestler I do like and don't talk about often.

CM Punk & Daniel Bryan Vs. The Wyatts At Survivor Series

A tag-team match has been made for Survivor Series. No, not one of those large elimination-style matches that you would expect from this PPV. It involves CM Punk and Daniel Bryan teaming up. Their opponents? The United Plumbers Association of Greater Downtown Burbank. That is to say, Rowan and Harper. I wrote their names on the back of my hand so I would remember. No, not really.

If you saw the end of Raw, you would have thought a huge tag match was about to be made. The Shield & The Wyatts would team up to face, Punk, Bryan, The Usos, and The Rhodes. Let me just give my opinion on that possible match. On the one hand, I hate the idea of just tossing The Wyatts together with The Shield. Just like that? And I would rather see The Rhodes feuding with Swagger and Cesaro over the titles. As for The Usos, they have been moving in and out of relevance for a while now, which is better treatment for them than I would have expected from the WWE. They deserve the tag titles down the road, but I just don't like them involved in this, either, despite the fact that they have feuded with The Shield in recent weeks. It just all seemed tossed together. On the other hand, the idea of having 6 guys on each team was interesting.

What do I think about the match that has been announced? Even more disappointing than the other option of the large tag match. This is a major PPV. Daniel Bryan and CM Punk are top faces. Their opponents are not even top heels. This match is barely worthy of being on one of the lesser PPV events. This match should be happening on a Raw or Smackdown. Bray Wyatt, the leader of the group, should be wrestling at PPV events.

There is the possibility that this match gets upgraded back to the 6-on-6 elimination match you would expect, but why handle things the way the did? Raw ended with them teasing the idea of a big tag match at Survivor Series, you instead announce a simple tag match, then switch back to what you already were getting fans to expect? Sloppy. They also got very sloppy last year around Survivor Series. And even if they do run with the larger tag match, it still seems like a mismatch. Punk and Bryan have so much credibility. Rowan and Harper really do not. The Shield have been losing a lot lately. Bray Wyatt is the only one protected as far as not losing goes. The build for this match, whatever it ends up being, has just been sloppy and tossed together. I can't think of an upgrade that could make it better in such a short time until the PPV.

Mickie James Back With The WWE

No official return has been made yet for Mickie James, but she has been brought in by the WWE to help train the NXT divas for a week. Beyond that, Raw next week does have a certain theme that might make an appearance by Mickie James seem possible.

I had my doubts about whether the WWE would bring Mickie James back after she declined staying with TNA. I never doubted she would one day return. I just thought the WWE would want to do it way down the line to just sell the idea that everything is fine between them and Mickie at a time they wouldn't have to push her. The fact is, Mickie James never burned her bridges with the WWE after they released her. If you go by what dirtsheets said, the WWE viewed Mickie James like she was some kind of plague they would never want back. If you go by actually paying attention to what was going on and analyzing Mickie James within the context of the diva division, it is obvious that they did what they did to Mickie James because they did not want her over. If they wanted her over, they would not have continued to push her as a credible jobber, who never become very over in the diva division. Have the WWE become a little bit humbled since then? They definitely failed to get what they wanted even after getting Mickie out of the picture. The division collapsed. Dark age right now. Is this the perfect situation to want to bring Mickie James back?

Regardless of how far they go with Mickie James right now, will anything really change? That is to say, will the status quo finally change? Finally start pushing a women's division that gives female wrestlers better opportunities? Things did not change with Kharma. Things did not change with Sara Del Rey. You want to bring up AJ Lee? She has been pushed as a periphery diva and the WWE is not exactly developing the division around her to get them out of this dark age. Part of me is excited that Mickie James is back, but part of me is worried they will do something stupid. It would really kill me if they get Mickie to stay on as just a trainer. This woman became that over and never got the career she earned, then has to settle for being a trainer? Like that is where all her worth is found? She has her music career. She has versatility. She is still young. Women like Gail Kim and Tara are older than her, and they have still remained relevant in recent years. Regardless of what the WWE has planned for Mickie James, I would hope she ends up wrestling for a major promotion again.

Mickie James possibly returning does not mean I will stop blogging. I still don't see the WWE hiring fresh female wrestlers. I still see them trying to train eye-candy divas. I still see the diva division a mess. When female wrestlers get treated better, I'll stop.

Reading The Playbook

Years ago, I used to watch this sitcom called Coach. It was about a college football coach and his assistant coaches. I didn't watch football back then and didn't really understand the game that well, so I didn't really appreciate the show that much in that regard. Who cares? Jerry Van Dyke was funny. Anyway, in one episode, one of the assistant coaches lost the playbook before a huge game. They treated it like it was the end of the world. Their entire game plan was revealed to the opponent. The episode ended with the head coach forgiving the assistant coach and the two working together to make new plays.

The playbook and play sheet are the plans the coaches devise before a game. Things still come down to the quarterback and other players on the field to make things happen, but it always helps to have a strategy. And there are different plays for different situations. Let me just talk about in terms of the end of the game. If a team is in a situation where they are hanging on to a lead, they will most likely be calling plays to just run out the clock to make sure the other team does not have a shot at getting back the ball and scoring. Running plays are best for that. Passing the ball and no one catching it will lead to the clock stopping. That is how the game works. This is a situation where you would expect them to play conservatively. If you are on the other side of that, if you are the team trying to score with just a few seconds left in the game, your strategy would obviously not be to waste time. This is the situation where you want to pass the ball and get out of bounds, which stops the clock. Passing also gives you a better chance of gaining big yards. Two different situations, two different strategies, but essentially still part of the same playbook.

What does this have to do with the diva division? In my mind, I still don't think people will buy me if I say that this is essentially the same diva division you have always had. It goes back to that discussion of the status quo. The same status quo may not lead to the same exact thing in every situation. Just like the situation in a football game, or just about any sport, will have an impact on what the coach chooses to do, the situation in the diva division is going to determine what the people running the WWE choose to do. The guy that coaches when the team is down by 6 doesn't need to change when the team is up by 6, but his strategy in the two situations is likely to change. Same playbook, just different section you are going to.

You can say that determining what situation the diva division is in is like reading the landscape of the division. What is the WWE trying to do at this certain time? Their strategy when the centerpiece is around is going to be different from when the centerpiece is injured and not going to be there. And all that is different from when you are without anyone at all that you want to push as the centerpiece on the roster. Look at some of the sections you can have in the WWE's playbook for the diva division. Everyone talks about the golden age. You have only had one of those, but it is possible to get there again. You might even try to argue that the diva division was starting to head into one before Sable left. That is a situation where the centerpiece is working out, solid credible jobbers are helping to make the division look solid, and you have other periphery divas to help add more flavor to what is going on. You have had two dark ages, including the one right now. That is when the division just collapses and they go more to angles in the periphery and don't try too hard to feature respectable women's wrestling. You can also consider that a transitionary period, moving from one centerpiece to another. You had a short transitionary period between Trish Stratus leaving and Candice Michelle getting pushed, among other instances. That was neither a golden age nor a dark age. At the same time, I consider that time between Trish and Lita leaving and the collapse of the division around 2011 to be the era of failed centerpieces. The WWE wanted to develop a new centerpiece very badly. No major periphery divas were being built. It is synonymous to a coach wanting his quarterback to just take repeated shots in the end zone for a touchdown. Don't run it. Don't settle for a field goal. Don't settle for short yardage. Touchdown or nothing. If you are near the end of the game and need a touchdown to win, you can understand doing this (Hail Mary). But why would the WWE put themselves in this position? Were they about to go out of business and needed a successful diva centerpiece that badly? No. Their actions were really arrogant. And none of those centerpieces working out led to them losing interest in things and things collapsing. To put it simply, what the WWE wants to accomplish with their diva division at a certain time will determine how exactly they handle things. And how much success they have with it will determine how great the diva division looks, if it looks great at all.

Let me bring up another situation in a football game to talk about another idea. It's a major game. A trip to the Super Bowl is on the line. A team was down by 5 points in the final minute in the game with no timeouts. They just scored a field goal (3 points). What now? Typically, after a score, you kick the ball back to the other team. But why would you do that in this situation? This team is still down by 2 points and another field goal will win it. They have a good chance. They cannot kick the ball back to the other team and pray that a miracle happens for them to still win. There is the onside kick. That is an attempt by the team that just scored to kick the ball in a manner that they recover it and get their own offense back on the field. They know they have to do the onside kick. The other team knows they have to do the onside kick. The commentators know they have to do the onside kick. The fans know they have to do the onside kick. Everyone in the world that knows football knows the onside kick is coming in this situation. If this team wants to win this game, and they obviously would, the onside kick, the play that gives them the best chance to do it, is what they will attempt. Exactly how will they attempt it? Can't be sure about that. Will they be successful? Can't be sure about that. But you can be sure that they are going to try.

Some people might say that you cannot predict the future. Obviously, you cannot predict things to 100%. But there are just certain things you can anticipate happening, especially of certain conditions are there. If that team wants to win that game in the example I just gave, onside kick is coming. If they don't want to win, for whatever reason, they can kick it back to the other team. People can say that you can never know what the WWE will do. The same idea for the diva division. Thing is, if they still want to push the same diva division they always have pushed since 1998, if they want to keep that same playbook, if they want to take that status quo back to that landscape of a golden age, then you know a few things for sure. They want an eye-candy diva as centerpiece. The best a female wrestler can be is a periphery diva. Women with wrestling credibility will be used as credible jobbers. Exactly how will this play out? Whom will they choose to be what? What storylines will they use? Can't be exactly sure. Will they be successful? Can't be exactly sure. Nevertheless, I think the things you can be sure of are important to keep in mind. As long as they want to keep the diva division going, that means they will do certain things you can be sure about.

Are they ready to end the diva division? I still don't think so. Ending the diva division would not be like a football coach not going for the onside kick in that example I gave and choosing to just give up. It would be more like tossing out the playbook and coming up with something that stands a better chance of working out. Go back to the example I gave from Coach. Their playbook getting leaked led to them not going with the same plan and developing something new. They had to if they wanted to succeed. The diva division does not work anymore. It is not because anyone broadcasted the WWE's plans. It just doesn't lead to consistent success.

In the end, you can also say that this all goes back to the to not take things out of context. Whatever page in their playbook the WWE is on, that is going to determine how the women are being treated. I have spoken about this before, so I won't go too much into it. Would Lita or Trish have succeeded today? How about Mickie James? How would AJ Lee have been pushed if she debuted in the era of failed centerpieces? You cannot answer these type of questions without paying attention to the situation or landscape of the diva division at the time. Reading the plays the WWE is making means a lot when analyzing the diva division.

I started with a tangent, so why don't I do one more tangent? When I was young, I wanted to be an ecologist. I liked animals and nature. I was so eager to go in that direction, I turned down going to Brooklyn Tech, which is one of the more prestigious high schools in New York City and not that far from me on the subway, and went to the High School for Environmental Studies, which is less prestigious and a much further subway ride. Much further. Streetlights would sometimes still be on when I woke up to go to school, and then they would be coming on again some days as I was getting home. I transferred somewhere else after two years, although I don't regret my time there. When I eventually went to my 4-year college, which ironically was in the same neighborhood as HSES, my campus didn't offer Biology as a major. They offered Natural Science. I took that. I found myself surrounded my pre-med students. I was getting either a C or a C+ for my major classes in my first two semesters. Those two things combined with the fact that I would have eventually have had to go to the campus all the way in The Bronx to take courses only offered there led to me just tapping out and switching to English. I liked to write. My mother didn't think I could get a job with an English degree, so I had to choose a double major. Social Science seemed practical and I hoped it would leave me with enough free electives for a minor in Latin, something else I had grown fond of. The minor plan didn't work out. And that is the story of how I ended up with a double major in English and Social Science.

What does that have to do with anything? Did I feel like boring you? Am I just in a talkative mood today? Or is this just a convenient way to bring up a little comparison? Ecology and sociology are very similar. Both have to do with studying living things and how they interact with other living things and their surroundings. You can probably list the obvious differences, but let me bring up one. In sociology, you don't just have to sit back and watch people do things or examine numerical data endlessly. You can interview people to get a sense of what is going on. In a lot of ways, talking to people is probably more important than just studying stats. In ecology, you obviously cannot interview what you are studying. Someone might walk up to Katy Perry and ask her what makes her roar. If someone walked up to a lion and asked him that and he opened his mouth up wide, I don't think you should just stand there and wait for his answer.

When I analyze the diva division, I analyze the diva division. I may read what people are saying in interviews and even dirtsheet reports now and then, but what ultimately defines what that diva division is about is how these women are being pushed, not what is being said in interviews. A lot of people go more by what people are saying than what people are doing. They don't even analyze what people are saying, just accept what people are saying. Whether I have a bit of an ecologist left in me or not, I think I would rather analyze things directly than just do interviews or believe in what others are saying.

Big E Langston: Big Face Jobbber To The Stars

One of the bad things about not following through with Team Heyman vs. Team Punk at Survivor Series is that guys that could have benefited from being supporting players in that feud are left with nothing important to do. One of these individuals is Big E Langston. He turned face during this storyline. He looked like he would enter a feud with Curtis Axel over the Intercontinental Championship. That didn't work out.

What has he been doing? Pretty much being used as a jobber to the stars. He wins here and there against guys at his level and under him, but he also got used to put over Randy Orton recently. No storylines or legitimate feuds. That is what it means to be a midcarder these days. It was obvious that this would eventually happen to Big E Langston after his face turn, but having him actually remain involved in the feud between CM Punk and Paul Heyman would have made him look more interesting for a little while longer.

What about the other supporting players in that feud? Some of them are in an even worse position than Big E Langston. Both Kofi Kingston and R-Truth feuded against Curtis Axel in recent months, and both would have been obvious choices to keep in the storyline. Nothing from them now. Ryback is lost in the shuffle just like Big E, while also being used as a jobber to the stars. And then there is Curtis Axel. He still has his title. Many are left wondering why. He is also not doing anything major. In the end, all this was to be expected. Would have been better if they booked Heyman/Punk better.

John Cena: Smackdown's Savior?

In the past few months, with Alberto Del Rio as the World's Heavyweight Champion, you wouldn't see that title featured as prominently on Smackdown as you would expect. John Cena is back. John Cena has won that title. John Cena is now showing up regularly on Smackdown. And there is a change. The person holding the title is actually being featured in the main spotlight again on Smackdown. And why not? John Cena is the centerpiece of the company, currently on a break from the main storyline going on, but obviously not in the doghouse since he has gotten another World title reign.

Aside from Cena's return leading to the WWE treating the World's Heavyweight Championship with more respect, which is something they could have done with Del Rio over the last few months in a better manner, what has this meant for Smackdown's ratings? It is obviously too early to say too much, since only one Smackdown has been aired with Cena as Champion at the time of my writing this. Nevertheless, that first night usually has the most hype around it. So, how did the ratings do? Last week's episode got a 1.9. The previous week's rating was a 1.94. Viewership was at 2.73 million, which was up from the previous week's 2.68 million. Not much of a bump in viewers. The ratings are about equal with what they have been in the last few weeks. Compared to this time last year, ratings are also in the same area. Smackdown has not gotten a 2.0 or better since around Wrestlemania this year. What do I make of all these numbers? Cena's return to Smackdown with the title hasn't seemed to cause a bump in the ratings. Again, it might be too soon to say anything. But I wouldn't expect ratings to bump dramatically in the coming weeks for Smackdown.

Why don't I expect a ratings bump? Even though Cena is back, they really aren't doing anything too interesting with him on Smackdown. There is no intriguing storyline on Smackdown. His feud with Alberto Del Rio is basic. Del Rio wants his title back. Nothing more to it than that. People have pointed out that Del Rio is not very over. Sandow is also not very over. Cena isn't exactly working with great star power since winning the title. And the fact that the storyline is so dry isn't helping. But toss all that aside. This is John Cena, right? The centerpiece of the company, the supposed top draw, is on Smackdown. Why shouldn't he overcome the odds of no big stars to work with and a mediocre storyline to draw big ratings? Blame it on Smackdown being taped? Regardless, wouldn't fans still want to tune in to see Cena entertain? That is what makes a wrestling performer a draw. People want to tune in or come to the shows to see this person perform. So far, fans are not showing any great sign of being entertained with Cena's act enough to watch Smackdown.

Let me just pose two questions. First, is the WWE testing John Cena's ability to draw? People frequently argue that the WWE should push Cena so hard because he is their top draw. What if he really can't draw? What if it is simply the general hype of Raw and the storylines they are pushing hard there that are the draw for Cena? Take all that away and put him on Smackdown. Can he still draw? Second question, are they phasing him out as the centerpiece? He's not exactly involved in a major storyline right now. Personally, I don't think they are really testing Cena's worth or trying to phase Cena out. This wouldn't be the first time Triple H and Randy Orton overshadowed whatever Cena was doing. I only pose the questions to get you to think about it. If you ask me, they should be testing his ability to draw and phase him out if he cannot bring great results. No need to bury him. Still push him as a main-eventer, but find a centerpiece that can really take you back in the right direction.

Situational Divas

A while back, I talked about creative interest and how it relates to hype in developing stars. The third thing you look at to determine whether or not the WWE is serious in developing a diva to be a star is consistency. Consistency is the theme I am going to talk about more today. Specifically, I am going to talk about it in relation to credible jobbers.

Credible jobbers are those divas primarily being used to put over the centerpiece and be used as filler when the centerpiece is not around or does not need to be involved in title matters. Beyond that, nothing too huge. The WWE is obviously going to be naturally inconsistent with these women. Nothing needs to go wrong for these women to lose their push.

Let me introduce another term for these type of divas. I already gave it away in the title. You can see these divas as situational divas. They only get pushed when certain situations come up. When the centerpiece is getting a title feud, that creates a situation where she needs someone to feud against. When the centerpiece is injured, that creates a situation where you need an interim centerpiece to fill in until she returns. In the last week, you had a football coach collapse in the middle of a game and that led to an assistant coach having to fill in for him for the rest of that game. You also had another coach need heart surgery and one of his assistant coaches will be filling in for him for the next few games. Back to the divas, situational divas will primarily see their best days when they are pushed in these situations. Outside of that, they get things where they don't get as much hype and creative interest.

Why don't I consider the centerpiece and periphery divas situational divas? Because no particular situations need to come up for them to get a good push. The WWE diva division is a centerpiece-driven division. They want to have one woman they develop as that central focus. It is what they like to do. It is just the way they do things. As for periphery divas, no necessary situation comes up for them to get their angles. AJ Lee did not need to be the GM of Raw last year. No diva needed to be in that situation. Lita did not need to be alongside Edge during his rise to the main-event. No diva needed to be in that situation. Chyna did not need to be wrestling the men on a consistent basis over a decade ago. No diva needed to be in that situation. You might sometimes have a periphery diva put over a centerpiece, like how Lita did in 2006 for Trish Stratus, but the fact that the WWE is going to remain more consistent with a periphery diva than a situational diva in pushing them well is what separates them. Back when I compared the diva division to an ice cream cone, I said periphery divas were like the extra toppings. They're optional and not the main, necessary ingredient. The centerpiece is the main focus, periphery divas are the other stars developed in the division, and situational divas are pushed dependent on what is going on with the centerpiece.

Let me try to put it simply. When the diva division is running the way the WWE would like to have it, and not in a dark age like you have now, credible jobbers are situational divas, periphery divas are optional divas, and the centerpiece is the necessary diva. A successful centerpiece is necessary for the WWE to have the kind of diva division they want, based on how they have handled the division from the time it started to where we are today. During a dark age without a centerpiece, like right now, opportunities just naturally fall to these other divas.

Personally, I am going to stick to calling women used primarily as jobbers to the centerpiece and interim centerpiece credible jobbers. I just wanted to introduce another term to help explain this type of career in the diva division. You can use whichever term you want. Make up your own. As long as you understand it, that's all that matters. The term "credible jobbers" sells the idea that these women have wrestling credibility and are used mainly to put over the centerpiece. The term "situational divas" sells the idea that these women are not going to be pushed well on a consistent basis, only when a particular situation arises for them to get good focus.   

Since I am on the subject of terminology, let me talk a little about my way of thinking when I come up with terms. I like to come up with terms that relate to the idea I am talking about. I like terms that people might easily imagine or understand.

Centerpiece - star developed to be the central focus of the division
Periphery Diva - star developed on the periphery, or on the side, of the centerpiece
Credible Jobber - diva possessing wrestling credibility used primarily to put over the centerpiece
Jobber To The Centerpiece - person being developed to put over the centerpiece in a feud
Interim Centerpiece - person being pushed as filler when the centerpiece is away

And whatever other terms I use, I think they are rather plain and simple. I don't try to get tricky with my terms. What does the term "islets of Langerhans" have to do with the pancreas? What does the term "pancreas" have to do with your digestive and endocrine system? What the hell does "endocrine" even mean? Did I ever mention I was initially a Natural Science major in college? Did horrible terms have anything to do with me switching to English? In any case, when I analyze the diva division, I am not going to come up with terms based on anyone's fancy last name or some Greek/Latin etymology. I would rather people just understand what I mean.

Big Show Gets What He Wants, Then Gets Beaten Up

I like how Raw ended. Big Show got rehired, pressured Triple H and Stephanie McMahon to also give him a title shot, and then still got destroyed by the heels. The reason why I like this segment, besides seeing Kane getting used in a new way, is that all members of the heel stable actually stood strong at the end of the show. The Shield put Big Show through a table. Randy Orton gave him an RKO. The Director of Furniture tossed around some chairs. That is to say, Kane showed his support for the heels. After saying for a while now that they were not developing a strong heel stable for this storyline, the stable looked solid last night.

One thing I do not agree with is the storyline progression for Big Show. I think they could have done better than simply rehiring him and giving in to him. Would a match between Triple H and Big Show have been so bad for Survivor Series? It is one of the top PPVs of the year. Then again, it might still eventually come after Big Show feuds with Randy Orton. Back to rehiring Big Show. What if they had settled this with a Survivor Series elimination match. A bunch of faces standing up for Big Show step up to face Triple H's guys. If Big Show's team wins, he gets rehired. If the heel team wins, Big Show must walk away. I don't agree with this whole lawsuit angle. As some fans might have already pointed out, Big Show did all this to get rehired, then he gets attacked right after? Why wouldn't he just refuse to put up with Triple H and Stephanie's games and follow through with the lawsuit? Survivor Series is approaching. I have been speculating on a few big tag matches they could have done, including Team Punk vs. Team Heyman and Team Orton vs. Team Cena, but it looks like they are not doing any of that. I think they are passing up on great opportunities to make a great tag match.

Back to Kane. They obviously had no problem repackaging him. Question is, should they have followed through with doing it with The Wyatts? Make Kane a member of that group? The Wyatts aren't exactly left out in the cold. They are feuding against two former World Champions, CM Punk and Daniel Bryan. The WWE definitely could have switched things around. Have Kane remain in the storyline involving The Wyatts, whether as a friend or foe. If he is feuding against the group, keep Miz in there to team with him. If he is joining the group, keep Miz in there for The Wyatts to finish their feud against him. Where does that leave Daniel Bryan and CM Punk? Keep Daniel Bryan in the corporate storyline. Finally bring CM Punk into the corporate storyline. Despite that being an option, I like how they have handled the situation. Kane in the corporate heel stable seems to make it a little more stable. This is a member they are not forcing to attack people he does not want to attack, screwing out of title reigns because they are not aggressive enough, and putting into crazy matches. Well, so far. Kane can make this interesting. Aside from the lack of continuity in regards to killing off his feud against The Wyatts so easily, I like what they are doing with Kane.

Is The End Near For The Shield?

The WWE has started to tease the breaking up of The Shield. I would be the first to admit they have gotten stale. I will also say that they were not going to stay together forever. But is now the time to put an end to the group?

The Shield has currently been used as the henchmen for The Authority. This is the best use for them. The corporate heels need henchmen to help to make this storyline believable. Instead of strengthening a powerful stable, the WWE has kept the heels on shaky ground for a while now. And they want to take away three henchmen before the big storyline looks like it is ready to end? If that is the case, it probably was a good idea to get Kane involved in this storyline to side with the heels. However, I don't think it should be the case. Starting to break up the group at a time when they were doing nothing too important would make perfect sense. Doing so now does not. The Wyatts just don't seem like proper replacements, if the WWE does have them align with the corporate heels. Their gimmick doesn't fit into the angle very well. At least The Shield has the look of bodyguards. Is there a good chance the WWE does not follow through with a split?

The group will still eventually have to break up. Which members do I think will have success after that? Personally, I am not a fan of any of them. I don't hate them, but I just don't care too much about them. But let me approach it as an analyst and critic. Dean Ambrose is very good at showing character. Seth Rollins is the most entertaining when it comes to in-ring ability. Roman Reigns is the big man of the group, and people always say that the WWE loves big guys. Dean Ambrose can do very well if they give him big storylines. Push him alongside some top stars for at least a while. Seth Rollins, I can picture the WWE taking him down the road of Justin Gabriel. As for Roman Reigns, who is the guy many consider to be the future star, I can see him following the path of most big guys in recent years. He will continue to get used as a bodyguard-type of character, possibly get a bit of a face push, but he won't get too far. He will be like Ryback and Big E Langston. Aren't those two guys being pushed well at the moment? How far will they go before the WWE moves on to something else? To put it simply, I would say Dean Ambrose has the best chance of the three to really be used well.

Even Shawn Michaels Turns On Daniel Bryan?

Vince McMahon was against Daniel Bryan. Triple H turned on Daniel Bryan. Stephanie McMahon turned on Daniel Bryan. And now, Shawn Michaels, a man that helped train Daniel Bryan, has turned on him. Who's next? Brie Bella? His dog? Does he even have a dog? Jinder Mahal? That would be the ultimate betrayal.

There was no need to get fancy with Shawn Michaels being referee at Hell in a Cell. I could understand wanting a shady finish so Daniel Bryan did not lose cleanly to Randy Orton. But having Triple H cause a distraction or a mistake from Shawn Michaels could have been enough. Costing Daniel Bryan the match was not a mistake from Shawn Michaels. His promo on Raw solidified that idea.

Regardless of whether or not it was necessary, the WWE has gone in this direction. Now what? Two things to look at. First, what does this mean for Daniel Bryan? He was involved in more than just a segment with HBK. He was attacked by The Wyatts. CM Punk was also attacked by them. Whether or not his segment with Shawn Michaels leads to a long-term angle, the fact that The Wyatts attacked him would seemingly make them his short-term focus, along with CM Punk. Does that mean he is out of the title picture? Possibly. I just have a tough time picturing The Wyatts teaming with Randy Orton to face CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, and whomever they get to team with them, possibly Miz. The Shield just seems like a better fit. Problem is, they weren't the ones that attacked Daniel Bryan and CM Punk.

Second thing to look at, what does this heel turn from Shawn Michaels mean for the larger corporate angle? Not only that, he was there to help Triple H, but Triple H did not come out to help him against Daniel Bryan. That is an idea they might toy with more. I don't know if they should go that route. You turn Shawn Michaels heel and have him side with Triple H just to start friction right away? One of the problems with this corporate angle is that it almost always seemed to be on shaky ground from the start as far as the heels go. The Authority put The Shield in tough positions at times, and now it looks like The Shield is breaking up. They did not hand Orton back the title a few weeks ago, saying that he needed to show that old aggression. Orton still needed help from the heels to help him get back the title. The Big Show angle speaks for itself. HBK now sides with Triple H just for Triple H to leave him to get attacked by Daniel Bryan. You would think they would do more to solidify allies for The Authority. How much longer can this "stable" actually last? They need to develop it better. If they keep selling this idea that Triple H and Stephanie McMahon even mistreat their own allies at times, how long until everyone turns on them?