NXT Thread II

[skbucks1985]

NEVER!

I will say that I do think as the years have passed its increasingly less about him and more about the future of the product. I'd like to think that if a situation like Night of Champions 2011 happened today he would insist on the result going the other way. But he wasn't there at that time.

In fairness to the main roster, I think its virtually impossible to tell a really good 6-8 month story when you have 5 hours of weekly programming. I don't think my math is that off when I say in terms of sheer number of minutes they've been on there respective shows, the amount of TV time Bayley will get in 9 months is the equivalent of what a regularly used girl on the main roster like Paige or Nikki gets in 2 months. A large part of the reason it worked with Bryan was because that wasn't the plan so they phased him out of the main event scene in October. From a kayfabe perspective, Bryan-Sheamus 5th or 6th from the top made sense as his placement for WM.

It's probably like that with most people. When you're still young, you're thinking about your legacy. Triple H doesn't really have to worry about his legacy any more. It's basically set at this point. Now he can focus on helping talented younger people build theirs, and in a way NXT will be a part of his legacy too. If it's a resounding success and more of its performers make it to the top of the WWE roster like Seth Rollins has, that's a feather in his cap for overseeing their development.

As far as TV time goes, I think you're right. I also think part of the problem with the WWE is that, when two people have a rivalry, they wrestle each other far too often. When you see the same two people in the ring together twice a week, it gets boring. They need to mix it up more. Not every match has to be rivalry-related, and in fact most shouldn't be. Rivalries should be built via occasional confrontations, promos, backstage attacks, and interference every now and then (but by no means every match). We don't need to see Roman Reigns and Bray Wyatt fight each other every goddamn night. Let them fight some other people (this also gives them valuable experience that fighting the same guy every night does not) while the rivalry simmers and then comes to a boil at a PPV.

So it really comes down to creative just being lazy, I think. It's just easier to have the two guys in a rivalry keep trading wins than to come up with other matches and angles.

We're talking about someone that was in his mid-30's and early 40's when these matches happened so I don't think you can chalk it up to youthful egos. But even if it took him longer than it should have to get past his insecurities, I do think he's past that now. But I will say that while its much more debatable I'm one of those people that thought he shouldn't have beaten Sting. And if/when the Rollins program happens if he beats Rollins, if he's not willing to show ass for Rollins in promos especially if Rollins is the face, then it will for me negate a lot of the goodwill he's earned the last 1.5 years.

They don't have the depth to have a variety of matchups. They do in reality but they believe that if you do Wyatt-Neville and Reigns-Stardust that people will just tune out and there's some truth to that belief. But its true not inherently but because of the way these guys have been booked that you've tiered guys so strongly that its inconceivable that Neville or Stardust could win those matches and if they do its via distraction rendering it meaningless. But one of the drawbacks to that is they've done every matchup and when you look at the roster there are very few matchups that feel fresh and important, especially if you narrow it to just full-timers. As an aside, Ironically Reigns is mentioned as someone with an overexposed matchup and it absolutely is, but he's also one of the few guys that has matchups that you could do and they would feel both fresh and important.

[iMoreland]

Anyone else find themselves skipping or fast forwarding 2/3 of RAW and SmackDown but not missing a second of NXT?

Every week. Pretty much skip every match on Raw minus a few certain wrestlers. Can't remember the last time I skipped anything on NXT.

[WRau1]

I've been kind of out of it the past few days with work but has this been brought up yet?

http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt/james-storm-arrives-in-nxt

How awesome.

[iMoreland]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/WWENXT/status/652268796653228032[/tweet]

Am I the only one who isn't a fan of this? I loved Storm back in 2010 when TNA was hot. But he's 38 now, one of the oldest guys in NXT.

I'd prefer they sign guys like Adam Cole, Young Bucks.

[Stanford]

That's a different kind of signing. If you want to bring James Storm in, you call him up and tell him what you're going to pay him. Then you put him on TV as James Storm as soon as he gets to Full Sail.

Adam Cole would be an investment. You wouldn't just debut him as Adam Cole the night he arrives.

[improper]

We're talking about someone that was in his mid-30's and early 40's when these matches happened so I don't think you can chalk it up to youthful egos. But even if it took him longer than it should have to get past his insecurities, I do think he's past that now. But I will say that while its much more debatable I'm one of those people that thought he shouldn't have beaten Sting. And if/when the Rollins program happens if he beats Rollins, if he's not willing to show ass for Rollins in promos especially if Rollins is the face, then it will for me negate a lot of the goodwill he's earned the last 1.5 years.

They don't have the depth to have a variety of matchups. They do in reality but they believe that if you do Wyatt-Neville and Reigns-Stardust that people will just tune out and there's some truth to that belief. But its true not inherently but because of the way these guys have been booked that you've tiered guys so strongly that its inconceivable that Neville or Stardust could win those matches and if they do its via distraction rendering it meaningless. But one of the drawbacks to that is they've done every matchup and when you look at the roster there are very few matchups that feel fresh and important, especially if you narrow it to just full-timers. As an aside, Ironically Reigns is mentioned as someone with an overexposed matchup and it absolutely is, but he's also one of the few guys that has matchups that you could do and they would feel both fresh and important.

Well, late thirties and early forties is still the end of the average wrestler's prime. I'd say most guys begin the decline in their mid-forties and then fall off a cliff at some point after that, provided they last that long. In addition, wrestling is a business where you never know when your last match might be, so it's at least understandable to see a guy wanting to put some more notches on his belt while he still can and while he can still go and not have it be depressing (like watching the Undertaker is now). I'm not defending some of his decisions (although some probably belonged to Vince as well), and I don't think they should be defended, but you can at least understand them.

I agree that he shouldn't have beaten Sting as well, although that strikes me as more of a Vince "f*ck you" to Sting for holding out so long than a decision that Triple H might have made. Either way, though, it wasn't as if Sting was a guy who needed to be put over like Daniel Bryan did the year before. That was probably the only shocking moment of last year's Wrestlemania, too, as I think basically everyone had Sting pegged to win that one.

I disagree about match-ups, though. I think there are a million fresh match-ups they could do, especially with all the NXT guys coming into the main roster. And not every match has to be totally fresh. Why not throw Neville out there against a guy like Rusev or Owens and give them eight to ten minutes to tell a story during Raw? Why does every one of Neville's matches have to be against Stardust? It's boring and it makes the PPVs when he does meet his rival less special.

I get what you're saying about it being inconceivable that Neville would win those random matches, but that's mostly because of how bad the WWE's booking is and has been for years. He also doesn't necessarily have to win. Just getting enough time to put on a good show would do wonders for a lot of the low and mid-card guys.

[skbucks1985]

We're talking about someone that was in his mid-30's and early 40's when these matches happened so I don't think you can chalk it up to youthful egos. But even if it took him longer than it should have to get past his insecurities, I do think he's past that now. But I will say that while its much more debatable I'm one of those people that thought he shouldn't have beaten Sting. And if/when the Rollins program happens if he beats Rollins, if he's not willing to show ass for Rollins in promos especially if Rollins is the face, then it will for me negate a lot of the goodwill he's earned the last 1.5 years.

They don't have the depth to have a variety of matchups. They do in reality but they believe that if you do Wyatt-Neville and Reigns-Stardust that people will just tune out and there's some truth to that belief. But its true not inherently but because of the way these guys have been booked that you've tiered guys so strongly that its inconceivable that Neville or Stardust could win those matches and if they do its via distraction rendering it meaningless. But one of the drawbacks to that is they've done every matchup and when you look at the roster there are very few matchups that feel fresh and important, especially if you narrow it to just full-timers. As an aside, Ironically Reigns is mentioned as someone with an overexposed matchup and it absolutely is, but he's also one of the few guys that has matchups that you could do and they would feel both fresh and important.

Well, late thirties and early forties is still the end of the average wrestler's prime. I'd say most guys begin the decline in their mid-forties and then fall off a cliff at some point after that, provided they last that long. In addition, wrestling is a business where you never know when your last match might be, so it's at least understandable to see a guy wanting to put some more notches on his belt while he still can and while he can still go and not have it be depressing (like watching the Undertaker is now). I'm not defending some of his decisions (although some probably belonged to Vince as well), and I don't think they should be defended, but you can at least understand them.

I agree that he shouldn't have beaten Sting as well, although that strikes me as more of a Vince "f*ck you" to Sting for holding out so long than a decision that Triple H might have made. Either way, though, it wasn't as if Sting was a guy who needed to be put over like Daniel Bryan did the year before. That was probably the only shocking moment of last year's Wrestlemania, too, as I think basically everyone had Sting pegged to win that one.

I disagree about match-ups, though. I think there are a million fresh match-ups they could do, especially with all the NXT guys coming into the main roster. And not every match has to be totally fresh. Why not throw Neville out there against a guy like Rusev or Owens and give them eight to ten minutes to tell a story during Raw? Why does every one of Neville's matches have to be against Stardust? It's boring and it makes the PPVs when he does meet his rival less special.

I get what you're saying about it being inconceivable that Neville would win those random matches, but that's mostly because of how bad the WWE's booking is and has been for years. He also doesn't necessarily have to win. Just getting enough time to put on a good show would do wonders for a lot of the low and mid-card guys.

I can understand him beating Jeff Hardy and RVD and Booker T even if I disagreed virulently with those moves. Although that he'd be willing to beat Booker T with the story they told shows that he was at best clueless and at worst stupid. But these things came from a place of insecurity and I think he's beyond that.

But if he was still in that place in 2011, after he'd stopped wrestling full-time, after he'd become COO, if he was still that insecure at that point I don't think that's understandable and he should be criticized indefinitely for that. In any event, I do think he's beyond that point now. With Sting, HHH-Rock or some iteration of it may still happen but its pretty clear it was a plan at one point and Rollins-Sting was probably not the plan in April. So there's logical reasons for that. The Seth program will determine whether he truly is beyond that place.

There are a lot of fresh matchups, but I don't think many of them would feel important. Cena-Reigns is a fresh matchup that would also feel important, Wyatt-Neville is a fresh matchup but one that would feel like its done primarily to eat up a couple segments on a 3 hour show with a result not at all in doubt. And they believe that the matchup has to be one with a result that is in doubt and/or advance a story line or the viewer will change the channel and they believe that if you threw Neville-Wyatt out there next Monday that the viewer would immediately change the channel. And so even if it would benefit Neville, that's not a risk they'd be willing to take.

[improper]

There are a lot of fresh matchups, but I don't think many of them would feel important. Cena-Reigns is a fresh matchup that would also feel important, Wyatt-Neville is a fresh matchup but one that would feel like its done primarily to eat up a couple segments on a 3 hour show with a result not at all in doubt. And they believe that the matchup has to be one with a result that is in doubt and/or advance a story line or the viewer will change the channel and they believe that if you threw Neville-Wyatt out there next Monday that the viewer would immediately change the channel. And so even if it would benefit Neville, that's not a risk they'd be willing to take.

Well, the average Raw or Smackdown match doesn't really have to feel important. When you watch an average NXT weekly show, most of the matches don't seem all that important. They're just entertaining wrestling matches that give the performers time in the ring to do their thing and engage the audience. Some of them serve the purpose of building up characters in squash matches (most of Crews' matches have been that way since he debuted), but most of them are just matches between people who aren't rivals, and it works just fine.

A Neville/Wyatt feud would feel unimportant right now, absolutely, because Neville hasn't been built up enough that it's a believable feud for him. A Neville/Wyatt match on Raw, though, would be fine and, provided they made it more than a squash match, it would also be entertaining. You'd expect Wyatt to win, naturally (and perhaps nefariously), but if Neville puts up a legitimate fight he comes out of it looking stronger too. Both guys come out ahead (the winner moreso, but someone has to lose), and the viewers get an actual match to watch.

And again, I'm not referring to rivalries. I'm just referring to Raw and Smackdown mixing up matches a bit so guys that are in rivalries don't fight each other every goddamn night. It waters down the rivalries and cheapens the PPV matches between the rivals. Ideally, you should be building up both guys in a big rivalry to be strong prior to a big PPV match, and you don't do that by having them trade wins back and forth for a month leading up to a PPV. Obviously the two guys have to clash occasionally to keep the rivalry flowing, but they absolutely shouldn't meet in the ring on every TV broadcast.

[skbucks1985]

There are a lot of fresh matchups, but I don't think many of them would feel important. Cena-Reigns is a fresh matchup that would also feel important, Wyatt-Neville is a fresh matchup but one that would feel like its done primarily to eat up a couple segments on a 3 hour show with a result not at all in doubt. And they believe that the matchup has to be one with a result that is in doubt and/or advance a story line or the viewer will change the channel and they believe that if you threw Neville-Wyatt out there next Monday that the viewer would immediately change the channel. And so even if it would benefit Neville, that's not a risk they'd be willing to take.

Well, the average Raw or Smackdown match doesn't really have to feel important. When you watch an average NXT weekly show, most of the matches don't seem all that important. They're just entertaining wrestling matches that give the performers time in the ring to do their thing and engage the audience. Some of them serve the purpose of building up characters in squash matches (most of Crews' matches have been that way since he debuted), but most of them are just matches between people who aren't rivals, and it works just fine.

A Neville/Wyatt feud would feel unimportant right now, absolutely, because Neville hasn't been built up enough that it's a believable feud for him. A Neville/Wyatt match on Raw, though, would be fine and, provided they made it more than a squash match, it would also be entertaining. You'd expect Wyatt to win, naturally (and perhaps nefariously), but if Neville puts up a legitimate fight he comes out of it looking stronger too. Both guys come out ahead (the winner moreso, but someone has to lose), and the viewers get an actual match to watch.

And again, I'm not referring to rivalries. I'm just referring to Raw and Smackdown mixing up matches a bit so guys that are in rivalries don't fight each other every goddamn night. It waters down the rivalries and cheapens the PPV matches between the rivals. Ideally, you should be building up both guys in a big rivalry to be strong prior to a big PPV match, and you don't do that by having them trade wins back and forth for a month leading up to a PPV. Obviously the two guys have to clash occasionally to keep the rivalry flowing, but they absolutely shouldn't meet in the ring on every TV broadcast.

And that's a really good point about most NXT matches not feeling all that important. I think a lot of the principles NXT uses in terms of character building and logic are absolutely transferable but I think of trying to make the apples-to-apples comparison is faulty because NXT is on a streaming network that doesn't have to worry about viewership and ratings and TV execs and the fact that its not live means they don't have to talk about what's trending and all this other stuff. And because Raw does have to worry about all of those things, they're not going to put a match out there where the viewer sees the result as not in question and would thus change the channel. And that's why you wouldn't see a Neville-Wyatt match because they believe the audience would just change the channel, whether that's accurate or not is another case all together.

They've so clearly tiered guys that its virtually impossible to mix those matchups up and wind up with matches where the result is still in question.

[improper]

And that's a really good point about most NXT matches not feeling all that important. I think a lot of the principles NXT uses in terms of character building and logic are absolutely transferable but I think of trying to make the apples-to-apples comparison is faulty because NXT is on a streaming network that doesn't have to worry about viewership and ratings and TV execs and the fact that its not live means they don't have to talk about what's trending and all this other stuff. And because Raw does have to worry about all of those things, they're not going to put a match out there where the viewer sees the result as not in question and would thus change the channel. And that's why you wouldn't see a Neville-Wyatt match because they believe the audience would just change the channel, whether that's accurate or not is another case all together.

They've so clearly tiered guys that its virtually impossible to mix those matchups up and wind up with matches where the result is still in question.

Personally, I think people would be far more likely to change the channel during a thirty minute opening promo or one of the half dozen recaps that occurs on every Raw and Smackdown than they would during an entertaining wrestling match.

I don't really get your point about the outcome not being in question. The results of almost every PPV match are known by most fans with half a brain, but we still watch those. I don't watch Raw most weeks because it sucks, is boring, and generally lacks compelling in-ring work. I watch PPVs because, while they often botch the writing, there are usually at least a couple of really good to great matches. I watch NXT because the in-ring work is generally above average or better.

Was Sasha Banks vs Bayley any less fun because literally everyone knew Bayley was going to win? I don't think so. I also knew that Apollo Crews was going to beat Tyler Breeze, but it was still an entertaining match. Same goes for Asuka/Brooke. Everyone knew Asuka wasn't losing her first NXT match, but it was still enjoyable to watch. The idea that people will stop watching if they know the outcome is negated by the fact that we know what the outcome of matches will be all the time and still watch.

You're right that the WWE is scared to take risks, and that's probably why their writing and booking has become so stagnant. However, given how the ratings keep declining, I'd say they're in a position to actually try some new stuff and see if it works better than what they're doing now, which clearly isn't working.

[skbucks1985]

And that's a really good point about most NXT matches not feeling all that important. I think a lot of the principles NXT uses in terms of character building and logic are absolutely transferable but I think of trying to make the apples-to-apples comparison is faulty because NXT is on a streaming network that doesn't have to worry about viewership and ratings and TV execs and the fact that its not live means they don't have to talk about what's trending and all this other stuff. And because Raw does have to worry about all of those things, they're not going to put a match out there where the viewer sees the result as not in question and would thus change the channel. And that's why you wouldn't see a Neville-Wyatt match because they believe the audience would just change the channel, whether that's accurate or not is another case all together.

They've so clearly tiered guys that its virtually impossible to mix those matchups up and wind up with matches where the result is still in question.

Personally, I think people would be far more likely to change the channel during a thirty minute opening promo or one of the half dozen recaps that occurs on every Raw and Smackdown than they would during an entertaining wrestling match.

I don't really get your point about the outcome not being in question. The results of almost every PPV match are known by most fans with half a brain, but we still watch those. I don't watch Raw most weeks because it sucks, is boring, and generally lacks compelling in-ring work. I watch PPVs because, while they often botch the writing, there are usually at least a couple of really good to great matches. I watch NXT because the in-ring work is generally above average or better.

Was Sasha Banks vs Bayley any less fun because literally everyone knew Bayley was going to win? I don't think so. I also knew that Apollo Crews was going to beat Tyler Breeze, but it was still an entertaining match. Same goes for Asuka/Brooke. Everyone knew Asuka wasn't losing her first NXT match, but it was still enjoyable to watch. The idea that people will stop watching if they know the outcome is negated by the fact that we know what the outcome of matches will be all the time and still watch.

You're right that the WWE is scared to take risks, and that's probably why their writing and booking has become so stagnant. However, given how the ratings keep declining, I'd say they're in a position to actually try some new stuff and see if it works better than what they're doing now, which clearly isn't working.

The difference between the PPV's, NXT and Raw is that the latter is a free show and thus has a significantly larger audience. The other difference is that the sense has always been that PPV's have importance and/or finality and that can be substituted for predictability if done properly. Yeah the result wasn't in question for Sasha/Bayley but the result was obviously important. It wasn't as tangible but Crews/Breeze was important because Crews was undefeated but also because the winner would be in that upper tier of guys in the World Title mix while the loser would have to go back to the drawing board to go back up to that level. And they added some personal animosity to Asuka/Dana that added a little to the match but it was a debut match and those are anomalous because people are seeing what you can do for the first time.

And putting, even good, matches but matches that have a predictable result, aren't important and perhaps have finality but who cares about that finality, that's the worst of all worlds from there perspective. Personally, I think there's a way to have matches like Neville-Wyatt where both guys come out better for it. But I don't trust them to do it. And personally I'd rather have Neville-Stardust a bunch of times than have Neville vs Wyatt or Rollins or Rusev where he's competitive but loses all of those matches. Because I look at a guy like Neville compared to Wade Barrett, I think if they decided we're going to get behind Neville they could do that with him because while he's a midcarder now I don't think he's had enough main event-type moments in which he's failed. Wade Barrett has visited the main event a few times and has failed each time and I think he's thus been defined as someone that's at that certain level and doesn't belong with Orton, Cena, etc.

Yeah they should take risks and on some level they kinda are. The most recent episode of Raw ended with New Day laying out 4 guys, including John Cena. But you're not going to see them swing for the fences and take major risks. I'm also among those that doesn't think the ratings drops are that big of a deal. The ratings have been falling steadily for 15+ years, they always dip in the fall and they've kind of established that fall is there lull season. They're trying to actually change that latter part because they're doing Brock-Undertaker, but when so many of your WM's are main evented by these part time guys that in years past have been nowhere to be found in the fall, that's a clue that this is the time to check out.

[Marcus]

Asuka was VERY impressive. Figured the in-ring work would be good but was blown away by the personality and execution of the character. All signs pointing to her being equally effective going either heel or face with her expressions, moveset, and finisher. That was really REALLY wow for me.

Ranks right up there with Corbin and Owens as far as debuts go IMO.

[Stanford]

Her character appears to be Majin Buu

[Marcus]

Her character appears to be Majin Buu

well whomever she's supposed to be I LIKE IT!!!

had no idea she was 34 though. Looks damn good, like 9 year younger than that.

[Dirkbaka]

Her character appears to be Majin Buu

lol

[Dirkbaka]

Her character appears to be Majin Buu

well whomever she's supposed to be I LIKE IT!!!

had no idea she was 34 though. Looks damn good, like 9 year younger than that.

Didn't really feel her debut. She reminded me of that asian wrestler in the 90s tht fought alundra blazye. Forget the name. Was not impressed.

Sasha though

[Stanford]

bull nakano

[Dirkbaka]

bull nakano

That's it. Yeah she reminded me of her. I didn't think there was anything special. Maybe once her character develops more.

[Marcus]

to each his own.

Thought she did a great connecting with the audience which has seemed to be a flaw with some of the other Japanese wrestlers that were brought over.

[skbucks1985]

I thought she was excellent as well. Dana Brooke has improved a lot but she's still a little rough around the edges and it did feel like I was watching two people at slightly different speeds