Why Roman Reigns Isn't Over

[JerryvonKramer]

I find the notion that the man who invented the idea of "superstars" in pro wrestling and who made the product in his own vision of rugged American individualism now deliberately doesn't want stars baffling.

 

Just seems too bonkers to be true.

[Matt D]

I should make another poll.

[Loss]

I hope you're wrong Loss. If you're right, this lasts another 30 years at least.

 

I have a really detailed post I want to make expanding on this, but I don't think this is necessarily how HHH would want to run WWE. It might be, but I could see a change in philosophy when he has full autonomy. I'll explain in more detail as soon as I can make time.

[thebrainfollower]

The first thing I've learned Jerry is to take people in power with a grain of salt. The more they claim X and shove X down everyone's throat it's because X is completely untrue and they are covering up.

 

With Vince the moment WCW died, the spark to truly be excellent died within Vince. No one needed WCW more than Vince McMahon.

 

If that' not fn irony I don't know what is.

[thebrainfollower]

And Jerry Vince hardly invented the idea of mega stars. People came to see Wrestler X long before Vince McMahon ever started out in wrestling. He used marketing in a way no one ever had, particularly with children. But there were larger than life characters that drew money for decades before Vince was even born.

But even in 84 you can see Vince trying to build the WWF as the brand. You can't deny that Hogan was the draw though, the data that he drew nearly half the house of every card he worked at for years is there for all to see. But I think deep down Vince resented that. You can see how strained their relationship grew and their whole WM XIX feud is based on "who built the WWF you or me". It took each man's real feelings and used that to create a feud, which was a great idea.

 

I also think you cannot underestimate how self-destructive people in power become once they've "won" whatever war they are or think they are fighting.

[JerryvonKramer]

The paradigms by which we measure wrestling today are all developments brought about by Vince.

[thebrainfollower]

As is its descent into mediocrity and irrelevance. Wrestling has never been making less money for less people at any point in its existence. It has never been this cold for this long ever in its history.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

In recent years, Vince and WWE have failed at making new stars. They know they have failed, so they allow the "we don't want stars who are bigger than the company" narrative to gradually become accepted as fact.

[thebrainfollower]

That's an intriguing theory actually cross face. I question what's been the bigger problem, the WHO they've tried to make as stars, or the HOW they've gone about doing it. The who is not listening to their audience. I feel sometimes that if 2016 Vince were booking back then it would be Wrestlemania XI. Lex Luger would STILL be the top guy and he'd still be failing to unseat Yokozuna at every opportunity.

[Matt D]

In recent years, Vince and WWE have failed at making new stars. They know they have failed, so they allow the "we don't want stars who are bigger than the company" narrative to gradually become accepted as fact.

 

I'm not sure I buy this, but I do think even if it's the genesis of it, they're buying into their own BS at this point.

[Loss]

Is there any evidence WWE is aware of that narrative? Here's the gist of what I want to expand on. Keep in mind this is just a theory.

 

HHH has had his eyes on the prize for longer than most people realize. He has sabotaged most attempts to create a new star because he doesn't want anyone as a top star that's more loyal to Vince than to him in case the transition of power to him one day turns ugly. Vince used to be the creative mind that got off on finding ways to get stuff over that seemed like it shouldn't and he was the master of hiding obvious weaknesses. Now he's a guy that obsesses over those weaknesses and uses them as an excuse to push no one. The reason is because look who's had his ear for the past 15 years (HHH) vs the previous 15 (Patterson).

[Childs]

The thing is, they're not entirely wrong. More than any company in the history of the business, they have created an economic model that works even when the product is cold. So I get why it's a seductive lie.

[Loss]

Continuing my previous post, I think what happened politically is that HHH was on board with the Reigns push until he was no longer the owner of it. Not only did HHH get behind Reigns, so did Vince and Dunn, and that's where the problems started. Reigns is a pawn in a game much bigger than him, and I do feel like that HHH-Dunn struggle is coloring how just about everyone in the company is being used right now to varying degrees.

[shoe]

Is there any evidence WWE is aware of that narrative? Here's the gist of what I want to expand on. Keep in mind this is just a theory.

 

HHH has had his eyes on the prize for longer than most people realize. He has sabotaged most attempts to create a new star because he doesn't want anyone as a top star that's more loyal to Vince than to him in case the transition of power to him one day turns ugly. Vince used to be the creative mind that got off on finding ways to get stuff over that seemed like it shouldn't and he was the master of hiding obvious weaknesses. Now he's a guy that obsesses over those weaknesses and uses them as an excuse to push no one. The reason is because look who's had his ear for the past 15 years (HHH) vs the previous 15 (Patterson).

I like the Patterson to HHH comparison .

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

The thing is, they're not entirely wrong. More than any company in the history of the business, they have created an economic model that works even when the product is cold. So I get why it's a seductive lie.

But that model is possible because mega stars like Hogan, Austin, Rock and Cena helped make the company so popular in the first place.

[Childs]

Couldn't agree more. I think they've lost their way. It's just not hard for me to see why they're able to convince themselves otherwise, especially given that they exist in a closed loop.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I can't help myself. I need to expand a bit on why I think the "WWE doesn't want to create new stars" narrative is bunk.

 

Stars like Hogan, Austin, etc. made Vince and WWE a shitload of money. I mean a shitload. Once those stars leave, Vince and WWE do not have to give back all the money that the departing star helped the company rake in. That's their money to keep. Forever! Once a star(s) departs, then it's time to see if there's an opportunity to develop another one to get that star money train rolling again.

 

There's no way Vince and his crew sit in the board room and say, "We might make $1 billion off Wrestler A in 5 years if everything goes right. But instead of making $1 billion off Wrestler A, let's try to make $300 million over 10 years because we don't want Wrestler A to become bigger than the brand and cause us heartache when he leaves."

 

I get that Vince and the WWE brass are out of touch, overly conservative and naive, but I guarantee they still love money. I don't think they would actively try to NOT make stars given how much money stars have made them over the years. It's totally possible to incorporate a model that attempts to build big stars AND establish the brand as bullet-proof for the starless years as well. I believe they're failing at the first part of that model, and making sure they're patting themselves extra hard on the back for succeeding on the second part so we forgive them a bit for fucking up the first part.

 

Do I have evidence of this? No. But anyone who follows sports or politics knows that narratives get put out there by agents, coaches, teams, campaign flaks, etc. all the time without evidence directly linking it back to said agent, coach, team. It just happens.

 

Edit: I agree that Loss's theory is plausible. But are there other legit heirs to the throne besides HHH at this point? I mean, if Vince dies or decides to retire and his top star doesn't see eye-to-eye w/ HHH, would Vince really give the company to Shane or someone else? I suppose you never know what Vince could do.....

[Grimmas]

I thought the story was that they were pissed when Austin & Rock left, so they never want to be in a position where a wrestler is bigger than the WWE ever again.

[thebrainfollower]

I think that makes a lot of sense Loss. What do you think happens with Cena if he's still around wanting an active career if Vince dies? It's more likely Cena wraps up his career with Vince, but who knows.

I am still not 100% convinced the WWF even survives past Vince more than 5 years to be honest. I don't think HHH or Stephanie have the skill set to run a company, though the support structure is there, but I could them taking all that apart and not being able to rebuild.

[Matt D]

I don't think it's crazy to think that Vince cares about things more than money after all that we've seen him do over the years? To me, it's more dangerous to attribute rational decision-making to him than it is to almost any other public figure I can think of.

[funkdoc]

everybody forgets about bobby lashley in the "top stars leaving the company" discussion. he was clearly being built up for that

[Childs]

The weird thing about Vince is he can be quite a rational actor, especially when he's wearing his CEO hat. I think Loss tweeted the other day that his greatest achievement is running wrestling as a business at a level no one else has approached. For example, we've seen him be incredibly disciplined about trimming costs when that's what the business needs.

 

I don't know how you reconcile that with the culture he's established on the creative side of things. He's a fascinating figure

[Bierschwale]

everybody forgets about bobby lashley in the "top stars leaving the company" discussion. he was clearly being built up for that

 

I think that Lashley was the straw that broke the camel's back, not Brock. They still went big on Batista, Cena, Edge, and Orton post-Lesnar.

[The Chief]

 

 

everybody forgets about bobby lashley in the "top stars leaving the company" discussion. he was clearly being built up for that

I think that Lashley was the straw that broke the camel's back, not Brock. They still went big on Batista, Cena, Edge, and Orton post-Lesnar.

The MVP losing streak gimmick happened after Lashley left. Regardless of what you think of MVP as a talent, they did see him as a potential star at one point. The losing streak was done as a deliberate attempt to test him and not any kind of disciplinary issue. They did similar stuff to Bryan when they first brought him in. I think you can definitely look to Lashley as a breaking point.

[Parties]

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

 

As a New England resident, it would seem to me the way the team took off in popularity after being average for decades under Brady and Bellicheck makes me wonder about that. But that's another thread entirely.

 

As a dude who lived in Boston at the time, the Parcells/Bledsoe/Glenn/Brown crew were quite beloved, they just weren't as talented. But yes, teams grow in popularity when they have insane dynastic championship runs.