December 27, 201410 yr comment_5647112 If they just gave wins to just about everyone who got a pop to see if they could get some momentum on their side, there would be almost no backlash from anyone. Whether Cesaro is their next top star or not, they certainly haven't tried to maximize his potential. do people here remember when *zack ryder* was the internet's cause celebre in this regard? parv, if you think the outrage over cesaro is silly, that was easily 10 times less warranted. and yet, i still think there was a point to it all - WWE probably did cost themselves at least a bit of cash from not running with him longer. i think WWE may worry too much about hotshotting wins & titles for a flash in the pan, since they just came out of the "World Champion Jack Swagger" period. ryder was clearly a case where i think they were correct in the long run - all he had going for him was the right gimmick at the right time. problem is that makes smart fans seem like the boy who cried wolf when you have a performer with far more substance (read: cesaro) getting screwed. i think at the heart of this you have an interesting dichotomy. i suspect most fans would feel that artistically it's better to end a hot act too soon than too late, but financially it's likely better to bury them too late than too soon. smart fans typically want promotions to succeed on both levels, hence why they complain about both the former (e.g. zack ryder, the shield) and the latter (e.g. the NWO).
Create an account or sign in to comment