Leader of the Pack

For example, if someone brings up that Cena is not responsible for the booking of his character, normally the haters would call whoever said it a virgin.

Sheamus over Daniel Bryan (World Heavyweight Championship)

- I saw the reason for the need to have a squash match, but to open your show with the World Heavyweight Championship again, and have it be a squash match does not add prestige to the belt. But I do stand by the outcome, If the WWE can't make Daniel Bryan a legitimate heel than keep him out of the spotlight until the writers can get their heads out of their asses. And if they can give Sheamus a long run as a babyface champion it will really help the WWE create more stars, because the Cena/Orton cash cows are eventually going to go dry.

Kane over Randy Orton

- For a match that I had little to no interest in, it did do pretty well, but I think if I was actually interested I probably would have been disappointed.

Big Show over Cody Rhodes

- I think the right person won, the match was a little sloppy, but entertaining. I do think Big Show should drop the belt at Extreme Rules or Over The Limit.

Diva's Tag

- Didn't watch

End of an Era

Undertaker over Triple H (20-0)

- This was the best match of the night, not because of the use of weapons, but about the story it told. Two legends going head to head, doing anything humanly possible to get the victory with another conflicted legend wearing the black and white stripes.

Team Johnny over Team Teddy

I think I would have much rathered a Money in the Bank, but not all wishes come true. There were a few spots I enjoyed, like Ryder, Kofi and R-Truth dive to the outside. But the ending nor what happened after made sense. We already know Eve is a heel. If Teddy's done with WWE goodbye, but I have a feeling it's not over between Teddy and Johnny.

CM Punk over Chris Jericho

For a match that had the title of best in the world behind it, the match itself lacked substance. But I do think the right man won.

The Rock over John Cena

Very entertaining, the crowd wasn't as good as Hogan/Rock, the match I think was. I do support The Rock's win. But what I find funny, Is I bet if Cena won, many of those who said this was the best WM since 24 or 19 wouldn't be saying that.

My grade- A- (8/10)

BQ: What is your grade/rating of WM28

BQ1: Favorite Moment of WM28

BQ2: Least Favorite Moment of WM28

BQ3: Brock Lesnar rumors, fake or real?

When I talk to most people who support John Cena in The Rock vs. John Cena here are most reasons I receive

1. Like him or hate him, he's stays with the WWE

2. The Rock "turned his back" on the WWE

3. They actually like John Cena better than The Rock.

My answer to this is, if you support a John Cena victory tonight, it means everything the WWE has done the last 7 years you also support.

Why is this?

John Cena is personifies everything the WWE has become since the attitude era

John Cena personifies the PG-era.

John Cena personifies putting a ceiling over superstars so they never can be on the same level of their 2 top guys

John Cena personifies the heels always being chickenshit, and rarely appearing stronger than the babyface

John Cena personifies having scripted promos, and soap opera writers instead of writers from the business of wrestling.

John Cena personifies all the "bad" decisions the WWE has made. I'm not saying he's responsible for it, I'm saying he is the shining example of it.

Some will argue the torch should be passed to John Cena

my answer to that is, So him winning the WWE championship at WM21 wasn't torch passing? Him beating Triple H at WM22 wasn't torch passing? Him beating Shawn Michaels at WM23 wasn't torch passing?

John Cena has been passed the torch more times that I can count, and if The Rock can't beat Cena, who the hell will?

You see if John Cena loses tonight, the character will grow more than if Cena wins.

If Cena wins, he gets yet another big victory. He is still the kids hero. He is still the top draw in the WWE.

But if Cena loses here's what will happen

He will still be the kids hero (unless they turn him heel). He will still be the top draw.

But what will happen, that won't happen if he wins. Is that the Cena character will seem less invincible, which the Cena haters have been begging for. It will seem like Cena does have limits, and is not like a respawning video game hero. It will also give Cena fans more reason to cheer for him because they would so badly want to see him redeem himself.

So there is much more storyline possibilities with John Cena losing that him winning.

WM 28 and WM29 would make 3 Outdoor WM's in a 5 year period.

How are they going to do a HIAC match outdoors

and

2. Why MetLife Stadium, it's in New York which i'm quite sure is cold this time a year

I know some internet marks will be like: Oh it helps build superstars, or it helps build up feuds.

I can argue that it doesn't.

First off: It eliminates any idea of brand independence

I remember when Smackdown first came on superstars would cross brands to help Smackdown! gain viewers and become a legitimate WWE show. But after the Invasion storyline they had brand extension where each brand had it's own roster. Which was a brilliant idea, in my humble opinion.

During said brand extension you would see clear subdivisions on each roster, Raw had an undercard, midcard, and main event. and Smackdown! had an undercard, midcard, and main event.

Each show had it's own champions, and you would see good feuds for undercard, midcard and main event championships.

Second argument: The undercard becomes buried and the midcard becomes limited

Now the undercard isn't meant to steal the show, but when you have a thriving undercard, you feed the midcard which should be a revolving door of former main eventers and future main eventers, and when you have a thriving midcard your main event picture isn't so dim, you wouldn't see the same guys main event every PPV.

So one might think differently, but to me the most important element in maintaining a excellent show is having an undercard that will feed a midcard (which isn't a necessarily one direction stop, a midcard should be always changing with fresh faces and main eventers) which feeds a main event (which is also a revolving door)

Having superstars brand jump, means the undercard will be abolished, midcard will become the new undercard (which eliminates a revolving door scenario) and the main event will rarely change.

So those are my arguments on why brand jumping is bad for the WWE

now I will debunk the theories that say brand jumping is good

Theory #1: Without brand jumping the star power dilutes

Yeah you won't have big names on each show, but you have the time to build big names. 2 hours with a 40 man roster is a lot easier than 4 hours with an 80 man roster

Theory #2: Brand jumping helps hype feuds

No all it does is repeat what has already been said, rarely do you see new and fresh material from feuds that are given time from Raw and Smackdown!, if you have independent brands there will be more feuds, which in turn less filler when it comes time for a PPV.

Which lately every PPV has had atleast one filler match.

Theory #3: It helps build superstars

The easiest one to debunk, it reduces the midcard and destroys the undercard.

You want to know why people want to see their favorite wrestler's win the World Heavyweight or WWE Championship. It's because that the midcard titles mean nothing because it's not a revolving door anymore, and the reason the midcard is not a revolving door is brand jumping destroys the undercard, which limits the midcard.

There was a time when people would mark out for intercontinental championship matches and wins, now people barely react to world championship wins.

From now on out I will count weekly how big the roster is and how many superstars appear on Raw and Smackdown! compared to the size of the roster.

I'm thinking we might see something like that, with the winner become GM of both Raw and SD!

I think it will be

Team Laurinaitis

David Otunga

Christian

Mark Henry

Alberto Del Rio

Jack Swagger

Team Long

Randy Orton

Ted Dibiase

Great Khali

Ezekiel Jackson

Justin Gabriel

Face or heel, WM 28 is in Miami. Home state of The Rock.

Indianapolis Colts (0-5), St. Louis Rams (0-4) or Miami Dolphins (0-4)

and why

Detroit Lions or Green Bay Packers

and explain

I think TNA is the reason that WWE doesn't build big stars

when I say big stars, i mean guys that get over with the fans, sell a lot of t-shirts, PPV's, and any other merchadise.

WWE intentionally doesn't build big stars is because of TNA

back when it was WWF vs. WCW

WWF had BIG names leave to WCW: Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Ric Flair, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, etc. WWF had spent time working on their characters and making them household names only to have them leave.

Now since WWE are ahead of the competition with TNA (for viewers and buyrates) the company INTENTIONALLY refuses to have only 2 or 3 guys at the top and only build new stars if they retire. They have the money and incentive to stay.

So they have all these mid-level guys that if pushed properly can become top level, but if they become big level guys TNA would make drastic reaches to get them.

So WWE intentionally hold the midcarders and upper midcarders to a ceiling, and if they feel that their popularity is rising they must bury them back down.

WWE has that no-risk policy. and that's part of the reason WWE is not as good as it once was.

They INTENTIONALLY have these medium level guys that if TNA had them they wouldn't know what to do with them.

It's like if a football team

gets themselves a top tier QB and a top tier Linebacker

and surrounds them with mediocre and average talent and keep them to a contract that will satisfy them and satisfy their top-tier players because they are not as paid or as talked about as much as them (being the top-tier guys).

If you had a team like that you would normally always finish with an average, mid-level record and wouldn't ever soar to great heights.

And that's how the WWE is right now, two top guys (one who doesn't deserve it) and being just average instead of soaring to great heights.

Now be brutally honest with me

If you think that this past season was his 1 and only ring, tell me and explain your reasoning

If you think he will retire with the most rings, tell me and explain yourself

I personally think he will retire with 3 SB rings

I think he will win 1 more within the next few seasons

and then one more towards the end of his career like a John Elway

The reason WWE is crap is not because it is PG

in the 80's it was PG, and most people didn't have a problem with it

the reason that WWE is crap is terrible booking

and here is why the booking is terrible

1- PPV cards are never fully announced until the night of. I'm getting sick and tired of WWE announcing 1/2 to 3/4 of a PPV card before it's announced. PAYING customers have to know what their paying for before they buy it. If a person on the street over you the contents of a paper bag for a total of $50 would you buy it if you weren't allowed to know what was inside it

2- Their writers and bookers put NO EFFORT into their midcard, tag team division, and women's division. The reason why the attitude was so good is all the wrestlers were on a metaphorical ladder, and for midcarders to put on a good show was a common theme. They would trying put on a good show in order to climb up the metaphorical ladder, and their writers helped alongside them booking intriguing storylines. Now that they hired soap opera writers they do not care about the metaphorical ladder, we will just make it like a conveyer belt, just goes round and round until finally one has done enough to make it to the big leagues.

AND MOST IMPORTANT

3- They make little effort to build new stars. back to the metaphorical ladder, When there were guys trying to make it to the top, Top guys would help accomodate the rising stars to become stars. Now let's be safe and say WWE made their top 2 guys Orton and Cena.

Cena and Orton fans tell me the last times these two SUCCESFULLY, made a rising star become a star and stay a star. Because in my mind both of these guys along with the writers can care less about anybody but themselves as far as the wrestling business goes.

1. a QB with a SB apperance vs. a QB with a Pro Bowl appearance

2. a CB with 5 INTs in one season vs. a CB with 5 sacks in one season

3. a LB with 150 tackles in one season vs. a LB with 20 sacks in one season

4. a WR that can run the football (end around, wildcat, etc) vs. a RB that can catch the football

5. the best RB with a mediocre Offensive Line vs. the best Offensive Line with a mediocre RB

6. the fastest QB vs. the most accurate QB

7. the best blocking TE vs. the best receiving TE

8. a head coach that is great at calling plays vs. a head coach that is a great leader

9. the best pass offense vs. the best run defense

10. the best run offense vs. the best pass defense

There's no denying that the Colts and the Patriots are rivals

and SB46 is in Indy

so how do think the Pats will be treated if they play the superbowl in Indy

I think we will see

80 QB Sacks

and 65 QB hurries

and 25 INTs

with 4 QB fumbles

What are your predictions for the Chicago Bears offensive line

Now first off, the question I asked isn't the real question, it's a question to attract attention. The real question is a list of things that are wrong with the WWE.

This is for real wrestling fans, Fans that know greatness from worthless, know that even if WWE is the top promotion it still sucks

If you do not care about pro wrestling, or you actually think WWE is good, than either A-stop reading or B- skip to BQ

Now with that all being said, I need the non-discouraged, full-hearted, fans to read and analyze every word I say.

Problem #1- Terrible booking

Now don't you dare say booking has been good lately, yeah from time-to-time the WWE books a good rivalry/feud. But don't let 1 match/rivalry distract you from the real picture. Don't let them get away from having just one good match. (WM12 has one of the top WM matches in WM history, but is WM12 considered the best WM ever) you can't sell a PPV with one match.

here's whats terrible about WWE's booking

1- PPV cards are never fully announced until the PPV actually begins. Now don't you dare say you like a surprise. If a guy in a store offered you a paper bag with unknown contents, would you buy it for $50 without seing what was inside it first?

2- their midcard is terribly booked, it's like coveyer belt. All the midcarders keep going around in a circle, very few of them being booked correctly. And putting PPV quality, or PPV hype matches on free TV for a rating. I know eventually you will have to put midcarders or main eventers against eachother on TV. But say a TV show before PPV and the Intercontinental title changes hands. For one who's watching, and what the problem with putting that on PPV.

3- The women and the tag team division is non-existent, well the women's can have an asterisk right now, but you had one of the best tag teams in a while last year the Hard Dynasty, and you break them up only to release DH Smith, bury Tyson Kidd, and bury Natalya *until recently.

Common Misconception with Problem #1- the PG-era is responsible for terrible booking, the PG-era is a factor in booking. But it is not responsible for the terrible booking, the writers and executives are responsible for terrible booking.

Problem #2- tiny MAIN EVENT SCENE

1- Main event scene in 80's, Hulk Hogan, Macho Man, Andre the Giant, Ultimate Warrior, Seargant Slaughter, etc.

2- Main event scene in early 90's- Hulk Hogan,Shawn Micheals, Bret Hart, The Undertaker, Yokozuna, etc.

3- Main event in attitude era- The Rock, Stone Cold, Triple H, The Undertaker, Mick Foley, Vince McMahon,

4- Main event in early 2000's- The Rock, Stone Cold, Triple H, The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho etc.

5- Main event in 2011- John Cena, Randy Orton, christian???, CM Punk???

The thing is we are lucky to have 2 guys consistently Main Event PPV's, and the 2 guys that do NEVER PUT OVER other guys, the odd time they do, but when you're in a position where you NEED to build new stars you can't have 2 guys crap on everyone else.

Problem #3- FANS ARE NOT LISTENED TO, WORKERS ARE NOT LISTENED TO, THE ONLY DIRECTION THE COMPANY IS GOING IS DOWN

If anyone says that either A- we are listened to or B- they don't have to listen to us, I will go insane.

Listen to it from a business aspect.

We you are selling something, which is what the WWE is doing, they are selling a product.

When selling a product, would you

A- tell the customer what to buy, even if they don't like it or want it, tell them you won't sell anything else to them

or would you

B- Meet the needs of the customer, make sure that more than 50% of you customers feel satisfied with your product.

If you choose A, you are a terrible salesman. And i think WWE actually thinks the WWE is choosing B, but the truth is from the past to the present the biggest number of followers is ages 18-35. From the past it was like that. And don't blame MMA for "stealing" the demographic. It's WWE's responsiblilty to oblige that 60% of their fan viewers, istead of going for kids who make up 20% of their fanbase.

Well that's a list of 3 MAJOR problems with the WWE now

the WQs are

WQ1-Do you think WWE SummerSlam 2011 will be good

WQ2- If you were in charge of booking WWE how would you book it