Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
WWE had just produced about 15 hours of live TV that week, so my guess is that they wanted Daniel Bryan's win to be the final visual for fans who subscribe to the Network.
The Raw after mania was excellent and the closing angle was something I really enjoyed. Triple H told Batista, Kane, and orton to not start a war with the shield and later kept yelling this is war while Bryan and the shield stared down the authority from the ring. My question is do you think this maybe been foreshadowing and do we have any chance of seeing a war games match between the authority vs Bryan and the shield at extreme rules?
A Wargames match would be beyond awesome. Triple H has pushed to do one for years. The big issue has always been setting up the venue to do it in a way that wouldn't cause a complete production reset. I don't know that we will see it in WWE, but I certainly hope so.
I understand that the wrestlers get a cut of their merchandise sales. I was wondering what happens in the event that nobody wants a wrestler's merchandise, but for the right reasons? The wrong reasons being nobody cares about buying a Brooklyn Brawler t-shirt, but the right reason being that the wrestler is so over as a heel that virtually everyone hates him and won't buy his merchandise. If that wrestler pushes the product to a new level because of how hated he is and does so at his own expense, will he get compensated differently by the company because he will be losing that stream of revenue but generating other streams of revenues for the company (ticket sales, ad sales, PPV buys, etc.)?
I don't think WWE has a formula for that. They pay percentages based on how much merchandise is sold for each talent.
Vince McMahon has always been a big risk taker, but it seems like in the past few months he's really gone all out: changing the entire business model with the Network, inducting Roberts, Hall and Warrior all in one night, and of course ending the Streak. Is he crazy like a fox or just being reckless?
Vince is insane and I mean that in the best way possible. WWE has changed the parameters of their game in the last few months and it's been a lot of fun to watch.
What are your thoughts on the streak ending? Do you think it was the right thing to do? If so, do you think Lesnar was the right guy to end it & if not, who would you have chosen?
I think it was a ballsy as hell move to make and I applaud WWE for doing it. I don't know that I would have had the balls to do it, but by doing so, WWE accomplished several things:
1 - They force themselves to move forward by no longer having the crutch of the Undertaker stream attraction at Wrestlemania.
2 - They allow Undertaker to no longer have to try and keep topping himself with insanely brutal and physical matches.
3 - They make Brock Lesnar an insanely dangerous top villain.
4 - They put a ton of juice behind Paul Heyman, so the next time he claims one of his men are going to do something, you will stand up and take notice.
5 - They created a shocking "anything can happen" moment that wiped the slate clean. Nothing is sacred anymore. If it's truly going to be a new era, you need a blank slate. Now, they have one.
I have no problem with Brock being the guy to end the streak. Look at his level of accomplishments. It makes total sense.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
