[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Was this meant to be comedy?

Yeah, it was a little bit. It was a ridiculously worded way to highlight how simple this is.

Originally Posted by The CyNick You brought up the whole thing about "some people dont like money". As I said, the people who say that are the guys who write newsletters and the people who read them.

And a whole bunch of other people? I've actually never read that phrase in a newsletter. Don't get your point here.

Originally Posted by The CyNick Obviously WWE is a tad more invested in profits than you or I are. Since Vince built his company to be worth well over a billion dollars, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on all booking calls. Doesnt mean he's right 100% of the time, just means he's better than anyone else, so I'll trust him.

This is an argument from authority. It's cute, but it's not a logical way to think. After all, you can point to many silly business ventures the WWE has been involved in over the years. Now, Vince McMahon is objectively a success story. The idea of my posts wasn't to flame him. But there has been a lot of money left on the table when it comes to certain things in the WWE's history -- and certain talent has been chased off and passed on for the sake of company ego. Can you really debate this?

And all you need to do is look at the growth NXT is experiencing, and the general stir about that product to see that the creative demand might not always be for the WWE's main product.

Originally Posted by The CyNick For me it comes to down to this - which feud do I think can draw more money in the long term for WWE A) Rollins vs HHH or B) Rollins vs Sting. The answer to me, and really should be to anyone who has watched wrestling is the HHH vs Rollins is the bigger money match. If thats the case, then you dont have your two money players lose to B level guys. You can use the B level guys for B level PPVs and to help enhance the A level guys. But you dont sacrifice any of the A level players to make the B level guys look good. Unless you think you can elevate said B player to A, but in this case, Sting is what he is. He's not moving up or down the card.

Actually, I disagree. Triple H vs. Rollins doesn't have a dynamic I particularly enjoy. I'd rather see Triple H vs. Dean Ambrose. The personalities between Triple H and Rollins have been presented as too similar, and there isn't a common goal for them to fight for with Triple H being basically retired. Sting at least represents an ideological rebuttal to the choices Rollins has made to be on top.

There are many ways to get to your desired destination, and I actually see what you are trying to get around to. The only thing is that they are promoting Rollins vs. Sting. With Sting's record being 0-1, this is not only heatless, but it doesn't make sense.

And we come back to this "Sting is a B-level guy" bullshit. If he's a B-level guy, don't bring him in. The reason you brought him in was because he's worth some return. You said it yourself -- he's there to get people to tune into the Network. Great job making it absolutely pointless by making one of the biggest A-players in history a "B-level guy." Against Seth Rollins. Who has also been presented as B-level guy. And is presented as a B-level guy at the moment. Don't believe me? We've heard him called a "joke" and told he's not on Triple H's level. By faces. By heels. This isn't an underdog story.

Also, Triple H vs. Seth Rollins is not going to be based on rankings. Triple H is not an active full-time wrestler. It's going to be based on heat if it's going to work. The idea of Triple H winning the Royal Rumble and challenging Seth Rollins for the title at WrestleMania doesn't seem like an appealing one -- but that's just this amateur's opinion, right?

If Sting beat Triple H, then it gives Triple H a reason to have a personal gripe with Rollins and turn on him. It also means that you can get more interest out of Sting matches in the future. If Sting loses to Rollins cleanly (as he should at this point), what can you mine out of this. You have shut down a well in order to build a mound of dirt. Congratulations.

Some people don't like money.

Originally Posted by The CyNick The only way your argument holds water is if you think Sting should go over Seth, and then go on a run with the title. To do what you talked about - maximize Sting DVD sales, tshirts, those dumb masks, bring back the now 68 year old dudes who used to watch WCW back in the early 90s. But I think we both know it would be absurd to bastardize the title by putting it on Sting at this point. So were back to sacrificing the bigger money program to sell more wolf tickets with Sting as a credible title challenger.

What? No. This just... no.

Building challengers for titles is apparently a shitty idea? You just shot yourself in the foot to prove you have a gun. I'm also going to again assert that Rollins vs. Triple H -- Battle of the Carpenters -- might not actually be the huge money draw your argument depends on it being.