Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

Wrestling What Ifs

Web Conn

By Web Conn
in The PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING

 Share

Recommended Posts

SorceressKnight

SorceressKnight

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, BrianS81177 said:

I doubt Goldberg would have signed unless they guaranteed in writing that he would be a main event level guy. Ditto for Sting. The only guy I could see taking the money if Vince offered more than what Time Warner was paying would be Flair. 

Even with that, Goldberg in the Invasion would inevitably be a problem, because of how close Goldberg's look and style were.

If WWE would make it a point "okay, Booker T has to fight, and lose to, The Rock", I think WWF would have made it a point in that same contract "We'll guarantee in writing you'll be a main event level guy, but only if you guarantee in writing, you WILL lose to Steve Austin."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
olythegreat89

olythegreat89

Posted
Posted
On 5/20/2019 at 2:06 PM, Brian Fowler said:

On a similar note: what if Bischoff never fired Austin. Just kept him in that midcard scene. Does WWF ever bounce back? Without that fury driving him, does Austin ever become a major star? How good is Austin in that WCW midcard in 97?!?

I could see him joining the Horsemen with Pillman in 95 and going back to the tag division. I don't think Hogan or Savage would've seen money in a program with Austin so the US title run would probably be the highest point he'd reach.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
clintthecrippler

clintthecrippler

Posted
Posted

Alternate theory: Austin ends up being the old friend from their first WCW run that Nash and Hall go to bat for, and he ends up in the slot as the face of WCW that DDP got, transitions into a "man of the people" role and becomes a sort of proto-SCSA anyway.

And with that, we get a face brawler Austin vs heel nWo Randy Savage that would have been absolutely fucking gold.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SorceressKnight

SorceressKnight

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, RolandTHTG said:

Could also make the argument that WCW lost far more than the WWF won at the time.

Whether its a valid one or not, I'm not entirely sure - the product does not age well at all.

The big problem with WWF or WCW is that in the Monday Night Wars, ultimately it comes to the conclusion that WWF was the only promotion that had a chance to live or die during that time period.

WWF was in a bad way in the Monday Night Wars, it may have come close to dying...but they had the chance to live and the chance to die. 

By contrast, in retrospect it seems pretty clear WCW and ECW's deaths were inevitable. No matter how good the ECW product was, Paul Heyman was probably going to run out of money, and by expansion he'd run out of money faster. 

Likewise, whether or not WCW had a good promotion or good ratings, AOL was always going to buy Time Warner, Ted Turner was always going to lose any vestige of power in the merger, and AOL Time Warner would always say "get this 'rasslin shit off our books by any means necessary."

End result, the biggest what if could be "what if WCW beat WWF in 1997?" ECW probably goes bankrupt in 1999-2000, possibly sooner without WWE's money...and WCW still dies in 2001.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GuerrillaMonsoon

GuerrillaMonsoon

Posted
Posted

Can't say I agree. I can't see AOL getting rid of WCW if it's still pulling 1998 numbers (peaking at a 6-5 in the ratings, and made a $30 million profit. Yes, the AOL merger tightened the screws, and lost key supporters of the product as a result, but let's not underplay the fact it lost $63 million that year.


 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SorceressKnight

SorceressKnight

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, RolandTHTG said:

Can't say I agree. I can't see AOL getting rid of WCW if it's still pulling 1998 numbers (peaking at a 6-5 in the ratings, and made a $30 million profit. Yes, the AOL merger tightened the screws, and lost key supporters of the product as a result, but let's not underplay the fact it lost $63 million that year.
 

Even if it was at 1998 numbers, Time Warner had wanted to pull the plug on WCW, and only Ted Turner still being important on the board of directors until the AOL merger made him a middle manager there had kept it. (It also helps that apparently, when AOL took over, the first order of business is "get WCW off the books, I don't care how"...and good ratings probably wouldn't have changed it.) 

The TNT/TBS changeover had the best example: It didn't matter if WCW was pulling 1998 numbers and profiting...the person in charge just plain didn't want 'rasslin on the networks and wasn't going to have it.  The only difference for 1998 numbers is maybe WCW gets a better owner with those numbers...MAYBE, since WWF was the only company who realized "even if we shut down WCW, the video library has money".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Victator

Victator

Posted
Posted
On 5/20/2019 at 7:42 AM, olythegreat89 said:

Would we have seen an Attitude Era? How would the Kliq respond with him still being in the spotlight?

If Hogan was still around, the Kliq never gets power.

 

1 hour ago, SorceressKnight said:

Likewise, whether or not WCW had a good promotion or good ratings, AOL was always going to buy Time Warner, Ted Turner was always going to lose any vestige of power in the merger, and AOL Time Warner would always say "get this 'rasslin shit off our books by any means necessary."

 

If WCW was keeping the ratings and profits they had in 97, they are not going to get rid of WCW.  AOL was ran by idiots, but they were not so stupid they would sabotage a successful show. WCW was only killed because of people like Russo tweaking corporate's nose constantly. 

But this scenario requires Bischoff not getting power drunk in late 97 and coasting, then getting desperate in late 98 and constantly rebooting thru 99. 

ECW's fate was tied into not trying to go national. To be content being a regional promotion and letting talent go instead of matching pay with the WWF and WCW. 

 

3 hours ago, L_W_P said:

Assuming Bret still screws Bret then we get a continuation of the rise of The Rock and Triple H. We probably get a DX implosion and main event title feud and Foley remains as the upper midcarder who can be used to transition the title around the 'big 3'. Owen Hart becomes the anti authority "fuck you Vince" character sitting in the upper mid card and fighting against the Corporation.

Montreal likely never happens since Bret never turns heel. There would be nobody you could do the WM 13 match with, since there were no anti heroes getting cheered. Even before Bret turned heel, he was still getting cheered slightly more than Austin. But if Austin is not in the WWF, maybe Bret does not sign a new contract since he really wanted to work with Austin. 

Steve Austin not going to the WWF changes everything. I don't think the WWF goes anywhere, they had started making money on live events by 97 and Vince proved he could go into survival mode in 93/95. Maybe things would be better today, since without the stock scam and big cash reserves, they would have to make stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jenalysis

Jenalysis

Posted
Posted

If the WWF died, WCW would not have died.   ECW would likely have survived as well just to be an alternative, Northerners would feel about WCW the same way Southerners felt about WWF, that would have kept ECW alive.

If ECW still went under, ROH would have happened and gotten more backing and perhaps a few big ex-WWF midcarders like Owen or Shamrock. 

WCW surviving might have had some butterflies on NJPW- might have sent some guys on WCW excursions like Okada/Naito/Yoshi-Hashi

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Victator

Victator

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SorceressKnight said:

Even if it was at 1998 numbers, Time Warner had wanted to pull the plug on WCW, and only Ted Turner still being important on the board of directors until the AOL merger made him a middle manager there had kept it.

That is just plainly not true. Time Warner was firmly in control when they insisted on giving WCW a prime time show on TBS and were all jockeying to take credit for the success. When the merger happened, WCW was bleeding money, so it is no surprise they wanted WCW off the books. If WCW was generating the money it was at its peak there is absolutely no way Kellner gets the okay to cancel the WCW shows. He probably would not have been allowed to broach the idea.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Just Dave

Just Dave

Posted
Posted

In regards to Kronik in Wwe, the story I heard is that Undertaker voucher for his guys, and then they came in clearly not ready to work after promising Taker they would be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Technico Support

Technico Support

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, SorceressKnight said:

Even if it was at 1998 numbers, Time Warner had wanted to pull the plug on WCW, and only Ted Turner still being important on the board of directors until the AOL merger made him a middle manager there had kept it. (It also helps that apparently, when AOL took over, the first order of business is "get WCW off the books, I don't care how"...and good ratings probably wouldn't have changed it.) 

The TNT/TBS changeover had the best example: It didn't matter if WCW was pulling 1998 numbers and profiting...the person in charge just plain didn't want 'rasslin on the networks and wasn't going to have it.  The only difference for 1998 numbers is maybe WCW gets a better owner with those numbers...MAYBE, since WWF was the only company who realized "even if we shut down WCW, the video library has money".

 

As @RolandTHTG and @Victator already said, this is just not correct.  You know what corporate decision makers like?  Money.  They also like being able to take credit for making said money.  Hot WCW, making money and beating WWF, would absolutely not have been cancelled.  It makes zero sense at all.  Even the most anti-rasslin suit would hold his nose and keep it on the network to keep getting that money. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MORELOCK

MORELOCK

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, just drew said:

In regards to Kronik in Wwe, the story I heard is that Undertaker voucher for his guys, and then they came in clearly not ready to work after promising Taker they would be. 


But why would he need to vouch for two dudes that had already spent years working for the company?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister TV

Mister TV

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Technico Support said:

As @RolandTHTG and @Victator already said, this is just not correct.  You know what corporate decision makers like?  Money.  They also like being able to take credit for making said money.  Hot WCW, making money and beating WWF, would absolutely not have been cancelled.  It makes zero sense at all.  Even the most anti-rasslin suit would hold his nose and keep it on the network to keep getting that money. 

Yeah the whole "It's All Jamie Kellner's Fault" angle is bs, besides what's been stated before both TBS and TNT were sort of directionless before he came into the picture and there needed to be re-organization. Also I can see the AOL\Time Warner execs being leery selling and giving airtime to a WCW headed by Eric Bischoff the man that bankrupted the division along with the company backing him not having that much money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SorceressKnight

SorceressKnight

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Technico Support said:

As @RolandTHTG and @Victator already said, this is just not correct.  You know what corporate decision makers like?  Money.  They also like being able to take credit for making said money.  Hot WCW, making money and beating WWF, would absolutely not have been cancelled.  It makes zero sense at all.  Even the most anti-rasslin suit would hold his nose and keep it on the network to keep getting that money. 

Corporate decision makers with wrestling have proven many times- especially in this era (with the Westminster Dog Show and the US Open preempting Raw at its hottest) the other side of that: Corporate decision makers like money- but they like advertising demographics more. 

And to those corporate decision makers, they'd rather have a show that one million rich people liked than a show ten million poor people liked, simply because the rich people would buy rich people things (letting them get higher-class advertisers) and would buy the things advertised and not just watch them, while poor people would not.

For TNT, drama shows get those rich viewers, WCW could not. Even with TBS, it's more likely a rich person will watch a sitcom rerun than laugh at the poors actually enamored by these guys in their underwear pretending to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...