SorceressKnight

The Portland reason was probably related to Lillard's claim "he wouldn't play if there was no realistic way to make the playoffs for Portland", and now that the season plan is in place, it doesn't look that way: Conference tournaments are still in play. Lowest seed left is the Suns who were 6 games out of a playoff spot. 8 regular season games for each of the teams to play. 16- team playoffs, with a play-in possible: If the 9 seed is within 4 games of the 8 seed (so for comparison as of the suspension- the Wizards have to pick up 2 games from the Magic, but the Blazers, Pelicans, Kings, and Spurs all qualify as of right now), then there'd be a modified best of 3 series (the 9 seed has to win twice before the 8 seed wins once.) This still doesn't seem to make sense- before the suspension, the Bucks, Raptors, Celtics, and Lakers all clinched playoff berths. With the changes to the season, the only three teams with a chance of being knocked out are the Nets, Magic (and even then, the Wizards only realistically have a chance to get within 4 games and force a play-in series), and Grizzlies. Even if they went 1-16, the Magic had a better record than the Blazers/Pelicans/Kings did in the West, so the 16 teams would stand for a NBA playoffs If you're doing all of that and doing 22 teams for that, it'd make more sense to just do: Seed the playoffs 1-16 for this year and do an 8-team play in tournament. The Nets, Magic, Blazers, Pelicans, Kings, Spurs, Suns, and Wizards are invited into the tournament. 1 game for the first round, best of 3 second round (higher seed has to win once before lower seed wins twice.) Winners get the 15/16 seeds.

The most obvious benefit is- the undercard loses Booker T and DDP, but presumably the Edge and Christian breakup becomes a much, much bigger deal without WCW in play. It may not get them to main event levels, but it likely gets them each to Booker/DDP's level instead of extras in the feud. There's other questions in play there- the Eddie Guerrero/Matt Hardy/Lita thing was dropped due to Eddie's drug problems, but between Matt as Euro champ and Jeff as IC champ, it's also entirely feasible both guys are added as top undercard names without it, especially since all claims at the time were "RVD and Steve Corino agreed to terms with WCW and if WCW lived, they go there." The bigger question is if they remake the undercard as a whole with the TLC workers and also throw the Dudleyz in there, since the only other lowcard angle swallowed up by the Invasion was the Spike Dudley/Molly Holly relationship, and that's a question mark since it also happened to be the only one of the undercard angles going on in between Mania 17 and the Invasion that didn't seem to have a satisfying ending (and any ending would tie into the "Chyna was gone in 2001 as Women's Champ, opening up another big hole.in the undercard and taking a way for that angle to fill it.")

Well, the joke of Mark Cuban buying WWF instead of the Mavericks is...closer to the truth than it looks. Even if Hogan was worth a lot of money (he wouldn't be worth that much in 1999), the quoted prices are in the "no 'rassling name' has a fighting chance at it. Again, the big number to look at was Mandalay Bay's attempt to buy WCW for $500 million in 1999, and it becomes clear that $500 million would be the likely low end price for a WWF sale in 1999. Considering that WWF is the more well-known brand than WCW and WWF was winning in the ratings war at the time, plus much more mainstream success than similar WCW names had gotten at the time, it would likely be a higher pricetag than that. The endgame that seems most likely: Viacom picks up the WWF as a whole when they purchased the rights to Raw/Heat for MTV/Spike TV.

There might be a number of big buyers in 1999, but it seems likely Turner would be the last buyer. Given that the AOL/Time Warner was already announced and was in the mix, it's clear Time Warner wouldn't allow Turner to purchase WWF due to freezing purchases, and even if they didn't freeze purchases, the two-pronged attack of "AOL didn't want WCW to begin with" and "if you have two very big companies making a merger and trying not to attract the attention of antitrust lawsuits thinking a monopoly was forming, the exact worst thing they could do is make a purchase like WWF that would give WCW a monopoly."

Considering Rudy Gobert was a All Star-level player to be the first to get it, and Kevin Durant- one of the closest big stars to Lebron's level, got it- I don't even think Lebron getting it would get it totally taken seriously there. It seems like the only way the mainstream sports world would take it seriously is to go past "a big-name player gets it" and go straight to the even worse outcome for people to take it seriously- a Joe Hall in 1920 moment of of "an active player dies of it"...and even then, it might have to go further to "a big-name active player dies of it." (And even then, I don't even know if that'd be enough.)

Even if it's boring, I think it would also tie into the "would they sell?" question. Even if Linda runs things, Shane had no interest in running the company, and Stephanie was just out of college and wouldn't have been able to step right into that role in 1999- it's likely it's temporarily run by Linda/Shane/Stephanie, with the goal to eventually find someone to buy. (Considering Mandalay Bay was willing to pay 500 million for WCW in 1999 and WWF would have had the more recognizable name, higher ratings, and a lot of bigger stars in 1999, it's likely that WWF not only would have sold easily, but could have gotten higher.) Indeed, that'd make things different further, since suddenly, you have the "there's a precedent for a big sale price" that would make WCW likely get A higher price tag, but likely also have the question mark if WWF is purchased (since there's the question of whether the "WWF gets first refusal in a WCW sale" clause WWF won in the Hall/Nash lawsuit would have transferred over, and indeed if the new company to purchase WWF would have realized they had this ace in the hole)- and suddenly when the AOL/Time Warner merger is completed and AOL's first order of business is "get WCW off our books, no matter what it takes", the ownership there is even more of a question.

As far as WCW owned by Fusient...honestly, a lot of WCW in 2001 before the sale makes it likely that if WCW could have survived 2001, they probably would have been able to still exist to this day. The WCW product in 2001 made it clear from a TV standard, they were starting to turn the corner, and all the Time Warner deals would have given WCW the enema they needed to have a fighting chance at survival with the WCW 24 and anyone they could have kept on after that. From there, all WCW would have to do is just survive to 2003, when College Sports Network/CBS Sports Network came into existence and WCW would have a TV deal. It seems realistic WCW could have survived until College Sports Network existed, and if that's the case, WCW likely takes over TNA's place in pro wrestling (especially since TNA has always kind of seemed like what WCW would have looked like if they lived.)

Even before the family took the final payoff, the whole point of the Spirits deal was that the NBA's settlement was so beautifully airtight and had absolutely no loopholes or out clauses inside the deal that the NBA had to go with that final payoff, or else they'd have to pay the Spirits deal forever. Because of how airtight the clause the Spirits got was, I'm pretty sure that even before the final payoff from the NBA, St. Louis could have absolutely gone for an NBA team if they wanted it, and that would have had nothing to do with the NBA getting out of the Spirits deal, and they'd still have had to pay that deal off even if St. Louis got an NBA team. The bigger reason that St.Louis never tried for a team was less the Spirits deal and more...basketball was not popular in St. Louis when they had it. The Hawks failed in STL even when they had a decent team, and in the dying days of the ABA the Spirits made it clear if the ABA lived or the NBA absorbed them as well, they were planning to move to Utah for the 1976-77 season.

The one defense of it- Tito would be much higher than Jinder's title reign, since Jinder was never even remotely a threat for any title whatsoever. In his second run, he was basically a lowcarder on Raw before this and doing nothing of note, and even in his previous reign, you'd have to go all the way back to the Jinder Mahal/Great Khali storyline to find a place where Jinder could even be considered a credible midcarder, let alone a contender (and even THAT was kind of questionable.) It may be a hot take, but a Tito Santana title win would...actually be much more relative to Kofi Kingston as WWE Champion. Just like Kofi, Tito was never really in the main event, but he was always running around the IC Title/Tag Team title picture, and even if he never really sniffed the main event scene, Tito was always considered a particularly important midcarder who was always a threat to win the midcard titles and usually had something to do.

The only way that Tito Santana would have remotely worked in the role was if Tito's claim "WWE wasn't sure whether they wanted to expand to Canada, then Europe or expand to Mexico, then South America. If they chose Canada, Bret got it, if they chose Mexico, Tito got it" was in play...and even THAT doesn't make any sense, because Tito Santana was always good, but not what you'd call a top luchador at any point. Heck, if you assume the Mexico/South America thing, there's even a more intriguing choice in the WWF at the time when hindsight is 20/20, since that fall '92 time period was right around the time Konnan was still playing Max Moon. WWF Champion Tito Santana probably doesn't give WWF that market, but even "WWF Intercontinental Champion Konnan" probably gives WWF a fighting chance at making a handhold into Mexico.

Honestly, even that seems like a non-starter. Vince was throwing money around, had the biggest cities in his grasp, and even if someone else got Los Angeles before Vince did (which happened before Hogan was in the picture), Vince would have STILL been in the driver's seat for a national expansion solely because it was the WWF (in addition to New York, the Northeast had three other cities- Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington- that would have been able to be major national territories on them alone...and even just by arenas open in the 1980s, they would still have five other cities which all had big enough arenas that they could likely support a territory in most other parts of the country. Likewise, in 1983-84, Hogan was just too big a star to stay in the AWA and would have inevitably looked for greener pastures. The second Rocky III came out, nothing Verne Gagne could do was going to keep him in Minneapolis. WWF could offer him New York and Los Angeles for mainstream superstardom in movies, TV, the works. All the AWA could do locally to make Hogan a crossover superstar is...uh...maybe if Verne Gagne knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy, there'd be a chance Gagne could see if Prince needed another session bassist for some of his proteges' albums? Throw that in place, and then there's the Japan problem as well: AWA had All Japan, Hogan had New Japan and that was a problem...and at the time, WWF had a small relationship with New Japan. Throw those in place, and it seems pretty clear- WWF and Hulk Hogan coming together was inevitable, and anything done by AWA to stop it would have invariably just given the AWA an extra couple months of Hogan before Hogan went there.

With what was important to Vince, it seemed "Q rating" triumphed everything, and Vince would have picked someone who had some semblance of crossover stardom to be the face of the company for that purpose. Even with Hogan, he was pretty much picked due to "Rocky III." If Hogan didn't come in, knowing that fact, it seems likely that Vince brings Jerry Lawler in to become his "guy" in that instance. Lawler was very tied to Memphis, yes- but Memphis had gotten into the "Lawler books for 6 months, Jerry Jarrett for six months" thing that made it just likely you could bowl Lawler over with an offer he couldn't refuse to come in, and the Andy Kaufman storyline had made Lawler the only person who had a comparable Q rating to Hogan at the time (even if it boiled down to "he worked with Andy Kaufman and had done appearances on Late Night with David Letterman- that would have been a plus since Lawler could be seen as cool to the type of fans Vince was trying to bring in.)

I think it was a mixture of "Tully had become a minister and didn't want to go back to wrestling" (his claim) or "Tully asked for too much money; Roma was far, far cheaper and they already had him" (WCW's claim.)

The "2 or 3 incredibly tough groups" is good enough for the potential of World Cup-esque fun in the tournament- but if they do group stages, I kind of like the related claim of "let the best teams from the regular season draft their groups" (in the 20 team claim, Lakers/Bucks/Raptors/Clippers, in Dolfan's 30-team claim, the Raptors/Clippers/Celtics/Nuggets/Jazz/Heat/Thunder), even more than Group of Death potential. The Group of Death may give a top teams playing in the group stage, but "this top team specifically chose to play you in the first round of the playoffs because they think you're no match for them" would be such a show of disrespect that you'd have INSTANT rivalries happen, likely for years to come...and the sheer unadulterated HATE would make far, far better games than even the Groups of Death would bring.

Well, it kind of ties to the "did NXT make any gamechangers or not?" thing. With the booking, it seems like Dusty's NXT stuff was a throwback to the glory days of wrestling, when everyone had some character that wasn't "I'm a great wrestler and I'm out here to put on the best match on the card." "I am also a great wrestler and I'm out here to put on the great match on the card." "I deeply respect how good you are. Let's fight, and that will be the best match on the card." "No, I'm also a great wrestler, and my match with this other person I deeply respect will be the best match on the card." "Then next week, me and this guy will fight you and that guy, and that tag team match will be the best match on the card." "And that will give me and this other person a chance to fight, and that will be the best match on the card", etc. etc. It kind of says something that when NXT seemed to lose its fizz can be so connected to when Dusty died that you can virtually point directly where the sea change of "NXT gives wrestlers gimmicks and lets those characters develop into something special" and "NXT hires all the best indie wrestlers and has them just put on matches for matches'' sake.

When I say "awesome person", it's not a judgment of the person here. I'm talking "four people that people would want to watch just playing golf and hanging out together."

To claim "did NXT make difference makers?" is a hard road to claim as well. To say "no, NXT didn't have anything to do with making this star" is to say "the star could have been signed, the day after their signing plopped on the main roster in an immediate main event angle, and absolutely nothing would have changed." Of the NXT wrestlers the only wrestlers who could have done that were Drew McIntyre and Shinsuke Nakamura- and as I said, in McIntyre's case some reps as a main eventer needed to happen to make it possible to see him as a main event player and not a failed experiment. Even then, though, if the people NXT made don't count as difference makers, it just shows another problem: If just making top names doesn't make a difference maker, then you have to accept that being a true difference maker is effectively random. NO ONE can make a difference maker, because ultimately the only people who'll make a difference are people who attract the attention of non-fans (not even a smark vs. casual debate, but who makes someone who has no interest in wrestling say "I want to see what this person's about.') Looking at the people who did that- there's no common thread except their own success. There was blue-chip prospects like Rock and journeymen like Austin, there were wrestlers who could be considered one of the best on the planet like Daniel Bryan and wrestlers who didn't know a wristlock from a wristwatch like Hogan, wrestlers who were rising stars taken over the top like Punk and people at the tail end of their career like Cena...there is no one formula to determine who will change the game.

Even with the charity match postponement, it's shocking sports channels aren't trying that during the current climate. Just get four awesome people and pay for them to play 18 holes and videotape it. Simple, gives product, and keeps sports and social distancing.

I don't know about that. When McIntyre was rehired, his WWE main roster run had been basically boiled to a viewpoint "McIntyre's good as a midcarder, but his uppercard run in 2010 was a failed experiment". Even if his indy run changed minds, McIntyre was good...but never GREAT on the indies. At least NXT made it clear that "yeah, McIntyre could absolutely be an main event player on WWE television, and might be able to merit another chance as an uppercarder on the main roster." It's very little, but it's the difference between succeeding or ending up a Jinder Mahal as champion.

In addition to that, NXT would be safe even if it's getting weak ratings. Businesses would know the value of NXT, because businesses know the concept of having a fighting brand (Company A has a popular product. Company B follows the leader and comes out with a rival product. Company A, not wanting to risk their popular product's reputation, brings out a similar product that has the main goal of competing with this new product, to keep the popular product out of the fight.) Describe NXT as "it's the fighting brand to AEW so that AEW doesn't put WWE at risk", and it'll survive much longer.

Even that's hard with it, because HHH is still has a few levels left to go of the wrestler in decline: LEVEL ONE: "I'm no longer at the top of my game, but between muscle memory and how well-respected I am, no one but me will notice." (Think: Benoit in 2007- had lost a step, but still had people on DVDVR going "I'll cut my balls off if Benoit jobs to the Miz!".) LEVEL TWO: "I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was." (Triple H has usually been able to stay in this level.) LEVEL THREE: "I am perfectly aware that I have one great match left in me and that's it." (Think: Vampiro at Ultimo Lucha I vs. Pentagon Jr., or Kurt Angle in his WWE run.) LEVEL FOUR: "I don't have any good matches left in me, but I can still give you a perfectly fun "show up, do all my signature spots, never leave my feet except to do my finisher, and let everyone go home happy' match." (Think: Most of the legends still running around smaller indies.) LEVEL FIVE: "I have nothing left." (The time when legends retire.)

The worse part is that...even on an in-ring scale (especially in the modern era), WWE isn't that bad. It isn't good, but the WWE/F roster is just too GOOD to be truly BAD. There's just too many talented wrestlers on the show to make the show bad. WWE's not bad...it's BLAND. It's a bland piece of pablum that doesn't inspire any thoughts- good, bad, whatever. Even if WWE is trying to make "moments" instead of good story, by and large most of those moments are so formulaic even they don't really seem like great moments...in large part because there's no story leading to it and just moment for the sake of moment. Heck, the fact WWE is so bland may indeed make WWE WORSE than bad. At least with truly bad stuff: UWF shows, WCW in 2000, etc....at least then you can watch the show to laugh at it and have a great time. You can't even mock how bad the WWE is, because it's at least "this is a perfectly competent wrestling show. This is an acceptable show. This is a good way to waste seven hours a week of my life I will never get back."

Even with that example, that would also be even worse when you consider the "technically, every free agent's contract expires in July 1" on the other side of "prevent the reserve clause from coming back or offseason problems." With the July 1 start of the season- using Portland for example, if the Blazers or Grizzlies clinch Memphis's playoff spot, what would be stopping someone like, say, Carmelo Anthony saying "wait a second. My contract expired July 1. Why am I going back to Portland? I'm signing with the Lakers now and going from playing out the string for four games to having a chance at getting a ring." Technically given the contracts, there would be nothing stopping him (or another upcoming free agent for a non-playoff team) from just abandoning their current team for the last few games and jumping to a playoff team.

Honestly, if they pulled a "you had 2-4 months off, you don't need an offseason" move, then that is guaranteed to not end well for the players. Shit, even just restarting the season in July alone could potentialy be a big problem, since technically on July 1, every outgoing free agent's contract will be null and void (and a "I know your contract has been paid off and you're technically a free agent right now, but we're making you play for free for the duration of the season/playoffs" alone is the type of thing the players would be right to strike over...and no offseason (and thus, no chance to negotiate with a new team) would potentially bring the reserve clause back for one year and definitely be worthy of striking over.

I agree with what you said, and honestly, this is why I'm disgusted with what @MapRef41N93W implied there. To even think that I'm considering this on the same level as "the person I liked didn't get to win" makes me as furious as anything else.