CANOE Network SLAM!Sports

 
SLAM! Sports SLAM! Wrestling
  July 6, 2000



News & Rumours
Bios
Obits
Canadian Hall of Fame
WrestleMania 30
WrestleMania 30 photos
Video
Movie Database
Minority Mat Report
Columnists
Features
Results Archive
PPV Reviews
SLAM! Wrestling store
On Facebook
On Twitter
Send Feedback




Photo Galleries

SHIMMER tapings


Alexia Nicole


Ox Baker


BCW Excellence


WWE in Montreal


ROH Unauthorized


Smackdown in Philadelphia







SCOREBOARD
PHOTO GALLERY
VIDEO GALLERY
COMMENT




READER ALERT: For all the latest wrestling happenings, check out our News & Rumours section.

SLAM! Wrestling Editorial: What's next for WWF & ECW?
By CHRIS GRAMLICH -- For SLAM! Wrestling

What's the most intriguing angle in wrestling today? Is it whether or not the immortal and immobile Hulk/Hollywood/Terry Hogan will finally be retired at WCW's Bash at the Beach? Is it the human highlight reel Mick (Mankind/Dude Love/Cactus Jack) Foley becoming commissioner of the WWF and finally putting to bed the Faction, the endless Triple H tirades and the very played-out, evil heel promoter gimmick Vince drove into the grave, buried, dug-up and buried again? Is it whether or not Steven Richards has finally found a gimmick that works, or maybe Kurt Angle versus, well, whomever he's supposed to feud with next will be your thing. No my friends, the most intriguing angle in the "biz" today, the most speculated on and the most eagerly anticipated is simply: What happens next? With what you ask? With ECW, TNN, USA and the WWF I answer.

Unless you've been living on a barren desert island, eating bugs, foraging for grubs and one by one being voted off said island by the surlier members of your contingent for the last two months, you now know that come this fall, changes they are a brewing. First came the earth shattering courtroom drama between the World Wrestling Federation and the USA network, a saga so powerful, a drama so provocative that it made Judge Judy weep with remorse that she turned down the opportunity to cash in on it (think of the buyrates Vince, think of the buyrates).

To recap, the WWF believed their contract with the USA network was going to expire in September and started negotiating with Viacom (which owns CBS, MTV, TNN among other properties) about moving to one of their networks. The USA network believed it had the legal right to keep the WWF for five more years after September, because they (The USA Network) exercised a clause in their contract with the WWF. That clause gave the USA network first refusal rights and the opportunity to match any offer made by a competitor. Think of it as the equivalent of NHL restricted Free Agency. Viacom (CBS, TNN, etc.) offered the WWF a deal The USA Network couldn't match (not just money, a network for the XFL, movies, specials, etc.), or even come close to equalling. The WWF contended that The USA Network was unable to match Viacom's offer, The USA Network claimed it matched Viacom's offer, at least financially, and it was unreasonable to expect them to match Viacom's extras. It went to court, the WWF won, The USA Network lost. End of act one, fade to black.

Next, less than a week ago TNN announced that they were exercising an escape clause in their contract with Extreme Championship Wrestling. Come September 22nd, TNN will no longer air ECW television, co-incidentally the same time as when the WWF's deal with The USA Network also expires. The official reason given by CBS (TNN's parent company) was that ECW had not met their projected ratings and due to stipulations in their contract CBS could therefore terminate their deal. Legally, CBS is well within their rights to drop ECW and considering the increasing tension between ECW and CBS, this isn't that surprising. However, the real reason isn't the ratings that ECW on TNN is generating -- ECW is currently TNN's highest rated show -- it's the fact that Viacom and subsequently TNN wil soon be airing WWF's programs.

So, to return to question at hand, what comes next? The answer? No one knows. Calls by CANOE/SLAM! Wrestling On-line editor John Powell to both CBS and the WWF have been met with answers of, "We don't know what will happen [come September]."

No one knows how this Viacom/WWF deal will affect Canadian viewers, or more specifically, TSN's coverage of Raw/Warzone. However, what we do know is that all of the WWF's programming (save Smackdown!, which will continue to air on UPN) will now be moving to TNN/MTV. The USA Network, having lost their top-rated cable program, has publicly stated that they will not actively pursue replacing the WWF with another wrestling program, to the chagrin of ECW fans everywhere, and will instead air movies during Raw/Warzone's time slot. And ECW, well, The USA Network would seem like a perfect fit for the tumultuous wrestling company that could, that's if The USA Network reconsiders their decision and does go after a wrestling show. And let's not forget the past rumours about the Fox network being interested in acquiring a wrestling promotion, more specifically ECW.

Still, with ECW's future availability in Canada becoming an issue, one can only hope Viewer's Choice continues to air ECW's pay-per-views, even if the worst happens and Canada is once again without ECW's weekly television show. And let us not forget WCW in all of this, they are not exempt from uncertainty, as they are currently mired in rumours of mergers, bankruptcies and outright sales.

While no one is quite sure what is in store for wrestling fans with the current television landscape revisions, and even less sure when it comes to the Canada, one constant remains. It's going to be interesting, to say the least.

Reader Feedback

  • June 29:Five angles to ditch


  • Just wanted to make a couple of points with you as I completely disagree with your article. To borrow a line from the movie BILLY MADISON "I and everyone else that sat here are dumber for having read it."

    1) Gerald Brisco vs. Pat Patterson
    I did not see this match as "harming the WWF", that was one of the funniest matches I have ever seen. As for Crash I can't tell if you were dissing him in your column, but his mic skills are up there and the Crash vs Angle match at the KOTR was maybe the first or second best match of the tournament.

    2) Misfits In Action
    You tried to make a point about impact players in a group by referring to DX in the Faction. Well riddle me this: After Michaels left WWF what was DX? Answer: A bunch of MIDCARDERS. Proof: HHH was feuding with the Rock for the Intercontinental title or otherwise known as the midcarder belt. I think you have it backwards the point of a group or faction is not for the players to make the group get "over" but for the group to help the players get "over". What happens when a group breaks up? The players go their separate ways and hopefully the group made the player more recognizable.

    3) Dale Torborg vs. Vampiro
    I don't watch WCW enough to comment on the problem you have with this angle. I saw the Sting vs. Vamp but not this one.

    4) ECW vs. TNN
    I personally don't care.

    5) The status of the WWF's women's title
    I have to agree with you on this one. It was cool for a little while but what ever happen to the "champion will defend their title at least once every 30 days." I seem to recall HHH (Steph's Husband) getting stripped of the IC Belt that way.

    Bill Newman
    Bnewman@cdnow.com

    Stephanie McMahon however I think is a talent, she can draw heat and makes people tune in and admit it, you may not like violence against women, but you know you wouldn't mind seeing her go through a table. Though I do deplore violence against women, I do understand that this is acting and not reality.

    DaBDC@aol.com


    Your mentioning of the meaninglessness of the mid-carders going up against the top talents and everybody knowing who's going to win made me remember a match out of the old mid-south.

    The challenger's to (I think) the North American tag team title were Wendell Cooley and Al Perez. By the way, whatever happened to Perez, he was very good? Anyway, the champs, I think, were the Assassins, or was it the original Midnight Express, heck, I can't remember for sure.

    Anyway, Cooley had had just a little pump and Perez was certainly the bigger name of the two, although he still hadn't had big-time success. It was one of those matches where the lesser-known challengers got a bunch of two-counts, but of course you knew the champs would win.

    Well, this time, the challengers won. One of the two-counts went to three. A huge upset. Even better, it was clean. I remember totally getting lost in the match and the outcome. like I'd just seen something great -- comparable even to Flair beating Race in the first (or was it the second) Starrcade.

    Why can't we have an angle like that?

    I'm afraid I know the reasons, but I still think it could work. It would also be a bone to throw at fans like me who miss the days when who won actually mattered, rather than what it did to some bigger angle. The title was the angle.

    Clay Horning
    sports@normantranscripts.com


    Generally I agree with your assessment over the five worst angles in wrestling today. Though personally the sight of Patterson and Brisco fighting in drag had me in stitches, it's time the WWF restored some dignity and normalcy to the hardcore division (yes, I just used "dignity" and "normal" in the same sentence as hardcore wrestling).

    But as a longtime wrestling fan I can say without a doubt the absolute unequivocal WORST angle in wrestling has largely gone unscathed by the oh-so vocal community of on-line wrestling columnists. And that would be the love triangle between Daffney, Ms Hancock and David Flair.

    Now the WCW has been doing some interesting things lately, and that's saying something as a lifetime WWF mark myself. And granted the general storyline of the Love Triangle is sound, of an ultra-cool riot babe and ultra-hot vixen babe fighting over an ugly loser who ain't worth squat, but here's the rub: NONE OF THE CHARACTERS INVOLVED ARE ACTUALLY WRESTLERS!

    I mean, excuse me but did I miss something here? It's World Championship WRESTLING right? Outlandish plotlines are great, and Russo is the industry standard at that, but as a writer myself I feel I'm on pretty firm ground here saying that you can't build an angle in wrestling without a wrestler involved (yes I know Daffney and David have some ability in that area, but common sense should tell you that's not good enough).

    Thomas Yeung
    tom.yeung@xtra.ca


    I agreed with half of your column but I think you need to remember one thing: all wrestling fans don't feel the same why. I am a high school student and mornings after Raw the Patterson and Brisco segments are discussed because some people find them funny. The WWF uses comedy to try and bring in more fans with more of a something for everyone.

    Next ECW/TNN angle is the longest running angle on TV without a major plot twist. The McMahon/Top Heel feud has changed so it cannot be counted. It is also their top angle. Your reasoning also isn't relevant because WCW is using shoot angles as well. Really what it sounds like you're saying is companies believe everything on Wrestling TV is true? I find that very hard to believe.

    I do enjoy reading your column though but in this case I think you're wrong on two of the five angles to ditch.

    Chris Pirie
    spirie@nrtco.net

    Past editorials




    Know someone who might be interested in this page? Just type in their e-mail address to send them the URL.

    Destination email address:


    Your email address: