Powered by LiquidWeb Search all of OO for news, columnists, and articles about your favorites!
News  -/-  Recaps  -/-  Columns  -/-  Features  -/-  Reference  -/-  Archives  -/-  Interact  -/-  Site Info

Donate to Online Onslaught!
     Daily Onslaught
     Obtuse Angle
     RAW Satire
     The Broad

     Inside the Ropes
     OOld Tyme
         Rasslin' Revue
     Title Wave
Crashing the

     Smarky Awards
     Big in Japan
     Guest Columnists
     2 Out of 3 Falls
     Devil's Due
     The Ring
     The Little Things
SK Rants
The Mac Files
     Sq'd Circle Jerk
     RAW vs. SD!:
         Brand Battle
     Cheap Heat 
     Year in Review
     Monday Wars
     Road to WM 

     Title Histories
     Real Names
     PPV Results
     Smart Glossary
     Message Boards
     Live Chat 
     OO History

If you attend a live show, or have any other news for us, just send an e-mail to this address!  We'd also love to hear from you if you've got suggestions or complaints about the site...  let us have it!

Financials Time!, SD/Ratings, Sting,
WM20, and Other Weekend Ranting...
February 20, 2004

by Rick Scaia
Exclusive to OnlineOnslaught.com


Well, I'm not gonna lie: it'd be sweet as hell to get a season sweep over the Hated Xavier Musketeers tomorrow afternoon (2pm, ESPN).  But for the first time in a long time (maybe ever, at least in so far as my fandom is concerned), I want the Dayton Flyers to beat X for a reason that has nothing to do with Xavier itself.  
You see, X is three-and-a-half game behind us in the standings, all but mathematically eliminated (give us just one of our two upcoming cupcake wins at home, and it is mathematical) from winning the A-10 West.  But those pesky GW Colonials are just one game back.  If X knocks us off and GW wins tomorrow... well, you get the picture.  And let's just say we NEED first place in our division for seeding purposes in the A-10 tourney.  The longer we can go without having to play St. Joe's again, the better.... 
And OK: so maybe it's only MOSTLY nothing to do with X itself.  Because there's a very dark part of my soul that wants to bring pain and destruction to Xavier.  You know, now that David West is finally gone and we can.  A little known fact: Dayton and X are two of only something-teen programs in the nation who came into the year with active streaks of four consecutive 20 win seasons... and UD, we've already got our 20-5 record going into the game to make it an active streak of five seasons.  But X is only 15-10 with four regular season games to go, and things aren't looking good for the Muskies to join us on the elite list, especially if we beat them.  So stick the knife in and twist, says I!  Then again, I am a small, bitter, and petty man... 

Thanks for putting up with me.  Now here, have a cookie:

  • I had a blast with last night's SmackDown!...  but it was a show that kind of out-RAWed RAW, if you know what I mean.
    So RAW has some recent success with just four matches per show and then a lot of smoke and mirrors?  SD! actually countered last night with a show that only had THREE matches...  and smack my ass and call me Sally, it worked perfectly.
    It helps that two of those matches were very good.  The Cena/Angle vs. the Bashams tag match was about 10 minutes, and very well put-together.  It told two parallel stories; one was the intra-match story of Cena's busted knee giving him trouble, the other was the tension between Cena and Angle which Angle decided to defuse (which nicely set the stage for his eventual heel turn to be a bit shocking).
    The other, obviously, was the main event between Eddie and Chavo.  It blew away their Rumble PPV match, and I think was also the hands-down Free TV Match of the Week over Benoit/HBK.  Well, maybe "hands down" makes it sound like too much of a blow-out...  but the truth is, I really wouldn't entertain too much debate on the matter, either.
    Not only did Eddie and Chavo work a much more entertaining contest than at the Rumble (longer, more intensity thanks to more offense for Chavo, and so on), but the extracurriculars added a lot to things.  Chavo Sr.'s run-in and Rey's save were just the start.  Kurt's heel turn, costing Eddie the win by causing the no decision, was the REAL meat and potatos.  And not to harp on something that I get the impression you think I over-reacted to earlier this week, but: if you want to do a brutal heel beat-down, THIS is how to do it (contrast with the Evolution/Foley segment on RAW that just never clicked with me).  Big Ups to Eddie and Chavo for working a tremendous match, and then more to Eddie and Kurt for working the post-match angle so well that I didn't give a damn that we got a cheap non-finish.
    Sandwiched between those two gems was a Big Show/Bob Holly match that... well, it was there, I can say that safely.  I guess I can also say "It served its purpose," and not be lying to you fine folks.  It provided John Cena with an opening to come on out and challenge Show for a US Title match at Mania, which was duly accepted.  And I guess by having the challenge come after a convincing Big Show win, it made Show's claim about being the "Greatest US Champion of All Time" seem SLIGHTLY less absurd (he's up to, what, four televised title defenses since October and counting?).
    Then on the non-wrestling: well, clearly, everything with Angle, leading up to his main event heel turn was handled really well, and helped SD! come across as a big show this week.  But I also loved Eddie and Chavo's mid-show promo about as much as their match, too; Eddie didn't say or do much beyond what you'd expect out of a new champ, but Chavo really carried things with his "What about me?" speech inspired (at least in part, it seemed) by some of Owen Hart's breakthrough sentiment of exactly 10 years ago.
    If I had to pick something that didn't QUITE work for me, I guess I have my reservations about Brock Lesnar's promo.  Started out fine, in the same whiny/refuting-the-obvious sort of vein as his promos about not tapping out to Kurt Angle...  but where they ended up with him on his knees BEGGING for a match with Goldberg, I think I would have had him rally to do more standing, blustery heel shouting, and less weepy, almost-losing-it pleading.  It rang false to me to have your monster heel not have at least one moment in the promo where he seemed kinda bad-ass, is all.  Not a big deal, really: the soundbite of Brock begging will be a nice little thing to insert in the inevitable 4 minute Video Package for Lesnar/Goldberg, and we won't remember the rest of the promo even one week from now....
    Just a good strong show as a whole, beating out RAW this week, if you ask me.  And you did.  Or you will, depending on whether Battle of the Brands is posted by the time you read this.
    Get the full details on the show courtesy of Big Danny T's SD! Recap.
  • Before I move too far along and forget: this was another week where SD! couldn't quite join the Clean Plate Club.  Oh, those eyes, bigger than the stomach.  Or the timeslot.  Or something.
    Here's what I mean: they taped a Billy Gunn/Tajiri match that wound up on the cutting room floor due to time constraints.  Tajiri won the match (with a little help from Akio and Sakoda), so dammit, unlike 2 weeks ago when a Tajiri loss to Ernest Miller was axed, I do NOT applaud this editorial decision!  If Tajiri goes over, you must show it!  Or risk my wrath!
    Yeah, my wrath!  It consists of bitching testily to a negligible percentage of your audience, WWE!  Fear it!
    Also cut: a backstage skit where the APA asked Rikishi/Scotty for a tag title shot, which the champs were willing to grant, until Haas/Benjamin crashed the party.  The two babyface teams wound up teaming up to take out the WGTT, but stared each other down at the end.  Nothing pressing here, nothing they can't re-do next week, so no wrath necessary....
  • For those who enjoy tracking such things, SmackDown!'s prelim rating for last night: a 3.4.  Extrapolating based on past weeks, that probably means that you can look for the final rating to fall into the 3.4-3.6 range, which keeps SD!'s performance on par with average ratings dating back to last fall.  No slippage here, not even against stiff Sweeps competition.
  • I've also got RAW's delayed-by-the-holiday rating...  a 3.8 cable rating is what we got.  I wound up mis-reporting the previous week's number, and the 3.8 is actually identical to the 2/09 rating.  
    Consecutive 3.8s are actually a good sign for RAW, which had been mired in the mid 3s... although the 3.8s are still a drop from the big bump the Fed got on the night after the Royal Rumble, so it's not like WWE is building up run-away freight train speed as it heads to WM20.
  • It's that time of year again: WWE Quarterly Financial Report Recap Time!  NEEEEEEE HAW!
    I think there's one pretty simple way to tell the story: WWE revenues are down (again) from the same quarter last year, but income/profits are up due to extremely effective cost-cutting moves.
    Net revenues for the quarter ended January 23, 2004, totaled about $79 million; that is down from $93 million the year before.  Now, PART of that short-fall is due to the fact that the Rumble PPV fell after the end of the third fiscal quarter, meaning there were only 2 PPV events in this most recent quarter, compared to three in the same quarter the year before.  The Rumble did really well according to early estimates (over a half-million buys), and is gonna end up being good for about $8.8 million in revenues (that'll be tacked on in the fourth fiscal quarter).
    Even if you could the Rumble PPV revenue, there's still a $5-plus million short-fall in revenues for the Fed versus last year.  There were minor fluctuations in a lot of areas, but the biggest one was a $6 million downturn in the live-event business.  Discounting overseas shows (of which there were only three), house show attendance was down to 4000 per show (from 4300), and there was also an accompanying decrease in ticket price (of almost four bucks, from $42 to $38, which is the first time I remember seeing that happen).  This continues to be a very soft area for WWE, and one of their main areas of concern.
    All the other stuff basically off-set itself.  The restructuring of the UPN contract (the network now sells all ad time, but in return, WWE gets a higher rights fee) seemed to be a minor hit for WWE (ad revenues were down more than rights fees were up).  But this was offset by gains in branded merchandise (where DVD/home video was way up thanks to the success of the Ric Flair set, and where Austin's best-selling book helped boost licensing revenues; publishing/magazine revenues were down a bit, though).
    But at the end of the day, even with about a $14 million shortfall in revenue, WWE still made money, posting almost $9 million in profits.  This is as opposed to losses of $16 million for the same quarter last year; you will want to keep in mind, however, that that was the quarter where WWE took a $22 million hit associated with the World, so it's probably more fair to say this year's $9 million in profits compares (still favorably) to last year's income of $6 million.
    WWE's profitability is due to a roughly 25% reduction in SGA expenses (cost of support functions) versus last year, and 20% reduction in their cost of revenues (the actual cost of doing business, paying talent, producing shows, etc.).  You can check out an article commending WWE's frugality right here.
    And more than likely, this little outline of WWE finances has bored you to tears.  But if you're one of the 8% who enjoy this sort of thing and want more, WWE's full disclosure for Fiscal Quarter Three 2004 can be found here.  Enjoy.  
  • And to go along with the release of quarterly financials, we've got the always-fun Linda McMahon investor conference call to recap.
    Well, actually, these calls seem to be getting increasingly less always-fun with each passing quarter, but....  chalk it up to Linda evading almost all smarky-type issues and sticking purely to business as part of the Fed's Don't Give the Internet or the Dirtsheets Anything They Can Use policy.  Good for them; I hope the cramming the worms back in to a can they, themselves, opened works out!
    Anyway, *I* thought the most interesting item was a comment from Linda about how the audiences for the two brands are a bit more loyal/exclusive than you might have guessed.  Well, actually, I've recently posited something along these lines (especially after the Benoit-to-RAW jump), but seeing her put numbers to it was still a bit startling.  Linda's claim: a full 70% of WWE's fanbase watches one show or the other, but not both.  SEVENTY PERCENT.  I probably would not have guessed that high, if you'd pressed me....
    Now this is me, not Linda, but really quick: based on a VERY quick and dirty glance at ratings, that means WWE's audience breaks probably down to something like (plus or minus a few percentage points) 40% exclusive to SmackDown!, 30% exclusive to RAW, and 30% watch both shows.  I doubt that's exactly precise since, obviously, I'm being rough and rounding to tens, but I bet it's pretty close.
    I'd love to know a bit more about how WWE generated this "70% loyal" figure, simply because I'm curious about how they define their audience and stuff like that...  like, would somebody who just stumbled across SD! one Thursday, but saw no other WWE shows in a month be lumped in with the "SD! Loyal" audience?  Or are these figures based more tightly on regular viewers of WWE programming?  Stuff like that...  but I'm a sucker for useless stats, so your mileage may vary.
    Other than that, Linda spent most her energy presenting the happy stories from the financials (DVD good, "WWE Originals" CD confoundingly strong, videogames good) and glossing over the bad stories (only 2 PPVs this quarter bad, house shows downright awful).
    Just about the only other useful tidbit: the WM special on UPN has been pushed back about 10 days.  The hype-job (based mostly on footage filmed last year at WM19 for a project that was to be "WrestleMania: the Movie") will now air on Friday, March 12, so as to more directly promote the March 14 WM20 PPV.  I think I remember an original planned air-date of March 2 or 3, so if I'd mentioned that one, scratch it, and go with this one...
    And with that, we have reached the end of the Quarterly WWE Financial Recap!  Whew.
  • Hey, Smooth Segue Time: so on Friday 3/12, you can see the WrestleMania special on UPN...  and it looks like on Saturday 3/13, you'll be able to see a few WWE stars on FOX's MadTV.
    Following this week's west coast TV tapings, a cross-brand crew of Eddie, Big Show, Jericho, and Trish hung around LA to tape the episode.  Keep an eye out...
  • While WWE focusing on the Good Stories of Quarter Three means reminders of the success of "The Ultimate Ric Flair Collection" on DVD, it looks like they've got another winner on their hands.
    The Monday Night War DVD has sold out its complete first pressing.  Well, you might be able to still find copies if you're lucky, but they'll be few and far between.  The "sell-out" means that retailers have bought up all pressed copies, and retailers don't buy up products that they can't move quickly.
    Additional copies will be available within about 3 weeks or so.  If, for some reason, you got shut out and you've just got a serious Monday Night War Jones going, I guess you should think about trying OO's Comprehensive Review of the Monday Night War.  I know, I know, you have to READ instead of looking at the pretty pictures (and enjoying partially distorted history, the WWE Way!), but it's still half-way decent, if you ask me....
  • I had a note to do so, but I didn't on Wednesday when I was talking about legends and WM20 weekend, so here's a pointless little follow up:
    The Ultimate Warrior has gone out of his way in a recent web missive to state he will NOT be a part of any of the festivities.
    I kind of think that was the assumption made by most fans, anyway, but I'm guessing Warrior might have gotten a small deluge of queries when WWE released a new "old school" Warrior action figure earlier this year.  Stuff like that always gets people wondering if the parties involved are gonna do more business with each other....
  • Warrior's old tag team partner, Sting, won't have any business at WM20, either, but he WILL be showing up in a new place later this year, with the "legend" tag attached, and even alongside Warrior....
    According to an Acclaim press release, Sting has joined the roster of the upcoming "Legends of Wrestling" videogame.  The second iteration of the game is due out in June, and has really assembled a remarkable roster.  Besides Sting and Warrior, you've got: Dallas Page, Sabu, Ricky Steamboat, the Funks (Terry and Dory Jr.), the British Bulldogs (Davey and Dynamite), Sheik/Volkoff, Jim Duggan, Dusty Rhodes, Jake Roberts, and (somehow) Jerry Lawler.  
  • I don't know if this is good, bad, or just pointless...  but WWE is conducting a Beer Survey, and it seems a pretty transparent attempt to gather market research for a possible Stone Cold Beer.
    I actually got a few people e-mailing me the link.  It's beer.wwe.com...  after remembering that I actually did register for a WWE account under my stand-by "I dare you to put me in your database" pseudonym, Peter Lemonjello, I took the survey, too.

    It was a very superficial and obvious set of 20 questions or so, all of which could be distilled down to about two issues: What beer do you drink? And, If Stone Cold made a beer, what should it be like?
    Here's a little free market analysis (based on zero research besides my own experience with beer, which is not unremarkable), WWE: you'll probably hear EXACTLY the story you want to hear, but it won't really matter.  The majority of fans will say they like either standard beers (fizzy yellow domestics) or light beers (fizzy pale yellow domestics), and then the majority will say that Stone Cold's beer should probably be one of those.  Unfortunately, WWE would have the same amount of success if it tried to enter the mass-produced lager industry as it had with bodybuilding, football, and movie making:  not much.  There are just too many barriers to overcome.
    The market of people who would drink a beer with Steve Austin's name on it is, no matter how you slice it, a niche audience.  Stone Cold Beer will never be on tap at every bar, or on sale at every 7-11.  Never.  So even though the story you get is "most people like the domestic beers that cost $4 or less per six pack," it's of no help to you because you can't make a Stone Cold beer that would be that cheap because you won't be able to sell the volume needed to be profitable.
    My advice: don't do the normal WWE thing and think you can do it all by yourself.  Just find a willing partner, either a smaller brewery that could use the exposure of a WWE-brand in its family or a bigger facility with excess capacity that could be had on the cheap, and churn out something actually half-way decent in smaller batches.  Sell it at a premium over your Buds and MGDs -- not by much, but enough to exploit the fact that although the Austin Audience in a niche one, it's also one that is probably gonna be pretty loyal -- and accept the fact that you're going to be a "Specialty Beer," not on every shelf with Budweiser. Also: if you follow my advice this far, join me for one last step and make sure you include 22 oz. bottles in the product line.  Don't fear being a niche marketed Specialty Beer, embrace it with duece-dueces that are frequently ricockulously over-priced in pretentious bars!  Like I said: exploit the market that's there, baby!
    Class dismissed.
  • We're at the end, and so bear with me for a rambling final bullet point... hey, I gotta give you SOMEthing to read over the weekend.  Especially since Erin decided to celebrate the Broad Perspective's first birthday by taking the day off....  so besides me, it's the already-plugged SD! recap, and then there is Brad Smoley's latest Cheap Heat, which is out-freaking-standing, probably my favorite Cheap Heat to date, and you have to see it.
    But then, I'm all that's left, so join me, now, for a little column closing anecdote.  Or something....
    OK, so the past two days have been some wacky ones for receiving e-mails.  Yeah, there was a little bit of wrestling talk (mostly, as alluded to above, about how I overreacted to the Evolution/Foley thing), but mostly it was people picking strange things to correct, nitpick, and kvetch about.
    Like the 3 people who took issue with me saying the Rock was "only 90 minutes away from RAW."  Apparently, the mileage is maybe close to 90 miles from LA to Bakersfield (so I was close on that, based merely on the fact that I've got a brother in LA and have had occasion to see Bakersfield on maps of his region), but the trip itself would have taken much longer.  I neglected to take into account that 8pm here is 5pm (and Rush Hour from Hell) there.  OK, Californians, point taken.  You win.  But Rocky could still have gotten a helicopter or something.  You know, like in his big fancy entrance video!  He's a big movie star!
    Or the 5 people who were inspired to say "You made my day" because I used a line from "Airplane" in my spoiler introduction.  Which is cool and all, I'm glad you got a chuckle.  But on a thrice weekly basis, I'm making witty comments all of my own creation!  Not cribbed from (admittedly-classic) movies!  And those get no love?!?  I feel like such a hack.
    And then there were, I don't know, a few more people (maybe 8-ish) who mailed in because one of my attempted witty asides was grossly inappropriate.  I joked that after Jake and Brutus' recent transgressions, Ko Ko B. Ware had better be careful because I didn't want to know what he and Frankie were up to in their spare time (or something along those lines).  Angry Frankie fans flooded the switchboards to remind me that Frankie had perished in a fire a couple years ago!  I actually think I do remember that, now, although it slipped my mind on Wednesday.  And even if I could go back in time and take it back, what could I have inserted instead that would have been funny AND appropriate?  I'm blanking... I mean, I guess I could have spun some scenario involving the Dynamite Kid, Matilda, and a jar of peanut butter.  But that one's even worse than tainting the memory of a fine macaw, I think.  I'd fully deserve whatever ass kicking that one would have resulted in.  So I'm just glad I didn't mention it!  Oh, wait.....  DAMMIT!
    And then...  then we had the moral outrage of about 20 folks because I said that the indoor thunderstorm on RAW was an example of "gay-spooky" and not "good-spooky" in the case of the old school Undertaker.  Look, I try to paint word pictures here, and I hope that if you're at all familiar with my work, I've come across as reasonable and intelligent enough that I can use the word "gay" to paint one of my little pictures without anyone thinking there's some evil intent behind it.  Maybe if I had even one hate-crime in my past or something...
    I don't know.  Point is that I could have gotten lazy and just had "bad-spooky" to contrast with "good-spooky," but that's not quite exactly the idea I wanted to convey.  I wanted to convey the idea that the good-spooky would be sinister and intimidating; but the opposite would be kind of frilly and not-at-all intimidating.  You know: kinda... gay.  Right?  I mean, I saw those "Queer Eye" guys on Conan this week, and I don't think a community that flaunts those characteristics would care much if I used "gay" as an economical one-word descriptor of those same characteristics.
    I know I'm not explaining myself well, right now, but given the number of concerned e-mails I got, I feel the need to respond somehow.

    Actually, I kind of think this is akin to a few years ago.  Another one of my favorite adjectives to use for wrestling angles that are lacking is "retarded."  I never meant this as a slur to the mentally disadvantaged or anything, I just always thought it was an effective way of saying "This angle lacked the intelligence of an average pro wrestling angle," but just in a more efficient, if slightly edgy, one-word fashion.  But just as I was working "retarded" into my argot, I pissed people off, and editorials were written (I think on the Torch, but I'm not positive) about how anyone who would use "retarded" in pro wrestling analysis is not only insensitive, but also just plain lazy because they aren't really saying anything insightful, they're just using a hateful word as a crutch.  
    [An aside: stars aren't "hateful," but if you want a crutch, Charlie, there's the biggest one in the wrestling universe.  If you think "Not quite at the level of ***1/2 stars, so I'll say ***1/4" is an insightful analysis of a match, you are a freaking moron.  I did it myself for a while, but I censored myself years ago.  The result?  I'm forced to, you know, actually pay attention so I can recount the moves, their meaning, and the storyline/impact of a match instead of throwing out arbitrary numbers of stars that don't even mean the same thing to different people.  But talk about an unrelated tangent.... oy.]
    Point is, I knew I wasn't saying anything hateful, eventually I think everybody else realized the same thing, and I kept on using my beloved little adjective.  And lo and behold, 2 weeks later, it wasn't an issue anymore.  No more e-mails, no more editorials, and I'm still using it today.  Yay!
    So can I do the same thing now with this "gay-spooky" thing, people, count on you to chill out?  I'd like to hope so.  But will I?  Stay tuned.  Truth be told, I'm pretty stubborn, so it'll probably depends more on WWE and how they handle the Taker than it does on my willingness to endure pissy e-mail from folks (90% of whom, curiously, felt an urge to preface their comments with variations on "Uhhh, dude, I'm SOOO totally straight, but...") who think I'm a gay-basher or something.  Which you know I'm not. Because I'm telling you right now. Mark it down:  The Rick = Could Not Care Less About Your Sexual Orientation.  Got it?  Good....
    So I dare you, WWE: bring on another indoor low pressure system, and watch the sparks fly....
  • OK, I've said my piece, and that is now officially more than enough for today.  For this week.  See you Monday.


Rick Scaia is a wrestling fan from Dayton, OH.  He's been doing this since 1995, but enjoyed it best when the suckers from SportsLine were actually PAYING him to be a fan.

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Bonding Exercises
RAW RECAP: The New Guy Blows It
PPV RECAP: WWE Night of Champions 2012
RAW RECAP: The Show Must Go On
SMACKDOWN RECAP: The Boot Gets the Boot
RAW RECAP: Heyman Lands an Expansion Franchise
SMACKDOWN RECAP: Losing is the new Winning
RAW RECAP: Say My Name
SMACKDOWN RECAP: Deja Vu All Over Again
RAW RECAP: Dignity Before Gold?
PPV RECAP: SummerSlam 2012
RAW RECAP: Bigger IS Better
SMACKDOWN RECAP: Hitting with Two Strikes
RAW RECAP: Heel, or Tweener?
RAW RECAP: CM Punk is Not a Fan of Dwayne
SMACKDOWN RECAP: The Returnening
RAW RECAP: Countdown to 1000
PPV RECAP: WWE Money in the Bank 2012
SMACKDOWN RECAP: Friday Night ZackDown
RAW RECAP: Closure's a Bitch
RAW RECAP: Crazy Gets What Crazy Wants
SMACKDOWN RECAP: Five Surprising MitB Deposits
RAW RECAP: Weeeellll, It's a Big MitB
RAW RECAP: Johnny B. Gone
PPV RECAP: WWE No Way Out 2012
RAW RECAP: Crazy Go Nuts
RAW RECAP: Be a Star, My Ass
RAW RECAP: You Can't See Him
RAW RECAP: Big Johnny Still in Charge
PPV RECAP: WWE Over the Limit 2012
SMACKDOWN RECAP: One Gullible Fella
RAW RECAP: Anvil, or Red Herring?
SMACKDOWN RECAP: Everybody Hates Berto
RAW RECAP: Look Who's Back
SMACKDOWN RECAP: Care to go Best of Five?
RAW RECAP: An Ace Up His Sleeve
PPV RECAP: WWE Extreme Rules 2012
SMACKDOWN RECAP: Sh-Sh-Sheamus and the nOObs
RAW RECAP: Edge, the Motivational Speaker?
SMACKDOWN RECAP: AJ is Angry, Jilted
RAW RECAP: Maybe Cena DOES Suck?
RAW RECAP: Brock's a Jerk
SMACKDOWN RECAP: Back with a Bang
RAW RECAP: Yes! Yes! Yes!
PPV RECAP: WWE WrestleMania 28




All contents are Copyright 1995-2014 by OOWrestling.com.  All rights reserved.
This website is not affiliated with WWE or any other professional wrestling organization.  Privacy Statement.