>>15500524kinda true, but remember this is well into the era where 'wwe is the draw, no superstar is', and especially 'wm is the draw'. wm would draw no matter what. so really how much can be attributed to rock-cena? how much rock-cena drew should be calculated by what they drew minus the average of other manias around them drew. so like the average of 25, 26, 30, 31. take that as the baseline, then whatever the average of 28 and 29 drew, the difference is the difference rock and cena made.
>hurr durr but you can calculate the other like that toofirstly, they (at least the attitude era ones) were proper years long tv feuds, not just for one-off mania matches. we are talking about the austin-mcmahon, austin-taker and rock-hhh feuds drawing gigantic ratings every single week for years. thats very different from rock-cena drawing 2 higher buyrates form the surrounding average. how many viewers was raw drawing jan 2012-apr 2013, vs apr 98-apr 01?
secondly, like i said, wwe(f) in and of itself wasnt really the draw. there was no guarantee it would even be decent that tremedous viewership was almost all down to the compelling feuds. vs modern 'wwe is the draw' era wwe where no matter how dogshit they go, there is a strong baseline of revenue, thanks to smart business and marketing decisions.
