And it's not like I can't stay up till 1:30 to see the end of a baseball game. That's not so late, even on a weeknight. It's just that you know how playoff baseball gets, and it'd probably end up being more like 2am before it finishes up. And then there's the issue of how I make time to watch Letterman/Conan/Daily Show? Because 4am *is* pretty late for a Wednesday, so I can't just throw them on after the game. And it's not like I can just invent 2 new hours in the middle of the day on Thursday to accomodate watching them...

You see the trickle-down effect this has on me? It's unconscionable! And like most of the other problems in my life, I'm going to just go ahead and blame this one on Bud Selig. Because whether he had anything to do with it or not, he's still a remarkably incompetent man whose only claim to fame is that he's so incredibly unqualified and impotent that players and owners alike think he's the perfect man for the job! Nee haw!

Enough ranty-rant. Even if baseball doesn't start for 5 more hours, there's still better things to do with a Wednesday night other than sitting in front of a PC trying to figure out ways to entertain the masses. So let's get on with the show: 

• Monday's Homecoming RAW is one that I THOUGHT other people would like more than me.... as I was writing the recap, I kept mentally berating myself with stuff like, "It's not WWE's fault you let yourself get carried away with unfairly high expectations; there was still good stuff on the show, so don't be such a prick about the handful of bad things. You're only going to piss off a bunch of readers if you lay on that thick with the criticism."
   
  Looks like I needn't have worried. The majority of feedback to yesterday's recap believes that I was too kind to Homecoming. Whoa, I know I've turned into a bit of a curmudgeon lately, but where is all *your* Vaginal Sandification coming from, people? 
   
  I don't think I was looking for excuses to praise RAW, or anything... I was just sensitive to the idea that if I didn't adequately praise the genuinely praise-worthy, then my criticisms, instead of ringing true, would be dismissed as the ramblings of a salty bastard who had long since Lost His Smile.
   
  Part of me almost wants to take your feedback as permission to backslide into being a salty bastard... but that'd be the cheap way out. So instead, let me try to defend my basic position that the show was not horrible: it was just a mixed bag of good and bad that came off as disappointing because of lofty expectations.
   
  It's hard to totally crap on a show when one-third of it is taken up by a pair of wrestling matches about as good as anything you could hope for on free TV. Hardy/Edge was just what the doctor ordered, and even if Michaels/Angle fell short of quenching your raging Workrate Manrections (due to the non-finish and the sluggish middle third of the match) it was still quite good. Taking that hour (or so) of content into account, RAW already automatically gets a "mixed bag" label no matter how bad the other two-thirds were.
   
  And of the other two-thirds, I thought it was split pretty evenly between tolerably fun stuff and the outright crap. Obviously, the Outright Crap column contains that tortuous McMahons Skit. I've conceded that (although I'm sure it's an unoriginal comparison being made by countless other internet jackoffs) the only thing I can equate it to is "This is Your Life, Rock." Both are things that, by their very nature, don't really scratch me where I itch, but which I think I can judge based on the criteria used by the audience at large. And just as "This is Your Life" limped to a finish and overstayed its welcome by about 10 minutes after hitting a quality punchline ("Poontang your ass on outta here"), Monday's McMahon's segment did the same thing by tagging on the awkward/uncomfortable/unentertaining Linda McMahon portion of the skit instead of just getting out of dodge after Steph ate her Stunner. It's not like I would have been any more personally entertained by the skit if they'd cut it short there at the 16 minute mark... but at least I would have been happy to grant that it had a punchline that seemed to satisfy the audience, and I wouldn't have had much ammo for my lengthy criticisms.
   
  Of note: I love pointing out that for as much as WWE seems to be in love with "This is Your Life," all subsequent clips/references to it are edited in such a way as to suggest that "Poontang your ass on outta here" WAS the final punchline. Which is something I accurately predicted back in 1999. I wonder what kind of editing/massaging WWE will do if they decide this McMahons skit is worthy of constant replaying in future years, and they need to cut out the fat and the part where the segment absolutely died with the live audience? WWE are nothing if not masters of rewriting history to their liking....
   
  Also sucking out loud was the main event. Cena/Bischoff, if you ask me, really had no business even being booked to begin with. No matter how WWE tries to delude itself, Cena just doesn't have *that* kind of Austin-esque appeal where he can get in the ring with any jabroni and have it sell... he needs a dance partner. A compelling one. Which Eric Bischoff is not, really. Booked as a comic relief throw-away, this might click... but booked as a main event? No way, Pedro... it lacks anything resembling gravitas. In fact, it don't just lack it; if there's a word that means the exact opposite of gravitas, that's what Cena/Bischoff has in spades.
   
  Allow me once again to point out the sizeable "Cena Sucks" chant that was heard during the opening 30 seconds of the "match." Not for any particular reason other than to reinforce the fact that I Told You So. It's one thing if "Cena Sucks" against Angle or somebody the fans kind of respect.... but against Bischoff, who is about as unlikeable a guy as there is on the RAW roster? To be told you suck by a few thousand fans out of the live audience against Bischoff takes some doing....
   
  I was also not a fan of Triple H immediately getting back into mid-season form by taking 10 minutes to accomplish something that would have been better done in 2. Unlike others, I don't think HHH does it on purpose because he wants the TV time to himself so others can't have it... I think he does it on purpose because he really does believe its the best way to tell a story. Problem is, *I* think he's wrong, and get annoyed when he seems to underestimate the intelligence of the audience by bludgeoning them over the head with a promo/angle/etc. that could have been executed much more crisply and succinctly, and thus, had more impact by climaxing before fans got bored with it. This Standard HHH Trait was made even more annoying on Monday just because of the Time Management Issues that the show was suffering. The guy should have seen how things were playing out and volunteered to let his second 5-minute beatdown of Flair go... let it be a "WWE.com Exclusive," if you have to, and put that time to use on other things that needed it.
   
  Pretty much everything else was in that "tolerable fluff" category. Not good, not really memorable or anything... but fun to sit through. Stuff like the Legends skits, or the women's vignette/match, and Foley/Orton to open the show.
   
  You put it all into a giant pot, and I think I can stand (pretty proudly) by what I said yesterday in the recap. I simply can't dismiss the good... but what I can do is point out the fact that the bad on Monday night was the kind of bad that really just hits you like a kick in the sac ESPECIALLY when you're expecting WWE to hit a home run. 
   
  Since I got baseball on the brain, what I'll do is call Monday's Homecoming a desperation one-out double in the bottom of the ninth. It's a start, but it falls well short of cutting into the 3-run hole you've dug for yourself... and the problem is, unless management does something, it's a weak-hitting utility infielder who's coming up to bat next.
   
  That's really what Homecoming was: a one-night blip on the radar that did plenty to keep the inning alive, but didn't come even close to affecting the actual score. And with next week's RAW looking pretty much like a return to standard operating procedures (despite Vince's fluffy words about the handcuffs coming off on USA), that's where I get the weak-hitting utility infielder analogy. For Homecoming's middling efforts to truly pay off for WWE, they need to bring in a pinch-hitter next week; they need to bring in a show that actually has some sizzle to it and can keep the inning alive.
   
  Sadly, "WWE Think" these days seems to focus on doing the least possible to entertain the fans; they do enough to keep some core of them coming back, but not enough to really make any of us excited about doing so. To me, that makes it likely that WWE will just send that utility infielder up next week, and try to get him to dribble a bunt down the third base line. And (I say this tongue-in-cheek, as a fan of Well Managed National League Baseball), nobody likes watching that... Chicks Dig The Long Ball!
   
  You can get more thoughts/analysis and of course all the details results from Monday's Homecoming in yesterday's OO RAW Recap. It's good, trust me. And even though RAW was 50% longer than usual, I actually tried to censor myself a LITTLE bit, so the recap is only about 30% longer than usual. You can thank me later.
   
  
• Before I get to some ratings stuff: some other RAW fall-out...
   
  First, as I said in a few spots in the recap, the one way Homecoming becomes retroactively more significant than it seemed on Monday is if all the RAW vs. SD! stuff was not just a blip on the radar... if it is, instead, the start of the Best Kept Secret In Wrestling.
   
  Well, some intel from SD! tapings last night suggests it's something more in the middle of those two extremes... I guess there's some thinking that Survivor Series will feature a Bischoff vs. Teddy Long Match (not one-on-one, but like Team Bischoff vs. Team Teddy). 
   
  Of course, who knows if that's gonna hold up or not two months from now... but if it does, I'll register a "meh." A single 5-on-5 match is far from the non-stop cross-brand wackiness that might rejuvenate the WWE product... it's more like the Draft Lottery's gimmickry, where you get about 4 weeks where you can count on one interloper from the other brand showing up. Which was fun, but it doesn't exactly cut to the core of WWE's creative problems... it's more a one-month band-aid, that's all.
   
  Then again, if that's the plan, I see WWE's side of it, too. The Draft Lottery is the last time the company had sustained respectable ratings... it was, in fact, almost immediately after the Lottery concluded that both shows' ratings went in the toilet. With RAW's numbers (as we outlined last week) hitting their lowest month-long average in over a year in September.
   
  
• A second item from RAW.... you may stop e-mailing me about Stephanie McMahon's ring entrance.
   
  So it was the same one she had back during her latter days as SD!'s GM 2 years ago, and NOT a new one. It still honestly made no impact on me, wasn't even vaguely recognizable... but when 4 dozen of you take such glee in catching me with my pants down, I have to assume that you are right and I am wrong.
   
  I'd apologize, but I don't know to whom... I think this crime was victimless.
   
  While I'm at it, the other frequently broached topics in my in-box in the last 24 hours:
   
  (1) My comment about the Ortons going back to SD! and the incident with Foley/Piper never being spoken again was met with some resistance.... and perhaps rightfully so: many pointed out that while the Ortons are SD!-committed, neither Piper nor Foley has any such allegiance (despite being "RAW exclusive" in their last handful of appearances) and could follow. Fair 'nuff. But that still doesn't mean I want to see Mick doing an unnecessary selfless act by putting choadeboy Randall Orton over again...
   
  And (2): the Bengals' lineman's name that I couldn't think of is Tim Krumrie. I should've remembered that... thanks to the many who opened up YOUR rarely-used storage rooms in the back of your brains to help me out.
   
  
• I think that about wraps up the RAW/recap/feedback business... which means we can get on to a load of ratings information that tells a few interesting stories.
   
  First: RAW's three hour telecast on Monday did a 4.4 cable rating. This is, of course, a HUGE jump from last week, and bests September's monthlong average by a full ratings point. That's what happens when you stock a show with a loaded line-up, and have the kind of promotional effort behind it that WWE had. It wasn't just at their end, either... anybody else have the experience on Monday where you couldn't click anywhere on Yahoo without getting RAW banner ads (which were paid for by NBC Universal)? Combine that with the RAW ads I saw on NBC last week (and which are still in rotation in late night), and I'd say that mainstream awareness for RAW was probably the highest it's been in close to four years.
   
  The result: RAW tied its year-to-date best rating, and hasn't scored a rating higher than this since last year's Inaugural Draft Lottery in April 2004.
   
  Note: I'm not clear on the details, but according to some helpful readers, it seems that WWE is trying to fib their way to their highest rating in THREE YEARS, claiming a 4.7. I can only assure you this is not accurate, and that you should Trust Me.
   
  Actually, if I had to guess, I'd say WWE was just fudging the numbers by only counting the 9-11pm timeslot, and discounting the lower-rating opening hour. The hourly ratings for RAW were: 3.8, 4.9, and 4.5.
   
  Now, I don't want to be a cocky dillhole, but the fact that ratings slid in Hour Three is pretty telling... is it possible that John Cena vs. Eric Bischoff didn't exactly capture the imaginations of fans? Is it possible that if they knew the two Good Reasons To Watch (Michaels/Angle and Hardy/Edge) were done, then maybe it'd be OK to wander?
   
  Or might people have just gotten annoyed with the McMahons skit and started wandering after that? [Interestingly, there is anecdotal evidence that would support this, as ratings dropped significantly in the quarter hour after the McMahon segment, as if people waited and waited for it to get good, then it didn't, and so then they flipped away....]
   
  While my understanding is that WWE had actually hoped for higher numbers (which is part of the reason why they might have fudged the 4.7 rating in their press releases) so they could shove it in SpikeTV face, a 4.4 is nothing to be ashamed of. Even if it only ties the best rating RAW did on Spike earlier this year, it's a damned fine rating and a giant step in the right direction for WWE.
   
  Question is: can they sustain it next week. With no announced matches or guest stars, and with that disturbing downward ratings trend in hour three on Monday, I might have some doubts. We'll see, though...
   
  
• Meantime, over on SpikeTV, the Ultimate Fight Night special that aired in RAW's old timeslot did a 1.9 cable rating, which is a mild disappointment, I gather (previous Actual Fighting Shows -- not the gay reality show thing -- had done significantly better). So much for any (unnamed) morons who keep thinking that what UFC does should really have any impact on wrestling or wrestling fans.
   
  [For the sake of completion, I'll also point out that UPN's Thursday night ratings have not suffered nearly as much as I had thought since SD! left. The two hour block is averaging a 2.4, which is only a half-point off of what SD! had been delivering. However, this is mainly due to the strength of that one lame-looking Chris Rock sitcom, which is actually outdrawing SD!'s old numbers by a decent margin; the other three Thursday shows are averaging a 2.1 after two weeks.]
   
  
• Which brings us to TNA...
   
  On Saturday night, TNA did a 0.8 rating in the old Velocity timeslot. This narrowly bests Velocity's recent ratings, and thus, if one wanted to, one could make the statement "TNA Outdraws WWE." But then you'd have to explain the qualifiers, and it becomes a slightly less remarkable feat.
   
  The rating means that Saturday's Impact is TNA's most-watched show ever (EVER~!), and by a huge margin. That number comes close to tripling Impact's best rating ever on FSN.
   
  Inside TNA, I gather this rating hits solidly in the middle of their Expectation Continuum. They wanted to beat Velocity, they thought they MIGHT be able to beat it by more, but they weren't gonna get cocky. On the SpikeTV side, I gather there might be a TOUCH of disappointment, as they look at things like lead-in ratings and stuff, and Impact didn't hold onto quite as much of the Ultimate Fighter audience or draw new/lapsed wrestling fans to the show as network executives might have hoped given the amount of time and money they've put into promotion of TNA. 
   
  For whatever it's worth, if that's really a widely-held feeling at Spike, I think it's massively unfair to TNA. If I can use the Imaginary Nature of the UFC/wrestling connection to make fun of certain webmasters' silly tangents, then I am obligated to use it to point out that Spike needs to let TNA sink or swim as a WRESTLING SHOW, not as a complementary hour to their UFC franchise. To me, comparisons to Velocity's rating are more pertinent than ones to Ultimate Fighter lead-in ratings...
   
  And of course, I go back to what I said on Monday, which is: no matter what the debut show's rating is, we'll know a LOT more about TNA's future as a legitimate national wrestling alternative after we see NEXT week's ratings. It's like the XFL showed us: with good marketing, people will show up to check out any steaming pile of turds.... but they'll only come back if you delivered something that they liked.
   
  If TNA's ratings hold up next week, that's a very good sign. I can't see the ratings going up at all, just because their debut show was so underwhelming and I have not seen/heard anything about any real increased buzz among fans... but maintaining the current audience and trying to tweak the one-hour format at the next set of tapings, and you could start building momentum soon. The key is just not backsliding any.
   
  
• TNA's Monday replay did a 0.5 rating... and if that's considered a disappointment, I'd just ask SpikeTV officials to take a gander at what their big fat UFC special did (a below-expectations 1.9, as mentioned above) and at least apply the same (faulty) logic in this case as they do in cases where their Ultimate Fighter shows deliver the expected numbers.
   
  To me, the relative closeness of the Saturday and Monday ratings is what I would have guessed. I've mentioned it before, but I'll say it again: after the initial curiosity wears off, and fans don't feel a need to make special arrangements to see TNA on Saturday, I think there's a good chance that Monday's rerun audience will match or exceed the one TNA has on Saturdays.
   
  Obviously this past weekend, people were intrigued enough that they didn't want to wait to see what TNA was about (even I DVR'ed the show and watched it Sunday)... but I wouldn't be surprised to see that die out in coming weeks and have the Monday replay be the more-watched airing of the show.
   
  If I'm right about this, though, I just hope it doesn't come at the expense of TNA's Saturday rating dipping to a 0.5 and Monday's "jumping" to a 0.6. Because then they'd be underperforming Velocity in both airings, and Spike would probably be within their rights to get annoyed at TNA. Just talking out of my ass, I'd take a stab that as long as the COMBINED rating for both Saturday and Monday clock in close to 1.5, all parties involved will be pretty happy, and won't care which is more-watched...
   
  
• For the record: SD!'s final rating last week was a 2.4, which is a slightly larger drop than I'd have guessed from the prelim rating (of 3.7), but is also still the best number SD! has done since moving to Friday.
   
  The real test starts this Friday, when SD! will air without preemptions on the vast majority of UPN affiliates.
   
  
• On Monday, WWE.com launched a new "Unlimited" gimmick which allows fans to turn RAW into an uninterrupted experience. You get pre-show, you get post-show, and you got coverage during all the commercial breaks.
   
  In essence: I think this is an ingenious idea. Then again, I should. Since I fucking thought of it a year ago, and wrote about it here. Where's me check, WWE? I'd demand royalties, but one of the many things I realized about my plan is that it'd be a money-loser to start (just from a bandwidth perspective), so I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on a straight-up Consultant's Fee. Either that, or you can just put me on the payroll (I'd probably be even happier in New Media than I'd be wrestling with Steph's Hollywood Writer Monkeys, so c'mon, swallow your pride, admit you made a mistake 2 years ago, and Hire The Rick! Me and Grisham'd have that place whipped into shape in no time!).
   
  And I'm really not joking: the details of WWE Unlimited really are remarkably similar to a lengthy outline I drew up last fall (when WWE first started toying with the idea of interactive web elements to go with RAW, right around the time of Taboo Tuesday, and I thought they were really being lazy and uncreative with the medium, so I tossed out a ton of other ideas/possibilities which are now finally being brought to fruition).... so I really do think it's a neat idea. In theory.
   
  In reality, though, the key to making me excited about participating in the "Unlimited" experience is making me excited about the Core Content, first. That means until I'm convinced that the parts of the show you put on TV are all good, I'm not gonna be convinced that there's anything worth my while among the content NOT deemed "ready for TV." 
   
  And the worst possible outcome: I'd check out the Unlimited content and find out there ARE good things that happen only off-TV. Because given the current state of WWE's product, the thought that good stuff would be shunted off TV while crap gets served up ON TV would only make me want to purchase a semi-automatic weapon and solve WWE's Creative Personnel Issue all by my lonesome, and with extreme prejudice.
   
  Another reason why I did my big outline of a possible RAW/web interactive deal last year is because I thought it would address the issue of people using DVR's to time-shift and skip commercials... I thought WWE could preemptively strike, and do something that would encourage fans to watch in real time by giving them something WWE-sanctioned to do during commercial breaks. It really is a goldmine of possibilities, and not a one of you should be surprised if it came from the mind of The Rick.
   
  For me, though? I can't see me playing along with Unlimited any time soon. I know there are a lot of people out there who don't have a problem with making up for RAW's lack of quality by sitting in chatroom, half-conversing with others and half-watching RAW, or whatever... but for me, I have to give RAW my full attention to be able to recap it well. But with RAW being so underwhelming these days, I also can't bring myself to invest 2 hours and 10 minutes in watching it live when I know I can axe the commercials and filler and do just as attentive a job in 85 minutes, with judicious use the FF Button. So until WWE convinces me that their show is worth another 45 of my Monday night minutes, I just won't be looking to change things around so that I can check out the Unlimited content.
   
  Which is sad. I feel like a father abandoning his child. Building on the over-extended analogy of 2 weeks ago, in which I'm "married" to WWE: I can only hope she loves our baby more than she loves me.
   
  And if any of you do check out the Unlimited content, I'd love to get e-mails from you outlining what they showed and how you liked it... maybe one of these days I'll look into getting visitation rights with my baby, but till then, I'll have to rely on second-hand reports about the kid from you guys.
   
  
• An interesting half-dozen or so e-mails I'll just address in public, since I like making fun of idiots in front of an audience...
   
  Seems there's some TNA fans out there who think that WWE's inclusion of Jeff Jarrett weeping openly on the RAW 10 Most Memorable Moments special was done on purpose as a potshot to TNA's champ, to make him look weak in fans' eyes.
   
  Ahem:
    
  The fuck, idiots?
   
  For one, to me, that footage (from the Owen Hart Tribute Show) is actually one of the few times in my life that I felt something other than general apathy towards Jeff Jarrett. For once, he seemed like a real guy, somebody you could relate to... instead of the vaguely flat, bred-to-be-a-wrestler, doesn't-know-anything-else-in-this-life, competent-but-unspectacular midcard heel that he always struck me as.
   
  For two, not even WWE is that willfully evil to think that they can undermine the "competition" by showing their champion reduced to tears upon the death of his friend.
   
  Also: among all of you who mentioned it, you failed to weave into your Master Thesis that WWE also showed Road Dogg (TNA's BG James) crying like a little girl in the same vignette.
   
  I can only hope that if you're *that* wired for conspiracy theories that you actually take me seriously when I make jokes about all the many ways Trish Stratus has proven -- in various promos/interviews over the last year -- that she is an avid OO Reader. Cuz if you believe that, then I should inform you that the rest of the story is that she is also in possession of an uncontrollable GrownWoman Crush on the site's remarkably charming webmaster.
   
  Again, I say: idiots.
   
  
• While I'm thinking of Trish and the RAW Top 10 special... how in the hell is she older than me? But unless she graduated high school at age 16 or something, her revelation of her whereabouts on the night of RAW's debut episode in 1993 makes her quite elderly!
   
  I keed, I keed... and if ever there were a case where an Older Woman Exception would be gladly made by The Me, well... there you have it. Just imagine: a woman will all that extra experience, ooohhhhh, that's SEX-AY. By which I mean: probably about 10 months extra. At most. Christ, I'm a geezer, too.
   
  
• Last thing for today is just another thing that makes me realize how time is flying.... because today is the eighth "anniversary" of Brian Pillman's death. And me? I still remember it like it was yesterday. I remember a bunch of us sitting around stunned when Vince made the announcement on the pre-show, I remember having an exam the next day but still not going to bed until 3am because I had to write stuff up for my embryonic website and was on the phone with various people getting the facts straight, I remember all that shock and flurry of activity meaning it didn't really sink in till the next night on RAW.
   
  But as I always try to point out whenever I have to remember the night of Badd Blood '97, I also remember sitting around with friends and being so blown away by the first ever Hell in the Cell match (Michaels/Taker) that we DID momentarily forget the bad news. In fact, when one of my housemates got home late from work, we were still sitting around buzzing and made him watch the entire HitC match as we enjoyed it a second time. So all was not bad that night.
   
  But eight years later, it's still mostly Pillman that we think of today. As is the annual tradition, I'll bust out the OOld School NFD Pillman Tribute Page for you to skim through, if the mood moves you....
   
  Can't believe it's been 8 years.... 
   
  
• I think that's about it for today. Friday will be, whether you give a shit or not, the OO Team Coverage PPV Preview for No Mercy. How can we preview the PPV before any of us see the final episode of SD!?
   
  SIMPLE! Not a one of us is gonna be giving a shit!
   
  Also: Canadian Bulldog will be able to cheat, since he'll be able to watch SD! on Thursday if he wants, and submit his picks after that. Same with Calum Macbeth.
   
  Also also, I think I'll be encouraging Spoiler Reading this week among the Domestic trOOps so that we can at least do a half-assed job with the preview. And just know this: no matter our level of attraction to the SD! product at this point, you have my personal guarantee that we'll still smoke the hell out of any PPV Preview you read on any other website. Because when you get 10 clever sumbitches like us together, even if each of us only uses half our ass, that's still like FIVE WHOLE ASSES.
   
  And trust me, our asses are all much nicer than any of the ones belonging to other wrestling "journalists" out there to begin with. 
   
  So: PPV Preview on Friday, and I promise I'll find someway to make it fun for you to read about even if you won't be watching the show on Sunday. If anything cool happens, that might mean prefacing it with a few terse little newsbites, or something. You just never know. So you better make a note to come on back and find out with your own two eyes...
   
  See you then, kids....