Happy birthday to the absolute best 1-5 pitcher in baseball, Aaron Harang. Oh, and the same wishes to another Great American, one who is admittedly more likely to be behind the plate calling balls and strikes than on the mound throwing them. And who happens to be me.
 

I'd sheepishly admit that I'd really like for OO Nation to gift me with Grand Theft Auto IV, except in so doing, I'd also obligate you to get me  PlayStation 3. Somehow, the fact that there's this one game that comes out with a new version once every 2 years has never inspired me to waste my money on a Gaming Console. Ever!
  

EVER~!!!!!!!

I guess maybe to scratch my GTA4 itch, what I'll have to do is figure out which of my aging-and-increasingly-responsible friends are still allowed to keep videogames in the house that aren't for their kids, and make a rental at Blockbuster. Then it's a few evenings of nailing virtual hookers, stealing virtual cars, committing virtual homicide, and maybe, just maybe deciding to complete a few of the actual missions. Just like the good ol' days, except even better, based on what I gather from the glowing reviews.

I can't wait. But till then, here's some wrestling:

• As alluded to in last week's ginormous column, WWE released its First Quarter financial data this week, and got to crow about one of their most profitable fiscal quarters ever, thanks mostly to the success of WrestleMania 24.
   
  But also as alluded to in that column: the matters of WWE's revenue streams and overall health are a completely wonky and schizophrenic thing right now. To that end, not only are their alarming stories to tell in regards to TV ratings, but even the performance of WM24 fell short of projections that were circulated in the week after the event.
   
  WWE had anticipated the most-watched and highest-grossing event in its history. Instead, total buys for WM24 came in around 1.06 million (making it the 3rd or 4th most watched), and total revenues were $31.3 million (short of the $31.4 million generated by WM23) The similarity of the revenue numbers despite over 150,000 fewer buys in 2008 is due to yet another WM Price Increase. This year's WM24 also contributed only $7.1 million to bottom line profits (versus $9.7 million for last year's WM23), no doubt partially due to staging/production costs at an outdoor venue, and the expense of paying Floyd Mayweather.
   
  By the way: WWE also admitted to stockholders that Mayweather's pay-day was not the "$20 million" figure leaked to the press in March. It could have approached $20 million based on WM box office performance, and in the weeks following WM, both sides encouraged media to report the $20 million figure as it would (a) give Mayweather the chance to promote himself as a huge PPV draw who helped set new records for WM and (b) give WWE the chance to perpetuate the image of this year's being the most-watched WM in history. Mayweather was still extremely well compensated on whatever sliding scale the two parties worked out, and his payday still exceeded the $5 million paid to Donald Trump (who in turn immediately donated it to charity) the previous year.
   
  While WM24 fell short of expectations, WWE was able to tell a very nice story with regards to both the Royal Rumble and No Way Out PPVs. The Rumble saw nominal increases in 2008 versus the previous year (about 40,000 more buys this year), while No Way Out got a huge bump from the previous year (120,000 more buys this year, and the most buys for the event since 2003). WWE attributed this to the removal of both the December to Dismember and New Year's Revolution PPVs from their schedule, thus eliminated the winter saturation and encouraging fans to focus on the fewer number of events. I'd also argue that it helped immensely that both the Rumble and No Way Out were very good, exciting shows with surprises and quality matches that probably spurred a larger-than-usual number of buys in the week FOLLOWING the live event.
   
  WWE also had good news in terms of live events (house shows), though if you remove WrestleMania 24 from the equation (it generated $6 million in revenue, making it the best grossing live event in history, even if it fell short on PPV buys), then actually, live event business was almost exactly identical to the same quarter in 2007.
   
  Home video, publishing, and digital segments (WWE.com and Shopzone) fluctuated only mildly versus 2007. The only area outside of PPV revenue where there was a major change was "Licensed Products," which was attributed almost entirely to the success of the SD! vs. RAW videogame.
   
  In all, WWE's first fiscal quarter of 2008 saw them generate about $160 million in revenue, for net profits of $62 million. In the same quarter last year (which did not include WM23, which took place 2 days into the second quarter), WWE did $107 million in revenue and $50 million in profit. So despite near record revenues, WWE's profit contribution was 35% lower this year versus last (again, the only specific thing WWE points to for this is the high production costs associated with WM24).
   
  
• Although WWE is not compelled to discuss TV ratings in their financial releases (they merely need to report accurately on the moneys received/expensed in the area of TV distribution, and generally, WWE's TV deals the past 3-4 years see them receive flat-rate fees from NBC/Universal, the CW, and their overseas partners, which are almost completely divorced from ratings performance).
   
  However, the subject of ratings did come up in the traditional quarterly shareholders conference call. The issue was downplayed, with the (now standard) party line being that USA Network is still very pleased with how things are going and loves having 2 of the top rated hours on cable TV on their network. In so far as that statement goes, I'm sure it's true, but it also masks a deeper reality in which no one feels good about a 15% decline in ratings versus last year. Especially not Vince McMahon, who is perfectly content with things and views current ratings as indicative of the marketplace and not of the caliber of the product. Or at least that's what the shareholders were told. I believe their is ample evidence (especially in the last two weeks) to the contrary, and that Vince is on Tilt, trying to figure out something to get viewers back.
   
  Anyway, I no-likey the casual brush-off of the issue by WWE, but what do you expect them to say? It's a classic cop-out, but it's also an option the company has created for itself by constantly pressing to redefine itself (when it's convenient, anyway) as a Scripted TV Entity, rather than as a wrestling company. Sure, when there's a writers' strike on or when they have to pick whether or not to be listed among Sports Programming by Nielsen (note: they choose to be, as it's an easy way to get listed among the top 10 shows), they're a wrestling company, and your TV Rules don't apply. But show them declining ratings, and it's all "fragmentation of the market" this and "more channels and more competition from niche programming" that and "it's the internet's fault" the other....
   
  Whatever. Cop-outs one and all. Nobody's really expecting WWE to get back to the glory days of 1999 and 2000 in the ratings. I think you might be able to use 2003 as the cut-off point in terms of both the competition and technology facing WWE, though I'm sure others (mostly late-adopters) are under the impression that things like DVR and digital/on-demand cable are newer inventions. So all I'll say is that my current analysis of WWE's situation only need to go back 12 months; the market doesn't fragment or change THAT rapidly in 12 months. So when you lose 15% of your audience in that span of time, it's not a commentary on the marketplace, it's a commentary on you.
   
  Further underscoring my thesis: as noted last week, the January-March "Rumble to Mania Corridor" is usually the highest rated part of the year. This year, the average ratings for RAW were a half-point lower during that span of time in 2008 than for any year since 2002 (well, actually, since 1998, but again, for our discussion, pre-2003 years don't really count as a level playing field). We're not talking about a gradual decline over time. We're talking about 0.4 points lower than ANY other year in that span, and three-quarters of a point lower than the "Rumble to Mania" run in 2006. Just two years ago. 
   
  That's sudden. And that's significant. Even more so now that we get WWE's official financials in, and see that -- despite the claims and smokescreen -- WrestleMania 24 itself did about 200,000 fewer buys than expected. Lower ratings for TV equals lower awareness of product equals fewer buys for PPVs. Simple as that.
   
  So how do the INCREASED buys for the Rumble and No Way Out figure in? Well, think about it: even at "increased" levels, the number of buys for the Rumble (around 500,000) are about half of WM's, and No Way Out's (just over 300,000) are less than one-third. These are buys from a more loyal and reliable fanbase, whereas WM gets buys from fringe and marginal fans every year. Keep in mind that even at today's "decade-low" levels, RAW's audience level is over 5 million viewers per week (domestically alone). The percentage of those fans who shell out for a monthly PPV probably doesn't vary much from month to month. However, you lose 2 million incremental/casual viewers in one year's time, and those might be the types of fans who get roped in for one night per year. This year: not roped in, it seems.
   
  Also: for the past year, WWE's TV ratings have indicated that there ARE still fans out there available to them, if WWE gives them a reason to show up. Looking just at the ratings for the RAW 15th Anniversary Special, WWE didn't just make up the "lost" 2 million from the past year, but added another million viewers on top of that. Fringe fans and lapsed fans somehow got wind of that show (be it by keeping tabs on websites like this one, or just via WWE and USA's successful advertising), and liked what they were seeing enough to show up in droves. For one week. To enjoy RVD and Austin and Trish and Lita and memories of when wrestling was fun. And then they left. 
   
  Same phenomenon (on a smaller scale) for RAW's only three shows of 2008 to score significantly above the year-to-date 3.47 average. On the night's after the Rumble, No Way Out, and WM24 PPVs, RAW bumped up to a 3.9. The Rumble had Cena's "holy shit" return. No Way Out had Mayweather's unexpected involvement. Both got people buzzing (and as mentioned above, may even have fed "repeat" or "delayed" viewings of the PPVs, in addition to spurring RAW ratings the next night). WM24 had Flair and his retirement ceremony the next night. In all cases, we're talking about more than a million extra fans showing up, staying for one week, and then leaving again, putting RAW's ratings back down around 3.2 or 3.3.
   
  [It's worth noting that post-WM ratings plummeted to an April average of 3.2, even lower than the lead-in to WM24, and the biggest post-WM drop off ever as far back as my data goes. And surprise surprise, after fans bailed, there was ZERO post-PPV bump for Backlash, as there was for the other three PPVs. One way or another, fans are wizening up to when they need to tune in, and when it's just gonna be another load of crap. Of course, it probably didn't help matters that Backlash was the first pretty DUDtastic PPV of the year in terms of real sizzle or buzz. The most promising match ended abruptly and anticlimactically (HBK/Batista with Jericho reffing), and the biggest "news" of the night (HHH winning the WWE Title) was so overdue that it reeked of "necessary" and not of "newsworthy."]
   
  This is why I just cannot accept cheap cop-out fluffery from WWE on the issue of ratings. This isn't a changed marketplace. This is a place where the viewers are there (and most recently were there in giant numbers just six months ago, but still in respectable numbers just one month ago), and you're just not impressing them. 
   
  The last few weeks of zany "stunt booking" isn't the solution, either. My favorite phrase when discussing what would be MY personal booking philosophy is "Sustained Episodic TV." If you create characters compelling enough and storylines complex enough, you don't need crazy stunts or raging insanity to grab viewers: instead, they'll be instinctively draw to finding out what happens next to any of a myriad of different characters.
   
  In fact, by going the "stunt booking' route, you're probably only ENCOURAGING the behavior by viewers where they only feel like showing up certain weeks. You're training them to believe that week-in and week-out will be monotonous and uneventful, and that they'll be able to tune in roughly once a month and catch a halfway decent show if they are so inclined. That's just stupid for so many reasons. 
   
  Just as a fer-instance: imagine if RAW (with it's always-stronger roster) adopted a more even-handed SmackDown-style booking philosophy. Now, both shows have lost roughly 40% of their viewers since the boom year of 2000, but RAW has done it in fits and starts almost always related to the quality of the on-screen product. Meantime, most of SD!'s losses came in big chunks related to outside forces (changing timeslots, changing networks). I mean, when the Brand Split happened, and both shows were noticeably thinner, RAW lost 1.2 ratings points in six months; SD! only lost 0.3. By comparison, SD!'s biggest short term loss was a loss of almost 1.0 points in 2005 when they moved to Fridays. Since then, SD!'s ratings are almost perfectly steady, whereas RAW continues to be volatile, including the aforementioned loss of 15% (about 0.6 point) from the first quarter of 2007 to the first quarter of 2008.
   
  I guess it could be as simple as SD! representing the absolute rock solid core of super-loyal WWE fans who will watch anything and rarely if ever attracts casual fans, whereas RAW is the show that still fluctuates wildly because of the sporadic interest of marginal fans... but I still vote that a more concerted and even-handed booking approach to RAW would result in those marginal fans finding themselves sticking around and becoming part of the core, instead of contenting themselves to show up the next time Vince decides to pull something zany out of his ass.
   
  Just a thought... your mileage may vary.
   
  
• As far as this week's ratings go: Monday's RAW from Toronto did a 3.3 rating. In other words, two weeks into the newest Triple H Era, and things are going exactly the same as they did during the Orton Era. Which is not good news.
   
  What *is* good news is that the show was reasonably entertaining as the follow-up to the previous week's off-kilter and anti-climactic show. They may even have backed into a REALLY cool repeating gimmick for Power Mad Regal: if he keeps turning the lights out when things displease him, then all WWE has to do to make this whole "show that went off the air" mess worthwhile is to have one killer blow-off idea to put at the end of this. A few more times of Regal doing the lights-out gimmick for predictable/cheap-heat purposes (like the thud that was Randy Orton appearing at the end of this week's show), and then just one time, it's somebody/something REALLY awesome and surprising to pay-off the power mad portion of Regal's reign.... it would work for me, and again: that's a case of something sustainable, that builds from week to week, sparking interest, before being paid off in proper (non-stunt-booking) fashion.
   
  Plus: you can do lots worse than stealing from Classic Era ECW, who were the masters of the "lights-out" gimmick (complete with the series of lights-out red herrings leading up to the real surprise). It's something that hasn't been used properly in damn near a decade. And no: the Undertaker doesn't count. Because even though I like Taker and all, there's never anything surprising about it when he uses it.
   
  Besides that: we appear to have a women's division that's headed in the right direction. Or, at least, by combining the RAW and SD! women every week, it seems they're picking the stronger performers to focus on, and getting to push the eye candy divas more to the fringe, where they may be safely ogled.
   
  Also: all things Michaels/Jericho/Batista continue to click for me. Batista is the one who NEEDS a heel turn, but the way they've got it set up, any one of the three (or hell, even two of the three) could flip. Jericho seems to be the fulcrum of the whole thing, making me think he's more relegated to stirring the pot than being key to the pay-off, but as long as he's doing such a great job playing Amatuer Psychologist to both HBK and Batista, it ought to be a fun ride.
   
  What else.... hmmmm.... well, I guess the only other thing I'd say about Monday is that no matter how utterly retarded this thing with Adamle is (which is very retarded; remember, Maria was lots less fun once she started PRETENDING to be stupid than when she was just flubbing lines naturally), it was more than off-set by a couple harmless bits of throw-away fun in the form of Roddy Piper and Trish Stratus making cameos. Neither will lead to anything, but neither interrupted or otherwise detracted from the normal flow of Episodic Events, either. Just a little something to make folks smile.
   
  You can get further details about the show here.
   
  
• Just to touch on some SmackDown! happenings, since I mentioned the "even handed" and "consistent" booking of the show above...
   
  Well, they also pulled a big time swerve this past week, as the Undertaker was stripped of the World Title by Vickie Guerrero, and also barred from using his "Lookit Me, I'm the MMATaker!" submission hold. In response, Taker went all PMS'y and used his forbidden hold to choke out the [redacted] Khali.
   
  Well, you win some, you lose some. I'm no fan of arbitrary stripping of titles, and in this case, the horrific year SD! has had (mostly due to injuries) with the title means that I'd REALLY have rather seen somebody step up and say "Uhhh, no, we can't really afford another cheap title change with this belt until mid-2009." And yet: knowing with some certainty that Khali has been written out of future WWE plans is kind of heartening.
   
  With me now tending to write these columns on Thursdays or Fridays, it's kind of tough to address SD! without resorting to spoilers, but suffice to say: the situation is addressed tonight, and Edge will be front and center.
   
  Only other thing I feel compelled to talk about from last week's SD!: I think Mick Foley is gonna be just fine as color man as long as Vince lets him. In fact, if I had my druthers, I'd turn off the "Voice in the Headset" for Mick, and leave Cole to handle the various cues for Skittles ads and whatnot.... just leave Foley be. He was really good last week, with probably 10 days of prep time, and nothing else.
   
  Well, nothing else besides his adorable green spiral bound notebook, no doubt containing anecdotal gold for any circumstance. Even Chuck Palumbo appearances. Long live Foley, and long live the green notebook!
   
  
• Onto Mick's immediate predecessor...
   
  It appears I was right last week to read more into the Jonathan Coachman situation... his WWE contract expires this summer, and he's informed friends and front office folks that he's been exploring options in the realm of "real sports."
   
  He has auditioned for both the MSG Network and ESPN, and there are even some reports that he's already been offered an in-studio job with ESPN that would pick up as soon as his WWE contract expires. Unlike previous outside work done by Coach (regional college sports commentary) and also by Todd Grisham (Fox Soccer Channel), this would be a full time job and would preclude him remaining affiliated with WWE in any way.
   
  It's hard to believe Coach has been around as long as he has (I think it's been 9 years)... and I gotta admit I'll miss him as a character. Albeit less so as a commentator (where Coach never quite got it right in terms of mixing his "gimmick" and commentary duties in a productive way).
   
  
• Torrie Wilson is another WWE star whose profile has declined recently, and not by accident. After suffering a back injury last year, Torrie's in-ring career was very much in question, and this week, after extensive rehab work and warnings from doctor's to stay out of the ring for good, Torrie and WWE parted ways.
   
  Leading up to the release, Torrie had continued doing limited promotional work for WWE while the two sides tried to determine if there would be a role for her in the company. And thus ends another deceptively-lengthy wrestling dalliance for somebody whose career started well outside the bounds of wrestling. Like Coach, Torrie's been around about 9 years, going back to when she was just a random model hired for an nWo skit, but who was so hot that fans clamored to see more of her.
   
  In the end, "more of her" is exactly what they got, as it's my personal opinion that Torrie Wilson contributed to the high point of the WWE/Playboy relationship. It's just a shame that my wang isn't the only part of me that has a stellar memory, because my brain also recalls that she contributed to other things. Like the single dumbest feud of the century, in which Dawn Marie fucked Torrie's dad to death which somehow led to light lesbian overtones between them or something. I forget, but it wasn't good....
   
  
• Regarding Santino Marella's DUI last week: it doesn't look like there will be any LONG term effects on his career, but in the short term, WWE seems to have decided to slow things down a bit until the heat and publicity die down.
   
  Rather than a previously scheduled tag team title match on RAW (which was hyped in early versions of WWE.com previews), Santino and Carlito were instead used in the throw-away segment with Roddy Piper. Piper even referenced the incident, and much to my amusement, the ever-well-informed Canucks in the audience responded with a "D-U-I, D-U-I" chant. Good times, good times...
   
  Though I still think the BETTER chant would be something like "He's a lightweight (clap clap clapclapclap)"... because the DUI was stupid, but the fact that Santino was deemed impaired despite testing below the legal limit is downright embarrassing.
   
  
• In other "gossip" that's maybe not really under the category of "news," but which I might as well address, even if just to try to keep things level-headed...
   
  There are reports that Ashley Massaro (winner of the 2nd Diva Search) has been tied to an escort service that in turn was just busted as a front for a prostitution ring. Archived versions of the escort service's website do list an Ashley as one of their available escorts (this would have been in 2004, BEFORE Ashley was affiliated with WWE), and additional reporting by Rolling Stone indicates it was "our" Ashley.
   
  Since then, Ashley's flat denied it, and others are suggesting that a swimsuit model of the same name could be creating confusion here. But the Rolling Stone reporter stands by her research and also says nothing in said research indicates there is another Ashley Massaro besides the one who works for WWE and who she believes was affiliated with the escort service. Huh.
   
  Me being the way I am, I'm not sure this is really a story other than in the most puerile and bottom feeding sense. But if I were forced to have some opinion on these rumors, Id point out one simple fact: after this story broke, Ashley still appeared on this Monday's RAW. So either she's innocent, or did a damn fine job of convincing WWE that was the case. Because I can't envision a scenario in which Vince would let somebody who could turn into such a PR nightmare appear on his show.
   
  
• More "newz" in the same vein: the saga of Hulk Hogan's younger daughter, Nick, has ended without a trial. As you'll recall, Nick (who fancies himself a race car driver) was drag racing through the streets of south Florida when he wrapped his car around a tree, and left his passenger paralyzed.
   
  Although initial word was that the Hogan family would retain the services of Florida's leading sleazeball attorney to fight the charges, Nick plead No Contest to reckless driving this week.
   
  He was sentenced to 8 months in jail, 3 years revocation of all driving privileges, and 5 years probation. For once, I think I can say "Justice was served," and honestly mean it.
   
  
• Onto Nick's daddy...
   
  Country Music TV (CMT) has officially announced plans for "Hulk Hogan's Celebrity Wrestling Challenge." For whatever it's worth, this is the "new promotion" that Hogan's been talking about for the past 8 months, although in reality, it's nothing but a novelty two-month gimmick. Hulk is NOT doing anything resembling a real wrestling company or that would count as competition to WWE or TNA.
   
  The show will focus on a half-dozen celebrities (none as yet named, but sure to be D-listers at best) completing training and then eventually full matches under the guidance of Hogan, Eric Bischoff (also an executive producer on the show), and one additional unnamed judge/trainer. At the end of the two-month mini-season, a winner will be declared by some combination of judging and fan voting.
   
  The show will go into production this summer (I believe Hogan is currently committed to finishing up another season of "Hogan Knows Best" for VH-1 first), at which point I'm sure we'll hear about what nonlebrities have decided to sign on, and which additional wrestling personalities will show up as trainers/judges. Then the show airs in September.
   
  Who wants to bet on Brutus Beefcake and Brian Knobbs both somehow getting paychecks out of this debacle?
   
  
• Hogan's ALSO still working on American Gladiators, which starts airing new episodes next week.
   
  To follow up on a story from last week, TNA's Matt Morgan may NOT appear on the show this season, or if he does, it won't be in the opening weeks. Though he remains in contact with NBC and is negotiating for a possible role on the show, he has NOT signed a contract, and reports from the first round of Gladiator tapings are that Morgan did not appear. Sorry if I jumped the gun on that one.
   
  The sticking point appears to be that NBC is taking their new franchise very seriously. Following the unexpected success of the show this winter, and with a few controversies involving Gladiators and contenders (for instance, there was a male gladiator with a gay porn past that he covered up until halfway through tapings), NBC not only wants to carefully select cast members with "clean" pasts, but also wants to lock them in for long term deals.
   
  Supposedly, for Morgan, this would have meant agreeing to six "seasons" (three calendar years) worth of shows, and also possibly being involved in touring with a Gladiators Live Show, all of which would impede his wrestling career just as it's starting to take off.
   
  Like I said, though: I know for a fact the door isn't closed on Morgan/Gladiator talks. It's just that a deal wasn't done in time for this season's first set of tapings, and he apparently isn't part of the show's short-term future.
   
  
• Bobby Lashley's no compete clause with WWE expires this month. As noted when he left WWE (not on the best of terms), his main aspirations seemed to be in the realm of MMA, though I know for a fact Kurt Angle has more than broached the subject of bringing Lashley to TNA. Angle had, previously, been largely responsible for recruiting Lashley to WWE.
   
  
• And since that's two TNA bullet points in a row, I might as well close quickly with a mention that they've got a PPV event on Sunday night. Called "Sacrifice," it's headlined by Samoa Joe vs. Scott Steiner vs. Kurt Angle, and...
   
  Well, that's two-thirds of a decent match, I guess. Throwing Steiner into the mix is a great way to throw my interest level into the crapper... but after seeing things play out the past month, I guess the idea here is probably to stick some schmuck in the ring who can take the loss, while protecting both Joe and Angle. Welcome to Schmuckville, USA, Scotty, population: You.
   
  There's also a 10-man X Division Wacky Cage Match. Honestly, you just did an all-cage-match PPV, and already it's time for another different take on the wacky cage match gimmick? Oy. Then a 10-woman Battle Royale, where the winner gets a title shot and the runner-up gets her head shaved. Sadly, no, I don't think TNA has contacted the always-willing Molly Holly to reprise her role as the hottest bald chick since the one in Star Trek The Motion Picture.
   
  Then, the rest of the show is a tag team tournament to fill the vacant tag titles. That's 8 teams and 7 matches, a few of which are gonna have to be REALLY good to off-set what seems to be a very haphazardly booked (and mostly uninspiring) three established matches.
   
  Four set teams in the tourney are the Dudleys, LAX, Christian/Rhyno, and Styles/Eric Young (Young replacing the mysteriously absent Tomko). The other four teams are randomly generated by Jim Cornette for no reason other than "Convolution, they name is TNA." Two teams (Billy Gunn/Matt Morgan and Sting/James Storm) are set, and the drama among the other four is which man (of Road Dogg, Booker T, and Robert Roode) will get to be partners with women's champ Awesome Kong. The best options for actually solid matches in the tourney would clearly be with the four established teams, but I have a feeling we'll get way more of a focus on the random teams. Based on my comments from last week, you know my "nightmare" scenario for this litle tournament would involve it coming down to Sting/Storm vs. Booker/Roode. Ewwww.
   
  Regardless, I'll be sure to get results up on Sunday night or on Monday for you.
   
  
• On that note, I am outta here. Happy weekending, everybody.