Message-ID: 

"Mark Rosendorf"  wrote:
| "James Marshall"  wrote in message
| news:b0h6g4$8v3$1{at}grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
| > In article 
"Mark Rosendorf"
| 
| >
| > >Another consideration - since you rate each match separately, (and since
| the
| > >Rumble takes up more then an hour, it fills the comparison of 3 or 4
| > >matches), wouldn't a PPV with MORE matches do better on your ratings then
| > >one like the Rumble which only has 6 matches?
| >
| > If I'm not mistaken, Hack-Man has addressed this question in the past.
| > I can't remember exactly what his reasoning was, but as I recall things
| > do tend to even out in the end.  For example, more matches in the same
| > 3-4 hour time slot will often mean there is less time per match.
| 
| Meanwhile, correct me if I'm wrong

I will. :-)


| but the Royal Rumble, which lasted over an hour

Less than an hour, actually.


| he rated at around 1 dollar (I could be wrong on this)

I rated it at $4.00 even.


| Now put 3 or 4 crappy matches in that place, give them each a rating of .50
| which stinks, but as I said, stinky matches...
| 
| That comes out to 1.50 or 2 dollars, a better rating then the Royal Rumble
| got, thus quantity proves better then quality...yet we all know that's not
| really the case :)

The Rumble was worth just over $4/hour (since we're now interested
in value per time) :-)

The Brock vs Big Show match was only worth a bit over ten cents per
hour.

The tag match was worth just under $0.15/hour.

The women's match was just over ten cents per hour.

The HHH/BPP match was worth $0.45/hour.

The Benoit/Angle match was worth $2.88/hour.

Does this prove the opposite of the point you were trying to make?
;-)

         SPAMguard: add a dash between "Hack" and "Man"
to send me email
-- 
RSPW's most long-lasting poster
Voted "Most On-Topic Poster" in the 2002 RSPW Poster Awards
rspw{at}HackMan.com    Video/C/Unix geek      http://Hack-Man.com/Wrestling


--- Internet Rex 2.29