Miz Makes Rational But Disputable Point About the IWC

Getty Images

The Miz and Summer Rae recently took part in a podcast with wrestling enthusiast/Larry Fine lookalike Sam Roberts, and the hot-button issue of Roman Reigns' negative reception came up. Miz gave what could be fairly described as a half-coached/half-heartfelt response on the matter, which can be divided into a mockable answer and a rational answer.


The mockable:

"The WWE fans and the bloggers and the Twitter people, they all think they know everything about the WWE and what it takes to be a WWE Superstar. They think they know what’s right."

 It's the stock answer any wrestler gives, but the problem has little to do with the wrestlers. I don't think you'll find many fans that out-and-out hate Reigns to the put where they'd wish throat polyps on him. Reigns is a victim of both horrible creative, and having to occupy the same space as the much more-beloved Daniel Bryan. If Bryan never existed, and Reigns wasn't cutting dialogue cheesier than Elizabeth Berkley's in Showgirls, he'd have toppled Lesnar at WrestleMania, and probably rightfully so.

Problem is, the fans have the right to dictate, because it's their money. Telling fans, even diplomatically, that their gut feelings toward poor presentation are misguided is a mistake. There's a reason only five out of 17 episodes of Raw this year have reached a 3.0 rating.

Then Miz makes this other point, which I can't really deny:

"If WWE ignored him they would love him even more. They like people that it’s like ‘we made him.’ Daniel Bryan – ‘we made him.'”

It's the Zack Ryder theory. Sure, WWE should probably push the performers the fans want to see the most because, theoretically, those fans would pay to see said wrestlers. When the pushes don't materialize, you get a lot of vitriol and spiteful chants toward the wrestlers the company prefers, like Reigns. And when the creative surrounding their choices suck, the hate grows.

But if the fans don't spend money on their own said favorites when the opportunity is presented, you can't blame the company for not giving in to their demands, can you? If the 2011 Money in the Bank had done a monster buyrate off of three weeks of a great CM Punk storyline, probably the best storyline in at least three or four years, then WWE would be more inclined to cave in to the fans. Instead, it did barely above a regular secondary PPV buyrate-wise, so if fans make noise and don't spend money, why would you listen to them?

It's a complex scenario, and I think Miz is both right and wrong. Wrestling is the only form of entertainment where a vocal group of fans back the underdog, and act incredulous when their backing doesn't result in a rocket push. It's weird.