I thought it was great article!
Not really, but I thought someone should say something nice before we collective tear the writer a new one.
The whole thing read as if he had the idea to compare Cena/WWE to Animal House and forced the "facts" to fit. He's clearly never watched any WWF product from before the Attitude Era and crosses the line between Kayfabe and back in a way that says to me he'd blame Luke Skywalker for not talking to George Lucas about the Star Wars prequels.
As for what is being suggested: That the best known, biggest draw, highest merchandise selling hero to the target demographic is responsible for WWE's waning appeal, I'd disagree.
WWE is aiming it's product at kids and yet their flagship show runs between 8 and 11pm (I think). Now if we call "kids" under 12's surely even nowadays anything after 9pm is bed time? (I'm 30 and British so I might be out of touch). It's a bit like having Ben 10 and Spongebob on at that hour and bitching about low viewing figures. WWE need to cater to the audience that is watching. Saturday Morning Slam has it right. Raw and Smackdown need
to be pitched at teens and adults, they need to respect the intelligence of the audience and spend more time on in ring action, coherent storylines with a genuine payoff and, as someone mentioned on another thread (Friday night Rawdown), understand that if someone missed a show they'll catch up on YouTube and do away with the endless reminders and rebounds that would even annoy Dory from Finding Nemo.
As for Cena, I'll reserve my rage until after he beats Ziggler. 1) I don't think he will. 2) There are ways to maintain Ziggler's push if he does. 3) Cena as WHC could
lead to a bright future (unified titles etc.).