By James Caldwell, Torch assistant editor

TNA consultant Eric Bischoff published a blog on ericbischoff.com yesterday critical of WWE's recent "youth push" based on low TV ratings on Monday's episode of Raw among adult males.

Bischoff drew attention to Raw's demographic ratings among males 18-34 and 18-49 being the lowest in seven weeks and Raw scoring a 1.86 rating among males 18-34, which was down from a 2.03 rating last week.

Bischoff also noted WWE CEO Vince McMahon blaming WWE's recent poor second quarter results on losing established stars Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Batista, and The Undertaker due to injuries or retirement.

Using that information, Bischoff said: "the TV audience (including 18-34 males) rate with ESTABLISHED (and yes older) stars!"

Without naming Paul Heyman by name, Bischoff's blog seemed to be at least partially aimed at Heyman, who said earlier this week that if he were making talent decisions in TNA, wrestlers over the age of 40 would be in trouble.

Bischoff concluded: "In my opinion, Vince Russo, Dixie Carter, and the team at TNA have done a great job of utilizing veteran stars to help elevate some of the young emerging talent in TNA and at the same time gaining awareness and credibility within the media industry."

Caldwell's Analysis: On the specific subject of Raw's low adult male demo ratings on Monday, Raw was up against ESPN's Monday Night Football, which clearly took away a portion of the adult male demographic. Granted, WWE's product is being marketed strongly toward a younger, "PG" audience, but the adult male demographic ratings are still in the Top 10 on cable TV each week. TNA would throw a party to have the male demographic ratings WWE draws.

It takes time to make new stars and WWE waited five years too late to begin establishing the next wave of main-eventers. WWE procrastinated, otherwise they could have off-set the losses of Taker, Michaels, Hunter, et al. I don't see this as being justification for pushing "established" stars. Rather, I see it as the exact opposite - justification for trying to make new stars, like the Nexus group, that will eventually rise to the top when the talent roster is turned over.

In this environment where wrestling isn't ready for another boom period, patience is required to make new stars that the audience can relate to and will tune in to watch on a regular basis - and eventually spend money to watch even more. Established stars certainly need to be utilized in that process. WWE only has four or five real money-drawing stars, with the company emphasizing the "brand" above the "talent" as a draw. In WWE's case, they were caught with their pants down losing established stars and not having a new wave of main event-level stars ready to go.

Bischoff's use of "facts" to justify knocking the "youth movement" in WWE comes across more like trying to keep the Hulk Hogan brand relevant after hitching his wagon to established stars throughout his career. If Bischoff is correct about TNA's use of established stars helping elevate younger talent, why are Impact's TV ratings down compared to earlier this year and down compared to TNA's ratings in 2008 and 2009? Using the ratings as a measure, overall interest in TNA's product has gone down, not up, since Bischoff and Hogan's arrival in TNA at the beginning of the year.

Granted, Impact's ratings are showing signs of improvement over the last month, but the bar has been set so low in 2010 that anything above a 1.0 rating lately looks good. In 2009, though, hovering just above a 1.0 rating would have been viewed as a disappointment after TNA progressed past that benchmark in 2007 and 2008.

[Torch photo credit Wade Keller (c) PWTorch.com]

We suggest these recent related articles...

WWE NEWS: Superstars SPOILERS - Results from Chicago Raw

WWE NETWORK: Monday, Oct. 12 Schedule - Raw pre-show, Sting DVD preview

WWE NEWS: Lana & Rusev reportedly engaged - follow the interesting 2015 timeline