By James Caldwell, Torch assistant editor

Imagine this scenario. A pro wrestling promotion has one of the top babyfaces in all of the industry last year in a PPV match. The promotion is matching up that babyface against one of the greatest pro wrestlers of this era. He also happened to be in one of the promotion's top-drawing matches in company history.

Just 13 months ago, Jeff Hardy was one of the top draws in the industry riding a hot babyface run in WWE. Over two years ago, Angle was working with Samoa Joe in one of the best feuds in TNA history, leading to their money-making PPV title match at Lockdown 2008.

Jeff Hardy vs. Kurt Angle takes place this Sunday on PPV. Now, can anyone explain why there is absolutely no buzz for this match or this PPV?

It's simple. TNA does not know how to market pro wrestling. I'm not even sure why they're in the pro wrestling industry when they have a match-up of this caliber and the focus of their PPV hype on television is tension and dissension and back-stabbing.

It's Jeff freakin' Hardy vs. Kurt freakin' Angle. It's pretty simple to hype this match, especially when TNA needs something - anything - to get people excited about a PPV on Labor Day Sunday before the bigger PPV on October 10.

Following the stale, unproductive TNA writing formula spearheaded by Vince Russo, TNA is building up this PPV headline match as if it's a 1999 WCW Nitro TV match - "Can they get along, will they stab each other in the back, can they trust each other? Find out tonight in the TV main event!"

The misguided hype for this Sunday's big PPV main event match follows recent comments made by TNA consultant Eric Bischoff in an interview with the Monday Night Mayhem radio show generalizing criticism of TNA's product as "negativity without being constructive."

Bischoff's exact words were: "It's easier for people who are negative, who want to criticize without really having anything intelligent to say and without it being constructive criticism."

In the same interview, Bischoff said, "One of the challenges in the business today, and the same is true in the WWE, what can we do that hasn't been done to death in the last 10 to 12 years?"

Exactly. Let's look at the issues in TNA from a "constructive, intelligent" position supported by people within the same wrestling industry TNA is a part of. The Attitude Era is gone. It had its time. It made people plenty of money. It revolutionized pro wrestling. It's also not coming back.

Also, wrestling fans specific to that boom period in the 1990s are not coming back. They've grown up, they have kids, they have families, they have jobs that are tougher to deal with than trying to understand the headache-inducing storylines in TNA, and if they're still watching the genre, it's MMA, not pro wrestling, or they're watching John Cena and Rey Mysterio with their kids.

Now, are there still wrestling fans out there? Of course there are. TNA simply hasn't been able to reach them with the current product mix that positions "stars from that era" in uncool, rehashed storylines trying to re-live the past in a way that is not advancing the genre or making any money, while shifting newer stars into secondary storylines presented as filler in-between talking segments.

Also in the interview, Bischoff claimed that people are critical of TNA because it's "easier and safer" to be on the established WWE bandwagon pointing out the "warts, blemishes, bumps, bruises, and dents" with TNA.

I believe it's the complete, exact opposite. Wrestling fans want to get behind TNA because they want to follow an alternative to the PG-friendly WWE product. WWE has its own issues, as evident by the 900th episode of Raw on Monday night. Wrestling fans want to support a product that provides a clear, true alternative to WWE. They want a product that creates that adrenaline rush of a competitive fight in the ring featuring two or four stars the audience can relate to or connect to through their stories.

Coincidentally, TNA has a match-up of that caliber on Sunday night with Kurt Angle vs. Jeff Hardy. Unfortunately, TNA is using a stale 1990s approach to hype the match that otherwise could make TNA money ala the Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle template that TNA created in 2008.

Bischoff also said in the interview about TNA, "It's not a billion dollar company with the kind of infrastructure and production staff taking their show live on the road every week. There's so many things that we don't have that it's easy to point out our flaws."

Here's the thing. TNA does not need to a billion dollar budget. They do not need to take Impact on the road. They could operate on ROH's budget and still draw higher ratings and make more money on PPVs and house shows than what they're doing right now.

This Sunday, they have Jeff Hardy vs. Kurt Angle on PPV available in the same number of homes as WWE by calling your local cable or satellite provider. That does not require WWE's budget to hype. It requires an effective booking philosophy that is not currently in place in TNA.

Bischoff continued: "There's some great talent in the ring, I think we have the greatest balance of new, young and exciting talent, established talent that rates well despite what everyone else wants to believe on the Internet. If you're objective and you're a real wrestling fan, you're gonna have comments, and while you may not like certain things that are happening in TNA, you'll find plenty of things to like."

I agree with Bischoff that TNA's roster is on par, if not better than WWE's right now. Again, the problem comes down to the booking and how to use the established stars. Not in back-and-forth promos discussing whatever Sting, Jarrett, Nash, Hogan, Flair, and Dreamer are talking about. But, focusing on compelling match-ups between compelling characters leading to a match that gets people excited to see some action they can actually invest in and care about.

WWE managed to take 40-plus-year-old Goldust, who seemed to be at the end of his career in TNA as Black Reign, and build a program around him and current WWE champion Sheamus last year on ECW that set the path for Sheamus to shoot to the top in less than one year. Part of that was Dustin Rhodes dropping weight and appearing to be motivated once again to prove he can still contribute. WWE capitalized and generated a return on investing in Goldust by virtue of where Sheamus is now as one of the top stars in the company.

WWE has even managed to take Kane vs. The Undertaker - a seemingly stale, eye-rolling, "haven't we been here before?" feud - and make it compelling in the year 2010 thanks to a strong, motivated, and fresh performance by Kane in the lead role. The "magic show" is redundant and over-done while stretching the bounds of a pro wrestling narrative, but the individual performance by Kane has been stellar.

Concerning TNA, it's not rocket science. The key to TNA's growth is changing the creative philosophy of the company, promoting compelling match-ups centered around their strong talent roster, and not trying to carry out grudges and prove points and stroke egos from the 1990s when money is to be made and a corporate giant is ripe to be challenged.

A reminder of what Bischoff said: "One of the challenges in the business today, and the same is true in the WWE, what can we do that hasn't been done to death in the last 10 to 12 years?"

TNA's creative and management teams need to visit or just watch an MMA show to get a sense of the adrenaline rush the audience feels when they're wrapped up in the excitement of a compelling fight between two competitors the audience is inclined to root for or root against. That feeling can be replicated in pro wrestling. It had been for decades and decades until the corporate version of pro wrestling shifted the focus from competitive, in-ring action to storylines and theatrics. Bookers to Writers.

There is plenty of room for storyline and theatrics, but the boom period era that appealed to people who otherwise never would have called themselves wrestling fans is gone. The key is going back to an in-ring focus - while still maintaining a healthy balance of theatrics that helps pro wrestling stand out in the genre - that gets over the wrestlers who can sell matches with strong in-ring work and make money for the promotion.

If that were the case in TNA, they would know how to effectively promote, market, and hype Jeff Hardy vs. Kurt Angle this Sunday on PPV. As it stands right now, they're wasting an investment of thousands upon thousands of dollars bringing in talent without the creative effort in place to effectively utilize the roster.

The objective, constructive criticism of TNA is that people want to root for TNA to succeed and challenge WWE, but wrestling fans have been left disappointed repeatedly waiting for TNA to create and carry out a vision for how they can be a true alternative to WWE rather than a watered-down version of the current WWE product mixed with a Xerox of a Xerox of a replica of late 1990s pro wrestling TV.

The timing of Jeff Hardy vs. Kurt Angle occurring this Sunday is appropriate. The match-up exposes TNA's inability to recognize a stellar PPV main event to promote the heck out of, it exposes their failed 1990s era booking philosophy, and it exposes how the promotion is unable to generate a return on their roster investment, which is a Top 5 story of 2010.

We suggest these recent related articles...

CALDWELL'S WWE "NXT: HOUSTON" LIVE RESULTS 9/17: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of Balor, Joe, Bayley, more from debut show in Texas

CALDWELL'S LIVE REPORT - 7/12 Lone Star in Houston, Tex.: Alberto El Patron no-shows, Dreamer vs. Hoyt new main event; plus Duggan, Snitsky, Cabana vs. Mahal, Joey Ryan, Rowe vs. Hernandez, Ivellise, Catrina, Houston Carson, one title change, more

CALDWELL: A Top 10 for 10 Years - Hall of Fame, George, Sweet Tea, Studio B, Duke, Three-Pack, and you!