On a weekly basis, PWTorch staffers James Caldwell and Greg Parks have a Lounge-style chat reviewing the week in TV wrestling and looking ahead to what's next for key storylines, matches, and future events. An occasional "Seinfeld" or "The Office" reference is also mixed in for good measure.

James Caldwell: This is PWTorch assistant editor James Caldwell joined by PWTorch columnist Greg Parks for our weekly TV wrestling discussion. Greg, obviously the big news coming out of the MITB PPV we broke down in a special Livecast on Sunday night is what happened on Monday's Raw - Triple H replacing Vince McMahon as lead authority figure. It felt like a sudden change in direction for the storyline, but one that could wind its way back to C.M. Punk as current titleholder. What was your reaction to the big finale of Raw?

Greg Parks: They had to do something to take the focus off of Punk if he truly wasn't returning anytime soon (which he isn't), and boy did they. By the end of the show, I was feeling like, "C.M. who?" and I think that was WWE's hope. It does feel like they've followed up a major angle with another major angle, which is good to keep up interest, but on the other hand, there is a sense that it feels like "another McMahon authority figure angle." The progression made sense, given Vince's decision-making in the last two or three weeks, but I think people were expecting a degree of chaos that we didn't get on Raw, given Punk's speeches.

Caldwell: Up until the end, it felt like just another week of Raw after removing the chaos Punk's character caused two out of the previous three weeks, so, I think they lost some steam from not only the MITB PPV but also the previous week's Raw (for viewers who only watch Raw and don't order PPVs except for, maybe, WrestleMania). I agree that right now, the Hunter-McMahon swap feels like yet another authority figure change. I think they have the potential, though, to make it seem like a bigger deal than past editions and also make it seem like a bigger deal to their broader audience. Obviously, next week's Raw is key to make this seem like more than your standard authority figure change, but my key concern is how they get to Summerslam and make that seem like a bigger deal than MITB was.

Parks: I think fans are just tired of the "this is the last time you're going to see this guy" angle. Heck, they backed out of Cena getting fired AGAIN on the exact same show we're supposed to expect Vince to have been fired? Come on. But I think as a whole, the show was fine focusing on wrestling and then the big angle at the end: No dumb comedy, no waste-of-time backstage segments and no filler (aside from the apparently contractually obligated Divas match). So I liked the sharp focus this show had, and it should've been on the title, given the gravity of the situation. And I thought for the most part, until Miz got his second win, Michael Cole was pretty tolerable for the first time in a while.

Caldwell: I think Cole has needed to be more straight-forward lately to sell the potential grave impact on WWE if Punk took the title at MITB. My problem with the tournament is what Wade Keller has said - if there was so much concern about Punk taking the title at MITB, then creating a tournament the next night to determine a new champion seemed to cancel out that entire story. And, I get that WWE needed to do that in order to move away from Punk (and potentially set up a fake champ vs. real champ storyline down the road), but they needed some voice - the announcers, a wrestler in the tournament, someone - to address the big elephant in the room that it's bittersweet competing in this tournament when I want the real title. I felt WWE twisted themselves up in that area. What did you think of how they transitioned to the tournament?

Parks: Yeah, I understand that concern, but I think Vince was right that it embarrassed the company to have the champ walk out with the title and leave them twisting in the wind. Yeah, they can cover it with a tournament, but it's like, "well, everyone knows the REAL champ still has the belt," so I didn't really have a problem with how it translated to the fans. I don't think doing the tournament really took too much away from Punk walking away with the title because the tourney could be seen as a "last resort" they had to do to make up for the loss. But like you said, they didn't really do a great job conveying that fact to the fans.

Caldwell: I think they can make it make sense, but it felt like they came up with the idea last-second and perhaps hadn't thought it all the way through - or figured they could clean it up and re-address issues on the next few weeks of TV. Looking ahead to next week's Raw, assuming they conclude the tournament (and don't null & void it due to McMahon being relieved of on-air duties), who do you think will win? And, do you think Del Rio gets involved?

Parks: I don't think Del Rio will get involved, even though that may seem the obvious choice, especially with him losing this past week. Personally, I think he should've won the tourney and kept the briefcase- it would've been a different dynamic to have the briefcase holder be champ at the same time. I think if Rey wins, we could see a cash-in, but if Miz wins, he holds it (but not for very long). Maybe a three-way at Summerslam with Miz, Del Rio and Cena?

Caldwell: WWE (Vince) could change their minds 800 times between now and next week's Raw, but I'm leaning toward that exact three-way at Summerslam. If that's where they go, I don't see how they make that as big as Cena-Punk at MITB, but I think they'll try to appeal more toward casual viewers with the Summerslam hype as opposed to MITB, which was more focused on hardcore viewers, so it could work out. Miz in the title situation seems a bit stale and Del Rio has been talking about "destiny" for seven months that it would feel forced, though, so they would have to really promote that as something special. I still think if WWE could pull off a Punk-Hunter match at Summerslam, that would be the way to go. Punk-Hunter might not happen at Summerslam, but could you see that happening at some point down the line?

Parks: Sure, but I think the real money in a Punk comeback match is with the new champion at the time, don't you? Especially given the build-up about the title and what it means. Triple H vs. Punk would be unique for sure, but I don't know if it has the same kind of hook as Punk vs. Champion.

Caldwell: I think it depends on how WWE presented it. If the new champion were paraded around for weeks or months as the "real WWE champion," then Punk came back and claimed his rightful position, it would be a strong match-up. If WWE crowns a new champ and they just move on with little fanfare, then have Punk come back, the angle might not be as hot. Perhaps the best of both worlds would be Hunter pursuing Punk to come back, crown a new champ, and then eventually have Hunter convince Punk to come back and challenge his new champion. You could have Punk-champ, and then perhaps Punk-Hunter. ... Brainstorm alert - on TV leading to MITB, they stressed the heck out of the WWE Title being part of the McMahon family legacy, dating back to Vince, Sr. Perhaps the authority figure switch will lead to the complete elimination of the "McMahon Era" title and Hunter will crown the first champion of the New WWE Era eliminating the McMahon lineage.

Parks: That could happen, but I don't know if that means a lot to most fans - it would still be the WWE Title regardless of the lineage, and they'd still refer to guys as "former WWE Champion" or "two-time WWE Champion" without reference to WHICH era the title-holder was from. And yes, how strong they keep the champ is important if they want to have Punk come back and challenge them in a unification-type match. ...

(Editor's Note: At this point, we received word of Punk crashing Comic-Con to confront Triple H.)

Caldwell: Right. I think for storytelling purposes, if they really wanted to make it seem like there's a new "era," they could pursue this idea that Hunter has determined his first new champion and separate the title from the McMahon Era. Of course, then, Punk could come back and say he's the rightful champ, setting up McMahon Era champ vs. Hunter Era champ as the unification match, while still pursuing this McMahon-Hunter power struggle storyline. I'm not in favor of a Power Struggle storyline being central focus of a wrestling show, so they need to keep the focus on the title. In the short-term, do you think McMahon stays off TV for a week, a while, or plays Jericho trying to get back in the building each week?

Parks: Not sure - of course, I'm hoping it's the write-off for good, for the sake of focusing on stories in the ring. Speaking of Punk representing the McMahon era champions...how ironic would that be if his return was seconded by Vince, going against the Triple H era champion?

Parks: I'm not advocating that direction, but it could make for some interesting groveling from Vince to get Punk back to challenge the Triple H champion.

Caldwell: That's exactly what I was thinking - there would be so much intrigue to Punk ending up representing McMahon as his champion after their war of words leading to TV and McMahon trying to get Punk back on the show because the title = power. I think that would be a rich storyline development, if it eventually keeps the focus on the title and in-ring wrestlers. Will they go there? Who knows, but it's interesting to ponder that possibility. Greg, anything else worth commenting on from the big Raw developments following the PPV?

Parks: Just some small issues with the tourney: I know they do this every time, but the short matches by main event guys really undercuts the story they're trying to tell, that being these guys have a special opportunity to win the title, and the matches are all going nearly the exact same time (around four minutes). And too many matches had the same finish (roll up!) or the same format (one guy dominates, other guy wins).

Caldwell: It was like they had to get out of having shorter matches by using the roll-up to suggest the matches only ended by element of surprise rather than one man dominating his opponent to the extend of wearing him down for a three count. You're right that it goes against the internal logic, though, of a bunch of title tournament matches adding up to less time than an entire WWE Title match between Cena and Punk the previous night. Tournaments on a two-hour show really don't work out well. I think the other element you touched on, and Jim Ross blogged about, is the lack of a sense of urgency; that it was a special opportunity to become champ. WWE and wrestlers miss that story so often, like in the MITB ladder match build-up, and this was another example.

Parks: Yeah, just a frustrating aspect to watch, even though for the time allotted, the wrestlers did the best they could and the matches were fine. Let's move on to NXT...the entire "let's let them cut a promo to start the show" bit is tiring me out. No one ever seems to look good coming out of it. Titus wrestled an 11-minute match and no sign of a future elimination. What kind of show did all of that add up to James?

Caldwell: It added up to a show that meant nothing! I don't agree with what they're doing with Bateman, the promos were (seemingly intentionally) awful, and the match you referenced was pretty blah. I just don't know what the hold-up is preventing them from ending this season and moving on to Season 6. I guess Titus is still the favorite to win, especially after WWE stripped away Bateman's marketability, so end it and move on!

Parks: Yeah, NXT is like TNA: Whatever you're watching, you just get the feeling that it doesn't matter.

Caldwell: Unfortunately for the TNA wrestlers sacrificing their bodies, that's reality of a promotion that hasn't taken the time to build a foundation for their product. Greg, I think we have to set a new line for NXT after reaching Week 20 this week. Over/Under 25 weeks?

Parks: Over! I've learned to always take the over with NXT.

Caldwell: I just hope we're not setting a line for Over/Under 30 five weeks from now. I don't know what else to say about NXT. Well, of course, there's Hornswoggle's secret admirer. Regal claimed he sent Horny the box of candies last week. This week, that was ignored and Swoggle still thought it was Maryse. Are we to assume Regal sent the box or is there a greater plan here? (I'm questioning myself even broaching this subject about a show that doesn't matter.)

Parks: Maybe Regal was being sarcastic? I don't know James and frankly, I dont' care.

Caldwell: Indeed. Moving on. Smackdown had a big night at the MITB PPV. Now, the fall-out this Friday on Smackdown. We won't get into SPOILERS since you like to cover each week's show from a non-polluted frame of mind, but where do you expect WWE to take the Christian-Orton feud from here and Mark Henry's rampage?

Parks: I feel like the main event is full with Christian vs. Orton vs. Sheamus, so I don't know where Henry fits in. I don't see them dropping Orton down to feud with Henry if they go with a Sheamus vs. Christian feud. I said this on the Livecast Sunday night, but I've grown bored with Orton vs. Christian, as neither are really engaging personalities in the roles they currently play. And as good in the ring as they are together, even that feels like old hat. I'd expect Orton to invoke his rematch clause sooner rather than later, but will it be at Summerslam? I assume we'll find out tomorrow night.

Caldwell: Do you think Orton snapping after losing the title on Sunday - and where they go from there with that aspect - could help reinvigorate his character? Or is it too late? Something Pat McNeill and I discussed on the Livecast yesterday - is he better off playing a heel if he's going to be Psycho Orton or will Psycho Orton work as a babyface because there's a certain charm to it?

Parks: I don't know that there's a "charm" to it...to me, I think it would get old quickly if he were a babyface constantly doing that act to attempt to stay over. But who knows. I don't know it'll have a long-term effect on him (the snapping, that is), or if we're expected to think it's par for the course for him at this point.

Caldwell: Good points. I think WWE recognizes they have to escalate this thing for the audience to invest in another four-to-five weeks of TV between Christian and Orton and what I assume will be the blow-off match at Summerslam. Part of escalating it was having Orton snap, so it seems. Like you said, I don't know if it's long-term or just for Summerslam season. Greg, anything else on Smackdown you're looking forward to following MITB?

Parks: I think I accidentally bumped into the news of Daniel Bryan revealing when he plans to cash in MITB, so I await seeing how that goes down Friday.

Caldwell: Yeah, that's something we'll earmark for next week's Chat after seeing how it plays out on Smackdown. It's certainly worth discussion once we see it on Friday. Greg, we'll touch on TNA items before we wrap up. Sting is new champ and nothing says Hardcore Justice like Sting vs. Angle next month. Your thoughts on the title change and current landscape in TNA?

Parks: I'll say this about last week's Impact: If I had read spoilers about what was going to happen, then watched the show, I think I would've been presently surprised at how the clown thing ended up being presented. That's not to say I liked it or anything, but it was much more tolerable than I imagined it would be.

Caldwell: There were a lot of holes, but at least it built to a conclusion in the main event. The match itself was a joke for a claimed World Title match with the usual bells and whistles, but the standard is so low that it wasn't even newsworthy. Greg, any other thoughts on TNA?

Parks: Not this week.

Caldwell: Perhaps in a few weeks when TNA gets to Hardcore Justice. Greg, any final thoughts before we wrap up?

Parks: James, I'm so damn hot. The temp read 100 here not that long ago. The only thought on my mind is, "I REALLY have to go out to a baseball game tonight?"

Caldwell: Let's see - the temperature here in Houston is also 100 degrees. Look at that. This is my favorite time of the year! But, I don't have to sit outside and scorekeep a game, so it's easy for me to say. Maybe I host the Livecast outside and see if I last a full hour. That might not be pretty, though. Well, Greg, stay cool, drink plenty of water, and we'll talk again next week!

Parks: I hope I make it another week, James.

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!