Eric Bischoff Critiques WWE’s WCW Invasion Angle

During the latest episode of 83 Weeks, Eric Bischoff delved into the WWE-booked WCW invasion angle in 2001, which has faced widespread criticism, and expressed his belief that WWE rushed into it without giving the angle a chance.

Discussing the core issues of the WCW invasion, Eric Bischoff pointed out,

“Look, there was an established WCW audience for several years prior to the acquisition. WCW was the dominant televised wrestling show in the country for a couple of years. In the head-to-head, all the boats — you know, our boat floated higher, so did WWE’s because of the war. We’ve talked about all that. But a certain number of people represented that brand. Sting. Hulk Hogan, we’ll put him in a category, he was off in his own category because he probably still represented WWE more than he really represented WCW, cause he spent more time there, right? So put Hulk and even Randy Savage off to the side, and you’ve got your core WCW talent. Ric Flair was much more closely associated with WCW than with WWE. Even though Ric spent some time in WWE, he’s a WCW guy. He’s an NWA guy. He’s that guy. [Lex] Luger, the Steiner Brothers, so many, you can just run down the top 15 people at the top of the roster.”

Elaborating on the critical flaw in the WCW invasion angle, Eric Bischoff explained,

“All of those people represented the WCW brand, myself included to a lesser extent. They didn’t have any of those people. So you’ve got the brand, and if there was a critical flaw it would be assuming that the audience believed just because you had the three letters, WCW, that the audience would follow. And the audience was not gonna follow, obviously they didn’t follow. Because they didn’t have the talent that represented the brand, so that the audience could relate to it; so that it felt like, or it could possibly feel like a real invasion and a real conflict. Because those key talents that were driving the viewership for WCW for such a long period of time; if they’re not on the roster, they’re not on the show, you got a bunch of people who, ‘Yeah, I kind of think I’ve heard of them, and maybe I’ve seen a match or two, but I don’t really care. I don’t relate to them because they don’t relate to WCW,’ in the audience’s mind if that makes sense.”

Sharing his thoughts on WWE’s decision to hold the first WCW match in Tacoma, WA, instead of Atlanta the following week, Eric Bischoff said,

“That would’ve made sense. But again, there’s no why. There was no — it was just, ‘Oh, it’s Marcus Bagwell and Booker T. They’re WCW guys. We’re in Tacoma, let’s just throw it up against the wall.’ Or even, ‘We’re in Georgia,’ which would’ve made a lot more sense. But it wouldn’t have made as much sense as it would have in Georgia or anywhere else, particularly in Atlanta, if there would have been an explanation in a story. Otherwise, it’s just, ‘Yep. There’s Marcus Bagwell, he’s from WCW. Boker T, from WCW.’ And you’re selling it in your commentary, but it still just pops up out of the ground without any backstory, without any reason, without any stakes, without any motivation. It’s just two guys wrestling.”

You can keep up with all your wrestling news right here on eWrestlingNews.com. Or, you can follow us over on our Twitter and Facebook pages.