Two and a Half Men : Would the ratings have declined no matter who replaced Charlie Sheen????

To this day, Ashton Kutcher seems to get a lot of flack for ruining "Two and a Half Men." But the reality is that when the top-billed cast member has been with a long-running sitcom since day one, the magic is no longer there upon his/her demise. Charlotte Rae (Mrs. Garrett) on "The Facts of Life" is a good example. In hindsight, perhaps I'm contradicting myself, since Charlie Sheen's role reversal on "Spin City" did not appear to have that same affect. But generally speaking, this is why Woody Harrelson made the right decision to not continue "Cheers" without Ted Danson. A current cast member being promoted to top-billing may have a more positive outcome than bringing in a whole new character (thus "Cheers" asking Woody to fill Ted's shoes), but the ratings will never be the same. With that said, does Ashton Kutcher really deserve the blame? In my head, Charlie's replacement was Ted McGinley, because after "Married With Children," I can't help but to think of how much playboy-ish charisma and charm he would've added to "Two and a Half Men." On top of that, he's a triple threat:

- 7.25 years OLDER than Charlie Sheen (a far cry from Ashton)
- Still looks younger, thanks to not succumbing to drugs and substance abuse.
- Six-year stint on another raunchy sitcom catered to the male demographic.

But despite all that, I'm positive the ratings still would've declined.

Ratings were still really good though. And Ashton www fine once the writers figured out waldens personality. Some really funny episodes during his era.

I loved the sheen era but I love the Kutcher era just as much. Jon Cryer was the true star of the show in my opinion.