I have always enjoyed the Royal Rumble. I remember looking for something to watch and how happy I was when I stumbled upon the last few entrants of the inaugural Rumble on USA Network in '88. That was followed by a 30-man Rumble where Ax and Smash drew 1 and 2 and needed to fight it out in this "every man for himself" battle. Shortly after came Flair's title win in '92, with arguably the greatest Rumble roster of all time. After that, the winner was awarded a shot at the title at WrestleMania. From the original Rumble to the time my interest in wrestling started to fade in the early-mid 90s, through the years I got back into it during the Monday Night Wars and the fading interest that returned after 2003 or so, up to today, I have almost always watched the Rumble. I always enjoyed battle royals growing up and the unique format of the Rumble was interesting to me for a long time. There were many years where I knew who was going to win, but still enjoyed it for different reasons. Triple H was going to win in 2002, but Maven eliminating Taker (and that subsequent beating) and Mr. Perfect's return were cool moments. Then there were years where you knew MAYBE 4 out of the 30 participants had a chance to win, but there were still fun moments. The Warrior/Hogan standoff in 1990, Too Cool's dance during the 2000 Rumble, the way Punk was used during the 40-man Rumble, various surprise entrants and returns. Each time the clock ticked toward zero, there was a feeling of "maybe this will be a good moment" even when the winner was so predictable. Sometimes you got a dud entrant, but sometimes something like the Honky Tonk Man's music hitting, only to be nailed with a guitar by Kane, was enough to entertain me. But, lately, those moments have gone away and it has been more of a formality to get to the very few possible winners. Like I said, there have always only been a few possible winners, but it seemed to have been handled better in the past. And not just the long ago past where I believed in kayfabe and didn't know as much as I do now. I am talking about a more recent time, where WWE seems to have a "we know what's happening, they know what's happening, just go out and do it" approach. Now, I hope I am wrong and that kids today are enjoying it as much as I did back then. If that is the case, great! But, it seems to need a refresh, in my opinion. What is a stipulation that could open the door to more possibilities with both how the match is run and who the winner may be? I don't necessarily need each and every participant to have a legit shot at being the winner. There will probably always be "3...2...1...HONK <Enter guy with lukewarm reaction and no chance of winning>". And that's ok. 30 is a lot of people. But certainly we can get maybe half of the entrants to be reasonable contenders, can't we? I would usually get the ball rolling with an idea of my own, but I don't have one. I am hoping to hear some good ones. To be honest, I think the entering women in the same Rumble as the men idea, that I have seen here a few times, is preposterous. If you want a women's Rumble, go for it. Throw in some past Divas and some high spots, along with these legit women athletes, and I can find entertainment in that. But, for the main Rumble, what can be done to spice things up? I think the title match stipulation needs to be replaced...but by what?