General "Too many ppvs" complaining / restructure the PPV schedule thread

[King Patrick Star]

If the WWE wanted to blow TNA out of the water, and not over saturate the PPV market, I say use all the resources they have. 14 is too much and 8 is not enough. Instead of a “WWE Big 4 and Small 10”, just go with the “WWE Big 12”.

January – Royal Rumble

February – Superbrawl
Elimination Chamber Title matches still here in February.

March – WrestleMania
The Money in the Bank match should go back to WM.

April – King of the Ring
Yes!! Bring it back in PPV format!! This is the only PPV where only the World Titles are defended, because of the 3 rounds / 7 matches Tournament.

May – Night Of Champions
Personal favorite of mine.

June – Bash at the Beach
Same as others, but at an outdoor / beach setting.

July – The Great American Bash
World War 3??

August – Summerslam

September – Survivor Series
Four 4 on 4 Raw vs. Smackdown Survivor Series Style matches, and a Raw Champions vs. Smackdown Champions match Main Event.

October – Halloween Havoc
WarGames.

November – November to Remember
Replaces Extreme Rules but uses its concept.

December – Starrcade
Battlebowl / Lethal Lottery.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

If it were left to me, I would probably keep the big four Pay Per Views and go back to an IYH format for the rest of the PPVs. Monthly PPVs were a product of the Attitude Era wherein WWF and WCW would try to outdo each other on a monthly basis. Those days are gone and WWF pretty much rules the roost these days. I think that going back to an IYH format will get more buys anyways because the prices would have to be dropped. Also it will allow major feuds to build for a while and explode only at major PPVs. Some of the talent that usually does not get a chance to show their stuff on PPVs might get to show their stuff on these lesser priced IYH type events.

As for gimmick PPV's, I think the Hell in a Cell PPV is the only one I would do away with. A match that is so revered should never have been dealt with in such a manner anyways. I'd keep TLC, Elimination Chamber and MITB as it is normally not possible to incorporate those matches into a storyline.

 

[Wolf Pac]

I'd go with 12 PPV's a year. It's wrestling tradition and I don't really care how long you build up matches for a PPV, there's like 3 or 4 weeks inbetween each PPV, that's enough time to build up to PPV's, more weeks is just a waste of time.

1) Royal Rumble
2) No Way Out (Normal PPV)
3) Wrestlemania
4) Backlash
5) Extreme Rules
6) King Of The Ring
7) Clash Of The Champions (NOC concept)
8) Summerslam
9) Unforgiven (War Games)
10) Halloween Havoc
11) Survivor Series
12) Starrcade

6 major PPV's would be Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, King Of The Ring, Summerslam, Survivor Series & Starrcade. I would book Survivor Series as a setup PPV for Starrcade. Announce the main event matches for Starrcade before SS then have the main eventers of Starrcade, lead teams against each other at SS which could also include other mid-carders who are going to face each other at Starrcade.

 

[nxtgeneration]

What are your thoughts on having a ppv where neither world title is defended. you could have one or two multi-man matches such as a battle royal too determine a number one contendor for the world titles. have one of these say with all people who have never won a world title. have the focus on the US/IC titles, the tag titles.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you personally think that having a for lack of a better term "mid-card" ppv, which features the talent of up and coming superstars such as daniel bryan, cody rhodes, dibiasie, truth, del rio, sell? will there ever be a pay per view without cena and orton?

Personally i think this would be a great idea, however i do realise that this could be because i am a mostly internet fan. i would love to see the pure wrestling styles that this would entail.

What matches would you love to see?

My Card would be on the lines of:
Rhodes v Christian for the Number One Contendor to the WHC Title
Six Pack Challenge for the Number One Contender for the WWE Title (ft. wade barrett, morrison, mason ryan, jack swagger, del rio, r truth)
Sin Cara and Rey Mysterio v Evan Bourne and Averno in a Ladder Match for the Tag Team Titles
Drew McIntyre v Dolph Ziggler for the US Title
Bryan v Punk for the IC Title
Kaitlyn v Natalya v AJ v Eve v Kelly Kelly v Kharma for the Diva's Title
A Battle Royal for a choice of a shot at either the IC or US Titles (tatsu, dibiasie, kidd, baretta, chavo, masters, riley, ryder)

please dont be too harsh, only new to these forums

 

[Matt7584]

Since the attitude era there have been roughly 12-13 ppv's per year. The argument made by many is that there isn't enough time to build the feuds for the main events and not enough time to the mid card. We even find ppv's where the mid-card titles dont appear on live taping. We all know the problem and we know it wont change because its a huge money maker for vince. However i have an idea!

Wrestle-mania I featured a main event of Hulk Hogan and Mr.T vs roddy piper and paul orndorf. not the greatest match however built hogan as true player in the wwf and set the foundation for wrestle-mania. We all know that survivor series since its debut in the late 80's was purely 5 4 on 4 matches until the mid 90's when they didn't have enough wrestlers. Survivor series gave camers time to guys like koko b ware, owen hart, the hart foundation, and ect. Guys who weren't over yet but go time to shine.

So your thinking whats my point or idea. here it is..the WWE focuses so much on the WWE title and one other non title main event feud on raw and smack-down in order to sell the next pay per view. So title ends up being defended at every ppv and feuds last too long or rushed. How about not defending the title at every ppv. Obviously the big ones defend titles. But how about using a tag team main event featuring the champion and #1 contender with the face and heel in the other main event. For example on Smack down at this coming ppv capitol punishment. have christian, orton, sheamus, mark Henry all feud at once. let them battle at the ppv in non title tag team match. you could have christian turn heel and make a triple threat match at the following ppv. this keeps the storyline interesting while giving other mic time to the mid card guys. So your asking what does this solve? well less title defenses which means they could build 6-8 weeks for a major ppv title match while keeping the parties relevant. I mean obviously the booking would have to make sense but this would build new feuds and end feuds properly while keeping the ppv's fresher and have more significance. you could be very creative in this booking. Just think about all th extra time they could give to younger wrestlers if the older guys are involved in combined feuds. So the idea would be to alternate or skip a few ppv's without the WWE?WHC titles defended but have main events that will use the mainevent players in a creative way of building their feuds in order to sell the next ppv and raw better.

What do you think?

 

[GLOBAL ICON]

I don't think it will work. Today's WWE audience wants both the major titles (WWE and World Heavyweight) defended on each and every PPV. Plus, removing Cena and Orton (the current title holders) from the show altogehter is not going to help the buyrates in any way. Plus, Rey Mysterio at this stage of his career in a IC/US or tag team match on a PPV wouldn't be helpful as well. And nobodys going to pay to see Santino and Kozlov battling The Usos in the main-event of a PPV. The only people benefitting from this kind of PPV would be the divas, meaningless tagteams and that tool named Zack Ryder. So, this isn't going to work.

 

[nish2231995]

the thing is about ppv, is that its a ppv. you pay to see genuine rivalries come alive in a match at each ppv, you pay for the chance to see possibly a title change on the night. While i wouldn't mind a midcard ppv with some talents that are 10x better then some of the main eventers right now (eg rhodes and mark henry), if you put the strap on a midcarder without build, have him feud with another midcarder, the title loses prestige.
plus some of matches seem very unrealistic, for example, apparently averno hasn't even signed with the e

 

[RATED R CHAMPION]

PPV'S NEED BIG STARS ON IT, BIG DRAWS A.K.A (CENA, ORTON, ETC...) BUT IF YOU WERE IN THE TERRITORY DAYS YOU COULD HAVE DONE A BIG EVENT ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT A WORLDWIDE COMPANY LIKE WWE, IT WON'T WORK.

 

[ugotpwned999]

While I wouldn't mind seeing a PPV just for people that aren't Main Eventers, it's just not going to happen. WWE PPV's need big draws which come in the form of championship matches and if you take them away you take away a whole lot of buys. You also need decent midcard rivalries to make it interesting but the card would probably end up being thrown together at the last second.

Bottom Line, It ain't going to happen Decent idea though.

 

[sislater69]

Like stated previous, the buy rates would suffer. I'm sure the majority of internet and hardcore fans would love to see their favourites get decent ppv time, it's the casual fan, and the younger fans who usual berate their parents to buy it that wouldn't bother.

My son is 7, he watches most ppv's, but if Cena wasn't on it, he wouldn't bother. And I'm sure he's not the only one.

 

[amazing_blue]

I love your idea, man. I think that most of us internet fans would enjoy it more than the gimmicky pay per views with John Cena defending his title in stipulation matches. It would be a great way to get underused talents wrestling in good matches and they wouldn't need storylines to do it.

The only problem is that it wouldn't sell, so Vince wouldn't go for it. It's too bad; I feel like this event would be too big for a TV special but not big enough to be a PPV.

 

[Gman35]

What are your thoughts on having a ppv where neither world title is defended. you could have one or two multi-man matches such as a battle royal too determine a number one contendor for the world titles. have one of these say with all people who have never won a world title. have the focus on the US/IC titles, the tag titles.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you personally think that having a for lack of a better term "mid-card" ppv, which features the talent of up and coming superstars such as daniel bryan, cody rhodes, dibiasie, truth, del rio, sell? will there ever be a pay per view without cena and orton?

Personally i think this would be a great idea, however i do realise that this could be because i am a mostly internet fan. i would love to see the pure wrestling styles that this would entail.

What matches would you love to see?

My Card would be on the lines of:
Rhodes v Christian for the Number One Contendor to the WHC Title
Six Pack Challenge for the Number One Contender for the WWE Title (ft. wade barrett, morrison, mason ryan, jack swagger, del rio, r truth)
Sin Cara and Rey Mysterio v Evan Bourne and Averno in a Ladder Match for the Tag Team Titles
Drew McIntyre v Dolph Ziggler for the US Title
Bryan v Punk for the IC Title
Kaitlyn v Natalya v AJ v Eve v Kelly Kelly v Kharma for the Diva's Title
A Battle Royal for a choice of a shot at either the IC or US Titles (tatsu, dibiasie, kidd, baretta, chavo, masters, riley, ryder)

please dont be too harsh, only new to these forums

It's not a bad idea, but WCW did something like this and it was called World War 3 and Battle Bowl, where they had battle royals for a #1 contender. I know, it was for the world title, but like someone else already said, I don't think that it would work today. Yes, in the 80's and 90's, but not today. Great idea though. I remember when the IC title and the U.S. title meant something. It used to be, they were the #1 contenders to the world titles, but not anymore.

 

[SomeAreSet]

I don't think people would pay $50 to watch the mid-carders.The point of a PPV is to bring the top stars together in big matches,that's why PPV's are supposed to be special (until they started doing one every 3 weeks).Besides,if none of the world titles are being defended,then you know WWE would pull something like giving the world title belts to guys people don't care about and then have Cena,Orton,Miz etc. in the PPV.

 

[BIGTOWNPLAYA01]

well i have thought about this to. Even have the mid card titles be the Main Event but I guess the problem is it's just not a successful business choice... Remeber Booker T and Finlay vs. Batista and Cena?

 

[Honkey_Kong]

The big problem is they just don't have enough time between PPV's to develop the midcard angles enough that they could become selling points to a PPV. Truth is nobody cares enough about Rey Mysterio vs Cody Rhodes, to use that as a selling point for a PPV. People want big matches and world titles, we wont pay money for tag team main events. That sort of stuff is fine for an episode of raw or smackdown though.

 

[Straight-Edge]

I think that they should go back to the one-show PPV that they did before ECW was brought back. And the only time that they where on the same show was SummerSlam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania. This gave 2 months for feuds, but could make the feuds boring if they go for to long, therefore people losing interest in the feud and stop watching.

 

[rge2010]

WWE PPV's have evolved so much the last 20 years. I remember the days where there were 4 solid PPV's - Rumble, Mania, Summerslam, Survivor Series. I think King Of The Ring was added in the early 90s. Before you knew it, In Your House was born and we had 12 PPV's a year. I then think at one point we had 14/15 (Cyber Tuesday, New Years Revolution & ECW).

History lesson aside, I would love WWE to go back to Rumble, Mania, KOTR, Summerslam, Survivor Series. 12 a year is just too much. For hardcore WWE fans they are having to pay out $40/$50 a month for the privelige. It is like a utility bill!

8 weeks between PPV's would allow stories to really evolve and we wouldnt see the same matches PPV after PPV as stories could end on Raw & Smackdown.

Fact is though, as long as WWE is turning over a profit from PPV's they will continue to do so. Have they ever made a loss on an event?

 

[streicher187]

Could see a ppv with neither champion if there was a lot on the line..

Call the PPV END OF THE LINE

The loser of each match gets fired from the WWE (really fired not fake fired) it could be done a couple months after mania when they usually trim the roster. The best thing to do would be to plan out the match but save the finish till the day of the PPV so the people who are going to be fired don't know and can not leak it out..

 

[Mindshatter]

Personally I think that's an awful idea. The only reason I buy alot of the PPVs is because they defend the titles. If they didn't I wouldn't shell out for them at all.

 

[Mindshatter]

Could see a ppv with neither champion if there was a lot on the line..

Call the PPV END OF THE LINE

The loser of each match gets fired from the WWE (really fired not fake fired) it could be done a couple months after mania when they usually trim the roster. The best thing to do would be to plan out the match but save the finish till the day of the PPV so the people who are going to be fired don't know and can not leak it out..

That's an awful idea because there would either just be lots of squash matches to get rid of the jobbers or just two jobbers fighting each other. That's not worth the money at all. It could work for a special 3 hour RAW episode where they have some loser leaves town matches but not a PPV.

 

[RJB1976]

Anyone against cutting the number of ppvs in half (or any reduction) simply is wrong. And I don't want to hear "well on pay per views, they defend the titles". Well, we've had yet another WWE PPV with no title changes. 12-15 PPVs is overload, especially since the WWE product is not worth being overcharged to order it.

As for booking angles, less is more as for as PPVs is concerned. I can think of fueds that I tuned into the TV's to see for each week leading to the PPV. WWE has changed the way they do things. They use TV to sell the PPV, where they used to use the PPV to sell the product. And the product is suffering ebcause of it. Being forced to burn through 12 angles for multiple wrestlers each year, no wonder why the booking committee is burned out.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Anyone against cutting the number of ppvs in half (or any reduction) simply is wrong.

Much to the contrary, you, are wrong.


Pro Wrestling is about making money, always has been, always will be. Not placating you.

More PPVs = more money.

As long as there is profit to be made, PPVs wont, and shouldnt, decrease in number. Thank fuck you aren't running my wrestling company, I would prefer to make money, personally.

 

[mccall316]

I understand why someone would hate this idea, mainly Vince McMahon because he doesn't want to lose money. The answer is simple. The truth is television brings in more revenue than pay per views over the course of a year except for the annual big 3, Mania, Rumble and Summerslam. If you were to eliminate 4 pay per views, you need to make up the money somehow. I'm not talkinga bout a crappy SNME show either. If the WWE packaged together 4 shows to replace the dropped pay per views, then you make your money back. In fact you do the fans a service as well. Providing more cable entertainment and a lower cost then a ppv. These 4 shows would be built like a ppv only on say the USA Network or another cable station. The old Clash of Champions is what these 4 shows would be like. You could then use the original concept started in this thread as in tag team matches to solidify a feud or story. You give 2 hours dedicated to a lot of in ring wrestling as apposed to 5 promos as we see on Raw and Smack week in and week out. This gives more time for less established stars, pushes feuds and won't rush the writers to throw something together. It's a win win situation. The only hiccup is what station would sign up for this package and how WWE would promote it. They failed with NXT and Superstars. As WGN said, we paid for a B show and got C quality. WWE would have to make sure these 4 special shows would be built properly. I don't have the faith they could actually do that.

 

[H33LTurn]

It wouldnt work due to the simple fact that nobody would pay anything close to $40 for a ppv that only includes midcard talent. A ppv like that costs at the very most $25, which would hurt WWE's economy. It would be an entire waste of time to have ppv's for the midcarders who rarely have any rivalries going on. Not to mention that midcard titles dont switch hands as much as world titles due to the fact that they are there to help those guys reach world championship material.

 

[MMK]

Much to the contrary, you, are wrong.


Pro Wrestling is about making money, always has been, always will be. Not placating you.

More PPVs = more money.

As long as there is profit to be made, PPVs wont, and shouldnt, decrease in number. Thank fuck you aren't running my wrestling company, I would prefer to make money, personally.

And I would prefer a better product, personally.

WWF made just as much money, and was much more popular in the 80's and 90's when they had only 4 ppv's a year. That was when the WWF was at it's peak. Are you saying the WWF didn't make money in the 80's and early 90's before they expanded to 12 or 16 ppvs a year. They had way more ppv buys back in the day when ppvs mattered. So more ppvs doesnt neccessarily mean more ppv buyrates. Buyrates are the lowest theyve ever been. So actually, its you who's wrong.

And if you're creative enough, as they once were, you can actually make MORE money with LESS ppv's. It's called quality over quantity. Put on 4 heavily hyped ppv's with a kickass lineup and fans will buy. I know I would. I don't buy ppvs anymore because they're pointless. I only get Wrestlemania. But back when there were only 4, I would get every one. A ppv now is no better or worse than the average RAW. Anyone who buys them is a sucker.

And what's with so many people on here constantly talking about how WWE is a "business", its all about "profit", etc etc. Of course, but why do you care? You dont work for WWE. You're a fan. Don't you want a better product? Why are FANS arguing from Vince's "lets make a profit" point of view? Argue from your own point of view. Or maybe fans have become so brainwashed they can't convey a point of their own anymore and just use WWE talking points. It's as if some people on here care more about WWE's financial status than whether or not the ppv's and shows are any good. What's wrong with some of these people. The ppvs suck. Period. Theres too many. Its called oversaturation.

Unlike the guy from the quote, I want a quality product. I dont give a crap about Vinces bottom dollar or making profits. And neither should you. As fans, its none of our concern. Our job is to hold their feet to the fire and make sure theyre putting on the best product for your bottom dollar. Maybe the reason the product is so bad is because fans dont demand a better show.

Putting on 14 barely mediocre ppvs a year instead of 4 or 5 excellent ones, is the lazy way to make a profit. Instead of putting in the effort to promote 4 or 5 excellent ppvs a year, they just put out a mediocre one every month to make up for the lack of quality. Its creatively lazy and it leads to a bad product. And no fan should defend that.