Leaked WWE PPV List

[TheDrix]

Hey everyone, it's been a long time since I started a thread :O
anyway, I guess most of us saw the leaked list of PPVs and I'd like to hear your opinions on it. Do you think it's a good idea to have PPV for each brand each month? Wouldn't it be better if they split the 8 months (remaining 4 are for WM, SS, SS and RR) and both had their own 4 PPVs? For me, it would be nice to see that much more content, if the leaked list is real (doesn't matter though how the PPVs are called). Anyway, it can all go wrong if they have two PPVs each month, however, the same can happen if they split it 4 and 4. What's your thoughts, guys?

- Sooner or later, someone would bring you the same question as me, so that's why I started it.

Here I'll try to add the list.
Have a nice day guys!

// now I found Jack-Hammer already said this in another thread, so feel free to delete this, or keep it and discuss it here, so you won't flood one thread with multiple things.

 

[Aquaman6686]

Brand-exclusive PPVs were the smartest thing WWE ever did outside of the Brand Extension itself, and hopefully this is true and they are bringing them back. The two PPVs a month don't bother me at all, because in the WWE Network Era, you're getting them all for free anyway, so it's just more wrestling for the same $9.99 you're already paying. Since 2010 my interest in WWE has slowly but steadily fallen, and in the last year it's fallen off a cliff because of their insistence on burying all the worthwhile talent and pushing people who haven't paid their dues, which is why I cancelled my Network subscription after WrestleMania 32. If they do the Brand Extension right, a hard split with very little interaction between the brands (Royal Rumble match, and maybe one or two interpromotional matches at the joint PPVs), and start pushing VETERAN talent again, this might be the only thing that could get me back on board.

 

[zags]

I don't mind the multiple events a month because of the network. If it were $40-$50 an event on ppv I don't think this would be the case of having both in a month. If it would be, I think you'd see more brand loyalty as fans as at least I wouldn't purchase every ppv, and not sure how many others would either. I think it would be the way it was back during the previous split where they'd just alternate. Personally, I'd still like them to alternate. I think it would give more build up to the ppv matches having 4-6 or so weeks as opposed to 3. It would make the matches feel bigger. I personally always liked the longer build. It seemed like less rematches. Now days it feels like its half the same ppv card with different stipulations.

 

[dsotm5150]

I don't mind the multiple events a month because of the network. If it were $40-$50 an event on ppv I don't think this would be the case of having both in a month. If it would be, I think you'd see more brand loyalty as fans as at least I wouldn't purchase every ppv, and not sure how many others would either. I think it would be the way it was back during the previous split where they'd just alternate. Personally, I'd still like them to alternate. I think it would give more build up to the ppv matches having 4-6 or so weeks as opposed to 3. It would make the matches feel bigger. I personally always liked the longer build. It seemed like less rematches. Now days it feels like its half the same ppv card with different stipulations.

I agree completely. I would rather they stick with the standard 12 and alternate them giving for longer storyline builds not to mention they're far less likely to burn out viewership. Granted not everyone is going to sit down and watch every show, but I cant imagine 20 PPVs a year will end up being profitable.

 

[Azane]

Ya, as long as the Networks on, give us all the ppvs you want, Im usually open on Sundays, so giving me more content rather than more hours of "Free" tv is always better for me. It just adds to the value.

Products already been watered down so much, that I'll just take more meaningful matches, call them network specials and just make the big 4 important (big 5 with MITB?)

 

[Dave]

For me, it's all about value for money. I pay my subscription to the WWE Network and giving me 2 pay per views a month on the Network represents the greatest level of value for me. I don't necessarily think that it will stimulate a worse product either, so long as the WWE manage their rosters well enough and use the talent that is available to them to the best of their ability.

 

[Trill Co$by]

I mean there's the fact that this could be very false. In fact, I'm more than positive it is false. Why? Because the brand split was made to minimize injuries, not maximize them. This would give workers way too much of a work load and could deplete WWE's roster even further. But let's say this is real. I'm going to have to say that the average fan who isn't going to buy the WWE network will no longer buy PPVs either. That's a total of 20 PPVs a year. Why would they want to pay so much money just to watch brand exclusive PPVs. I'm not even sure if there are people out there who still pay for the 12 PPVs. I know that before the Network came around, I would pay for a maximum of 6 PPVs a year, and some years that would be even less. So I'm sure other households will do the same.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

For me, it's all about value for money. I pay my subscription to the WWE Network and giving me 2 pay per views a month on the Network represents the greatest level of value for me. I don't necessarily think that it will stimulate a worse product either, so long as the WWE manage their rosters well enough and use the talent that is available to them to the best of their ability.

That's how I look at it. Paying $10 a month for all the content of the WWE Network, including the ppvs, makes the notion of 2 ppvs a month completely different from back in the day. Cable & satellite bills are through the roof as it is and none but the most hardcore of hardcore WWE fans would be willing to spend an additional $90 to $100 for two ppv events each month to their bill.

The important thing to remember regarding how WWE manages the roster and uses the talent is that, as always, it's never going to be perfect. As a result, again, like always, that's going to have some fans pissing all over it because WWE won't cater, or even be able to cater for that matter, to all of their whims in exactly the ways they want them to.

 

[Spencesc11]

I personally don't like the idea of the brand split PPV's. I think thinning the rosters on both shows makes sense so you can develop more talent but the PPV is the reward for those that have gotten over. So 4 matches from each brand on the main PPV and 1 from each on the Pre-Show would be a nice way for the fans to see all the main talent once a month. Plus with the recent injury issues you would think WWE would try to cut down the workload for their talent a bit. The losses of Cena, Rollins, etc.. have really hurt the product of late. And I hate to say it but I'm not sure what they do with Brock Lesnar when he comes back as well??? No one wants to see Lesnar vs. Reigns again and the Cena thing is played out so who do you have fight the beast that makes it remotely intriguing??? His dominance would be fine if he was a regular on Raw but the part time deal to me has been a wasted expenditure on the WWE's part since the fan base clearly doesn't appreciate the yo-yo of him coming back and leaving all the time.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I have a lot of spare time, but do I have enough spare time to watch two inconsequential WWE PPV events a month?

 

[Navi]

There are a number of ways you can come at this. Having the network and it being so cheap is a reason to say why not. Do two a month, we only pay 5 bucks for each one, it's a bargain. Also with the way creative is handling things, we are seeing the same matches each week anyway, and I don't know if I can sit through a two month build between RAW or SD ppv's if they went the other way and did one brand a month.

Truth be told I've always thought there were too many PPV's on the calendar to begin with. There is never enough time to build a storyline properly, and if they had cut back to maybe 8 a year, like have one every 6 weeks instead of every 4, you'd be able to build a storyline.

The way it is now is that wrestler A wins the first match, wrestler B wins the second and third, and then wrestler A wins the match at the PPV. No thought put into it at all. They have a template that works for them and they are sticking with it. I would rather see more network specials like the one coming in in Hawaii happen. Those I find more interesting than some of the watered down PPV's that we have been watching recently.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

No Halloween Havoc? No Fully Loaded?

No fucking buys.

Besides, all the sets are going to be identical to RAW anyways, making the whole affair just this weird-LED fever dream where 3 hours of RAW blends into your pay per view every month until we're all watching the network 24/7 and being fed through a tube.

Say what you will about NXT, every Takeover at least has a new set design.

 

[Dagger Dias]

A couple of things about this list bother me, if it truly is what the PPV lineup will look like for the rest of 2016.... The first is the absence of Night Of Champions. It, along with Money In The Bank and The Big 4, should be kept as a dual-branded show to create a Big 6. The likelihood of bringing in more titles to make Smackdown stand out further as a brand would make Night Of Champions special again. No idiotic non-title filler that plagued the brand for the past 5 years. Oh well, I suppose Clash Of Champions will be a fine Raw exclusive show. The name fits what Night Of Champions sadly turned into anyway.

The second thing that bugs me is the inclusion of Hell In A Cell. Why in the world is that brand still going to be around? They have so many other things they could do with past PPV brands. The show is already one of the weakest brands on the calendar and having it be Raw exclusive will only weaken it more. The same goes for making TLC be Smackdown exclusive. Big mistake. They should remove these gimmick themed PPV's when they enter the 2 brand specific shows per month format. There's a lot of old names that can and should be brought back. I'd do something like this:


6 Dual-Branded Shows Version

January - Royal Rumble (dual-branded)
February - Fastlane (Raw)
February - Roadblock (Smackdown)
March/April - Wrestlemania (dual-branded)
May - Backlash (Raw)
May - Payback (Smackdown)
June - Money In The Bank (dual-branded)
July - Over The Limit (Raw)
July - Battleground (Smackdown)
August - Summerslam (dual-branded)
September - Night of Champions (dual-branded)
October - Unforgiven (Raw)
October - No Mercy (Smackdown)
November - Survivor Series (dual-branded)
December - Armageddon (Raw)
December - Judgment Day (Smackdown)


4 Dual-Branded Shows Version

January - Royal Rumble (dual-branded)
February - Fastlane (Raw)
February - Roadblock (Smackdown)
March/April - Wrestlemania (dual-branded, has Money In The Bank match at it also)
May - Backlash (Raw)
May - Payback (Smackdown)
June - No Way Out (Raw)
June - Bragging Rights (Smackdown)
July - Over The Limit (Raw)
July - Battleground (Smackdown)
August - Summerslam (dual-branded)
September - Clash Of Champions (Raw)
September - Vengeance (Smackdown)
October - Unforgiven (Raw)
October - No Mercy (Smackdown)
November - Survivor Series (dual-branded)
December - Armageddon (Raw)
December - Judgment Day (Smackdown)

This brings back many of the names from the old brand extension PPV calendar and removes the gimmick match themed brands, whether they go the route of only having The Big 4 or having a Big 6. Either way, I'm excited to see what this is going to be like. Like others have said, we're getting these events at the same great price we have been paying for the Network. More fun nights of watching wrestling. Whether they keep stupid brands like Hell In A Cell or not, I am looking forward to them making the change of format to having brand exclusive events again!