The WWE Off Season Issue: The Pro's And Con's

[Low_Ki]

I went to Wrestlemania 28 this year. It was awesome. The feel, the place, and the fact that I counted it as a holiday. This was my third Mania and I am now getting a feel of what to expect. Axxess had a familiar feel this year, but added a few new things, and the event itself was a world better than Wrestlemania 27.

The night after Mania, I attended RAW. The Miami crowd were crazy, and I know they came across as hot on TV, but to actually be there was one of the great wrestling experiences I think I will ever have. A guy dressed in all Macho Man gear in the front row got the crowd going nuts during CM Punk's match against Mark Henry, The Rock got an outstanding reaction, and to my surprise, so did Brodus Clay. The man they all wanted to see that night (and no it wasn't Brock), was Daniel Bryan. All the 'Yes; chants from the start of the night to the end, really encompassed what the fans were telling the WWE. Now Bryan wasn't on the show, but as soon as they were off the air, we were treated to a six man tag match, and sure enough, Flight Of The Valkyries hit, and if you think Lesnar got a reaction, this, if it was possible, was bigger.

Enough about my experience, as that is not what this piece is about. I just wanted to set the scene coming into Wrestlemania. Because what is funny is, after Mania, I have since watched one episode of RAW. It would be kind of like continuing American Football after the Superbowl. A lot of people in the IWC, have been whispering about the idea of an off season for the WWE. Now as financially non-viable as this may seem, it has its pro's and con's.

The first pro is obvious. The time off for not just the wrestlers but the creative team would be met well. It gives them all time to recharge, heal injuries, come up with decent stories, and most of all, it keeps the fans wanting to see their favourite performers. I guess, more importantly than that, Vince would actually get some time off. Who knows, if you kept Cena off TV for a few months, maybe some of the older fans would enjoy seeing him back...then again, maybe not. But when you consider that some members of the roster work hurt, it really does make a lot of sense. Rey Mysterio for example may not have taken pain pills and got himself suspended if he had time off to heal.

Another pro in this circumstance is that people will be more inclined to pay more money for PPV's if they don't get 13 of them per year. Keeping the PayPerView idea in short supply creates more of a demand when they actually come around. That is why the big four always did so well.

One more would be the attraction from other wrestlers outside of the company if there was an off season to bring in newer talent. I know Kurt Angle is retiring in two years, but had this been implemented before, Kurt may have reconsidered. The workload was always too much for Kurt, and you can see that in the amount of weight he has lost since being in TNA. But if you are looking at TNA talent, who knows? An off season would be very interesting to those performers who deem their current workplace to not be giving them what they need. Its an interesting avenue to go down.

But with that, there are obviously the cons. First and foremost, finances. Vince McMahon is money driven. If you took away three months of programming, the company would initially lose money. From advertisers, the TV networks, loss of PPV buys, and of course, live ticket sales. Sure, this does seem like a big hit. But the WWE has lived without this before. Going back to the PPV thing, if you had a choice of buying lets say seven decent PPV's, instead of thirteen, you would consider it more no? The quality of these PPV's would be better, which in turn would engage more people to buy. Wrestlemania this year has allegedly done as many buys for one PPV, as all of the B PPV's over the year. That is saying something. Saturating the market much? With the inclusion of the WWE Network, the WWE doesn't have to go away entirely. It can still stay relevant and charge people the $60 a month it wants to. This is, of course is all theory related, and in terms of numbers, I am merely going on the information they we as fans are all given.

The only other relevant con, is that, lets say the WWE went on hiatus straight after Mania. Daniel Bryan was getting very over after his 18 second loss to Sheamus. His ability to 'grab the brass ring' would have been taken away, as would have been his potential push. He is the hottest property in WWE right now, and if they went away for three months, would he still have the same marketability when he returned? All very good questions.

So I am sure the debate will rage on, and after reading this back, it does appear that I am in favour of a break for the company on the whole, as I feel it would keep people wanting.

What do you think?

Are you in favour of the time off idea? Why?

How long?

 

[Defekt]

What do you think?

An off season would mean millions of dollars in losses for the WWE. There's really no way around it.

You can speculate about the increased fan interest from taking a few months off, but I strongly doubt it would total the amount of revenue lost from cancelling 3 PPV's, 25 televised shows, and 60+ live shows.

 

[FightOwensFight]

I think the only way an "off-season" would work is if it were staggered. You could give people rest throughout the year but the company as a whole would never be off the air. You could even work it into story-lines where people get "hurt" and are gone for a month or so to "heal" when they are really on a vacation.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

I do not think they need an off season. They just need to give every wrestler 2 months off completely a year. if this is done at different times, then it would mean storylines could continue without interuption.

 

[Workrate]

From a fan's perspective, I like the idea. As much as we like to bash creative -- and they often deserve it -- you have to acknowledge that it must be difficult to churn out the amount of programming they do. But it will never happen because it would be too much of a less of revenue.

 

[jhauth11]

i wouldnt work as wrestling being full time is whats made them last so long and it would mess up the TV contracts of not being able to fill in a new show each week they can count on

 

[Fansince1992]

I think they all should be entitled to about 30 days a year. I don't see how being a Pro Wrestler is much different from the average working man/woman. The Question is do they work 8 hours a day 5-6 days a week to be entitled to it. Granted they do work thier bodies a lot more than a guy stacking shelves in a supermarket, but i do think they should be given a set number of days in the calender for Holidays depending on thier weekly working hours.

 

[Rampage Bentley]

I don't think they should do an "off-season" I think they should make a rotating schedule where you assign "A" "B" "C" and "D" teams led by Cena, Punk, Orton, and Sheamus. Two are actively doing house shows a month at a time and two rest. Everyone shows up for RAW, Smackdown and PPV's but those "off" get the rest of the week to themselves.

 

[canudiggit]

It would be good for the wrestlers and creative to have the time off, but I agree with what Defekt said, it would cost WWE too much money. I think the only possible way it could happen is if every member of the roster said they are leaving the company if they don't get more time off.

 

[SD619]

Having an off-season would be a bad idea for the following reasons:

Economic reasons: If there is an off-season and the number of PPVs is reduced, there is a slight chance that ratings might increase, but they would not be high enough to supplement the loss of months worth of revenue.

Injuries can happen anytime: Consider that WWE has Jan-Mar as off-season, and during the last week off, Cena goes to meet a few Make-a-Wish kids. One of them wants Cena to jump on a pogo stick and Cena, being the good guy, does so. If he slips and injures himself (or any such scenario involving another top guy), and is out for a few months, WWE are without one of their top guys. That would hurt the ratings and potential storylines that they might have been working on.

A better idea would be to have breaks for wrestlers, instead of the whole roster. WWE could give a few weeks off to one top guy at a time,and in case of injury to another, recall him. This way the wrestlers are not exhausted and get well-deserved breaks, thus allowing other guys a shot at the top.

 

[Radical]

They don't need an off-season but they could benefit from just toning everything down a bit.

That means:

- Less PPVs

- Less house shows (I hear these guys have to wrestle 5 or 6 times a week! That's too much. I'm sure it sucks because it means a few less cities will have WWE house shows but wrestling fans will travel to reasonably near-by cities to see a show, even more likely if it is not a house show but actually a televised show! So I think they could really do less house shows. Just do the Raw show, tape Superstars with it, do Smackdown, tape NXT with it and maybe do 1 or 2 house shows then let the Superstars relax!)

- I agree with an above poster who said they should give each Superstars about 2 months off. Obviously, not all at the same time, but they could either 'write them out' by having another Superstar 'injure' them or have the GM fake suspend them for no good reason... which would be believable if it's done by Big Johnny! Of course people will catch on that Supestars here and there are off for 2 months and returning every year but it would be worth it in the long run I think. ...

I think hasn't happened yet becasue Vince cares more about making money than the health of the Superstars... basically seems like he feels "If you can't cut it with this tough scheduled then too bad, get out!" but I don't think that's a great idea because you can end up losing really good Superstars that way and in turn that would decrease the money you make. The less interesting Supestars they have the less people will want to watch.

 

[bmg82683]

what about doing what they did in their heyday of the 80s. Make it special when Cena, Orton, Punk, ect show up. Hogan, Savage, Warrior, they weren't on TV every superstars or wrestling challenge. So it was more special when they showed up for Saturday night's main event or for Wrestlemania or the Survivor series.

So let's use the month of June for example. This week saw Cena vs Cole. Punk vs Kane with Bryan interfering. Sheamus vs Ziggler. And it saw the tag champs defend.

Next week you highlight the IC and US titles and their champions... in the process building them and their challengers. You feature the Big Show and then maybe do and get some other angles running. Building up other superstars and fueds. And cap it all off with Vince's return.

Then you continue this alternating. Sure you could have a few guys show up a couple weeks in a row if it makes sense, but don't over kill. It makes it important when the WWE or World Heavyweight champ shows up or any other Big Name Superstar shows up. This would be perfect to highlight all the titles, champions and contenders. Giving everyone enough time to shine. As well as allowing the company to highlight new guys like Damien Sandow, Antonio Cesaro, ect without sacrificing someone's TV but allowing guys some rest.

Just like in the 80s, it keeps everyone fresh physically and to the viewers while keeping us wanting to tune in each week because we don't know who's going to be on our show or what will happen if they do or don't show up.

 

[JJohns]

Yes, let's do things like they were in the 80s where guys were regularly on the road 310 days a year, often times doing double shots and the television tapings taped all of a single month's episodes in one night. That will definitely allow the boys to heal up.

What a lot of people are forgetting is that instead of wrestling 8 times a week (that's about what a guy like Jim Duggan or Randy Savage would average in the 80s) most wrestlers in WWE wrestle 4-5 times a week, are only doing WWE events 4 nights a week (Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday if you are a Raw Superstar or Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday if you are a Smackdown/NXT Superstar or Raw Superstar booked on that week's Smackdown). This is a much more streamlined touring schedule that allows talent to take more time off than they used to.

Would I like to see more guys take time off as they need it? Yes. Is it unheard of for a guy to take a week off in WWE. No.

The guys that are in WWE, and working the WWE schedule knew what they were getting into when they signed that contract. Otherwise, they shouldn't have signed up for it.

 

[Blade]

One of the major pros for an off-season would be how it would positively affect ratings. We're seeing the ratings go down week after week, they've been on a continuous downhill slide for nearly a decade with only occasional increases. If they take a break, it gives people time to miss WWE. Can you imagine going for a couple months without seeing your favourite wrestler perform? A couple months without seeing Punk and Bryan and Cena? Many fans are sick off WWE. We've been watching for a long time, some have watched it since Raw first came on the air. If they had a Raw and SD the week after Wrestlemania and then took a couple of months off, the ratings would sky rocket when they return. Part of the reason the most popular sports in the world are so popular is that they have the off-seasons to build anticipations. They could even have the draft or some trades or transfers during the off season.

That, along with allowing time for the talent and writers to get their act together, is why I'm in favour of off-seasons.

The main con in my mind is the fact of how unpredictable wrestling can be. Angles and feuds would have very little wiggle room if they were running on a definite schedule because there is an off season. An injury or suspension to a major player would cause much more panic if there was an off season due to the lack of time to resolve the issues that would come with it.

At the end of the day though, I'm very much in favour of an off-season.

 

[Workrate]

One of the major pros for an off-season would be how it would positively affect ratings. We're seeing the ratings go down week after week, they've been on a continuous downhill slide for nearly a decade with only occasional increases. If they take a break, it gives people time to miss WWE. Can you imagine going for a couple months without seeing your favourite wrestler perform? A couple months without seeing Punk and Bryan and Cena? Many fans are sick off WWE. We've been watching for a long time, some have watched it since Raw first came on the air. If they had a Raw and SD the week after Wrestlemania and then took a couple of months off, the ratings would sky rocket when they return. Part of the reason the most popular sports in the world are so popular is that they have the off-seasons to build anticipations. They could even have the draft or some trades or transfers during the off season.

That, along with allowing time for the talent and writers to get their act together, is why I'm in favour of off-seasons.

The main con in my mind is the fact of how unpredictable wrestling can be. Angles and feuds would have very little wiggle room if they were running on a definite schedule because there is an off season. An injury or suspension to a major player would cause much more panic if there was an off season due to the lack of time to resolve the issues that would come with it.

At the end of the day though, I'm very much in favour of an off-season.

^^ This. ^^

Hell, you could even open the "season" with a big event headlined by top tier matches instead of wasting week after week booking around announcers and authority figures. Do it the same way the NFL kicks off with two of the best teams in the league. Mid-way through the offseason, announce Raw's season opening date and a couple big-time matches to headline the card (there doesn't need to be weeks of nauseating build up for every single match). Or, if you really wanted to go bananas, have Money in the Bank or a reinstated King of the Ring type event be the season opener, that way you set the stage for the following season by crowning a top contender for a major title.

Again though, this will probably never happen. But it is fun to think about.

 

[darbare]

This has actually been on my mind for a while now...I think some kind of off season or rescheduling would help in the long run...what happened was, wrestling became mainstream in the 80s..hence more money for Vinny Mac...he gets greedy, and in turn makes WWE this global phenomenon...but in doing so I think its hurting his company in the long run...ratings are constantly going down..wrestlers are being suspended and just dont give a ! anymore because of the taxing schedule...its whats almost killed off daytime soaps because there is no time off,,its constant and you have to realize that although people have low attention span on the whole, they dont have the interest and energy enough to put that much time and energy into a program...hell if it wasnt already hard enough for a fan to sit through 2 hours of wrestling, there now going to make it 3!! It reeks of desperation....it just wont compete with other primetime shows just because it comes on at 7...whats likely to happen is that people will say "well, ill just go do something until my favorite show comes on at 8 instead of raw...or there will be a massive dropoff at 8 pm (or 9) depending on where you live....the show is constantly rushed because its every single week...these guys are human beings who are at their breaking point because they need time off....there would be a better product if guys were given allocated time off, as well as less programming and maybe even seasons....like I said its already hard enough for eveyrone involved...taxing on the wrestlers which means shorter matches, less progression, more drug abuse...also taxing on fans which is a real reason why ratings have dropped so much...not to mention PPVs are high as hell..WWEs problem is that their fans arent rich and they need to get over it, otherwise theyre doomed to fail...who knows how long a guy like Lesnar could have lasted...the problem with WWE is that they combine too many aspects of other endeavors...its athletic and physical but its not a real sport...its dramatic like a daytime soap...its entertainment like a reality show...when you have a show that keeps growing in every direction it becomes unrecognisable which is why so many people dont watch it...wonder why you dont see anyone wearing wrestling merch in real life, because its lame...theres a stigma with wrestling that it wont be able to ever shake no matter how they label it...with of all the ranting I guess Im trying to say it needs to reinvent itself to survive just like it did in the 90s..imagine the attitude era never coming about...who knows if RAW would even be on tv now...i think a weekly show (just one) with seasons would remedy that solution...trim the fat and put out the best product with guys that are fresh and ready...its one reason why Cena is hated so much...ever hear the phrase "absence makes the heart grow fonder"?

 

[The Grammar Police]

There's an old saying that is particularly true when it comes to entertainers and entertainment in general: Out of sight, out of mind.

The goal of any entertainment company is to keep themselves in people's sight, and therefore in minds. How do you think the Kardashians became the richest family in the history of reality television? By being seen almost literally everywhere. That way they stay in people's minds and make money. For the WWE, an off-season would be counter-productive to this. People wouldn't have an increased demand for the product, it would just take time once the show started up again for people to gather interest in it. This is pretty much the way all sports work, actually, other than football in Amercia (Mitt Romney lol). Ratings are lower once the season starts again, and slowly pick up as the season go along. Because of this reason, it is not worth it for WWE to employ this concept. Not only would you miss out on all that time's worth of revenue, you would actually have decreased ratings and interest from the general public for at least a month after you actually started programming again. So no, I don't think this is a good idea. Again, out of sight out of mind, and the last thing the WWE can afford is to be out of people's minds.

 

[Kiwwe]

WWE loves the fact that Raw is "the longest running weekly episodic television show in history" Michael Cole tells us every week!
Even one week off would end the streak. Im sure vince wants to keep the ball rolling as long as possible to set a total that will never be beaten. Ever.
Im not keen at all for an off season, I dont think I could go that long without new wrestling to watch, so I would definately turn to TNA, and with the momentum that TNAs been gathering as of late it could turn even casual wwe viewers over and kick start a new war. Which would be ok I guess cause the E never going away, so would create better product on both sides.
But dont end the record.

 

[theHeadliner]

Rey Mysterio is a pro wrestler who has beaten and battered his body and has a lot of nagging injuries and pain. I'm sure his doctor would prescribe him any pain medicine he wanted or needed so he would have a valid prescription and not have to worry about any wellness policy.

 

[coolboarder]

I believe that WWE needs to have the "off-season" period. There are three reasons why they need to have it are: creative team, wrestler, and fans.

The off-season can start right after the Wrestlemania for one or two months off. Here is what is in my mind where off-season can actually benefit everybody involved.

Creative team:

WWE can promote the "season opener" to signify a new season and a whole to look forward to when WWE is back and running. If I were the owner of WWE, I would hold the whole opener episode devoted to different type of tournaments, a chance to win some championships or become #1 contender for the belts of any kind. It does not have to be World Heavyweight tournament but it can also be for women's tournament, tag team tournament, U.S. title tournament, and Intercontinental title tournament. That way, the wrestler can declare their intention to enter a few weeks before the season opener and hold a draw event for some interests. It is impossible for wrestler to join all type of tournament and it shows that the wrestler knows their limit, including mid-card guys.

I would unify the World Heavyweight Championship and WWE Championships as one belt to show who is the top guy of the company. We do not need two top guys but just one top guy so we all know who is the best wrestler in the business.

So for the new season, it gives creative team a chance to oversee the wrestler and push them further once the "season opener" tournament is over and push buttons leading to the PPV Tournament of Champions night to be held either, in May or June to the final of the tournament from each divisions and they can have 5 matches cards in one PPV. The World Heavyweight Championship, Tag Team Championship, Intercontinental Championships, U.S. Championship, and the Women's Championship. Cruiseweight Championship can be added to the tournament if there is enough cruiseweight wrestlers. You'd have potentially 5 to 6 matches on the card for the PPV 4 weeks after the season opener.

The off-season gives the wrestler an opportunity to use social media platform to create their own promo for the upcoming season and what he/she expect to achieve their goals.

After the tournament is done, the road to Wrestlemania begins with normal card and new feuds created can be out from the tournament and fans will enjoy this more after the needed breaks.

I would adjust the PPV format to match the WWE season when "off-season" is on their calendar:

First PPV (June): Tournament of Champions
Second PPV (July): Money in the Bank
Third PPV (August): SummerSlam
Fourth PPV (September): No Way Out
Fifth PPV (October): Elimination Chambers
Sixth PPV (November): Survivor Series
Seventh PPV (December): Extreme Rules
Eight PPV (January/February): Royal Rumble
Nineth PPV (March/April): Wrestlemania

The reason why I wanted Elimination Chambers to be moved to mid-season, rather than just a final PPV leading up to Wrestlemania is because I want the Royal Rumble winner to build their promo leading up to the WWE Championships without having the title change on Elimination Chambers. I liked this format before they added Elimination Chambers PPV and it kind of ruined the Wrestlemania in my opinion. If WWE wants to add tenth PPV then move the Royal Rumble right before Wrestlemania PPV to signify the wrestlers' final chance to be the champion before the Off-season right after the Wrestlemania. The off-season will benefit for all, creating a "preseason" period, more on that later.

Wrestlers:

The off-season is needed for wrestlers to give them the proper off-season training they needed and the rest from the stress of performing in front of the fans every night. If the wrestler does not get the off-season, they will be rushed in training and deprived them of having a chance to have the proper training despite having 300 days a year wrestling weekly.

Training helps wrestlers to improve some areas they might not have chance to work on to improve their wrestling skills. Mid-card wrestlers cannot afford to take the week off when they have some kind of minor injury of their own. It gives them a chance to heal and work on overall wrestle skills if they hope to become the heavyweight champion. The top guys do get their rest and vacation when major injury came but they can also afford to take a few weeks off for minor injury treatment. It is my guess that it actually happens.

If the WWE desire to achieve the "reality" of the sport, they need to have some sort of off-season and the camera can follow the wrestler on what they did during the off-season and a chance to heal minor injuries they might not have a chance and to create a promo for the upcoming season.

Fans:

Fans tend to lose their interest in wrestling itself if there is no break of some sort. When it happens, it missed out the major development on feud on that night that they might have missed, and would not pay attention to it as much because it has became monotone and as a fan, when a major story happens live the day I watch, I tend to hold my interests to the story for weeks once a week.

When the off-season happens, the interests will come back when WWE has their break and maybe a chance to get some news from WWE wrestlers on their update on their breaks and maybe hold some exhibition matches a week before the season opener, all house shows and wrestler can pick some jobber to beat up and actually train their body for the upcoming season and maybe showcase their new moves for the fans' entertainment. Who knows that jobber can actually rose to prominence and be relevant during the exhibition shows. The jobbers can come from a local guys and main WWE wrestler can wrestle 2 or 3 matches in 2 weeks of preseason period instead of going 5-6 matches in a week of WWE season. The preseason house shows can be regional, meaning, whoever the wrestler lives close to that area can wrestle a local guy while other wrestler who lives in other side of the coast. WWE can do the house shows in two arenas in same night. For example, a small town in NY can host the matches while a small town in California host the preseason matches at same night. Some wrestler has their home all over the U.S. and WWE can use two house shows but wrestler are not obligated to show up but must at least show up 2 or 3 times to get ready for their "season".

Finally, fans can save their PPV money to better buy of the quality PPV and will get more buyrate for more shows rather than a bad PPV wasting the fans' dollars and would not buy it again. Off-season will cost WWE two PPVs profits but will actually make more money in long run because fans appreciate some sort of breaks. You will always have the wrestling fans all over the world and it won't hurt to have some break that everybody needs.

 

[Killercam]

9 PPV's, I like the idea of no ppv in Feb because it only screws things up. After the Rumble the road to WM should be clearly laid out. I also think each wrestler should get 3 to 4 two week vacation periods (not including time when legitimately injured). Two weeks at a time is all you need. Now as far as TV goes, I would personally like to see Two or three times a year when WWE takes legitimate two week tv hiatus. For instance there would be a week in between live Raws (you could use those during non ppv months and almost treat Raw like a ppv when it returns). This would be ideal as far as programming and time off for the workers go.

 

[warchildrex]

the more i think about it, the less i think an off-season would work.

like it was mentioned, daniel bryan hit a huge hot streak after mania. what if he were scheduled for an off-season then? does he stay and ride the wave? if so, when does he take his break? does someone else move up in the rotation and get a vacation while he capitalizes?

i agree that shuffling things about a bit could be helpful...but that's just a personal opinion. sort of like miz, santino, big show an swagger not being on raw this week. they took the week off of tv, maybe next week some other guys will do it. but it has to be a shuffle of everyone to have any purpose. someone mentioned how in the 80s hogan and warrior weren't on every show. great for them. but guys like curt hennig and hacksaw jim duggan were. what good does it do to rest your top guys if you just beat your mid-card to death?

let's face it, if there were a way to have an off-season and be profitable, wwe would already be doing it. vince and company have been very effective at squeezing out every cent they could for many years. even now, with less impressive ratings and ppv buy rates, they are still turning a decent profit.

year-round is how wrestling makes its money, just like soap operas. my mom has been watching days of our lives since the first episode. you know what happens when someone wants a break? they get recast. and that's what happens in wrestling, too. inuries, vacations, suspensions, whatever. when a guy takes a break, someone else has to carry the ball. sometimes the break is a good thing (ryback & dolph ziggler getting repackaged, hhh & mick foley moving into the main event), and sometimes the break kills someone's momentum (and there's a damned long list of guys who were never the same after hiatuses).

wrestling is based on the wwe model, and i don't see the 'e ever taking a break...so as long as it's around, i think the off-season debate is moot.

 

[MattBrady425]

Sorry, Professional Wrestling just wouldn't work if it was like that. WCW never had an off-season. ECW never had an off-season. Even indy feds don't take time off. The one I go to every month has always had one show a month for 12 years.
Both WWE and TNA just would not work if they were not around for a number of months.
That's one of the few things that makes Pro Wrestling special when compared to basketball, football, baseball, and hockey. Pro Wresting has its slow times, every sport does. That's not a reason to say that they need an off-season. Some of the most historical moments of wrestling would not have happened with an off-season.

 

[MattBrady425]

Wrestling is not really designed to have an off season, and wrestlers know that all too well when they enter the professional wrestling business. Nowhere in the world, Japan, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Canada, or even the United States does Professional Wrestling have an off season.

 

[The_Irish_Warrior]

It would obviously be a good thing for the wrestlers, I mean you listen to interviews that CM Punk or other guys do they tell you how hurt they work and how hard it is to do it. That is obviously the plus they get to rest and spend time with their family and friends.

The only thing is Vince McMahon is money driven as everybody has said he hates losing money. Why do you think there are so many pay per views a year, why do you think have so many house shows. Vince McMahon loves money, and unfortunately for the roster that means they won't ever get an off season.