#1 Contender matches on PPV are a BAD idea.

[Dagger Dias]

I have noticed that TNA has #1 contendership matches on PPV sometimes. Why would they do this? It's one of the things that confuses me the most about their booking. Wouldn't it be better for them to have the contendership matches on Impact or Reaction rather than on PPV? Sometimes the teams who win these PPV contendership matches get their title shot on Impact. That's backwards from how it should be. I disagree with having these types of matches on PPV. They should be done on the first Impact after a PPV and then build a feud for the next PPV around it. There's honestly no point in having a contendership match on PPV because it should be used to build the feud for title matches on the PPV instead.

What do you guys think, should TNA stop doing #1 Contendership matches on PPV? Why or why not?

 

[klunderbunker]

Having the matches on PPV is fine. It's something that is going to make people want to buy the next show to see if the #1 contender can beat the champion. That being said, it's rarely the case because everything has to be surprising or a twist. Having title matches on Impact I can live with, but not immediately after the PPV, no. If that's the case then there's no point to seeing the PPV at all since you'll see who the champion is and who the #1 contender is simply by watching the show, thereby defeating the purpose. Having a #1 contender match on PPV to set up another title match on PPV is fine though.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Theoretically I'd rather they have contenders matches on iMPACT! and title shots on PPV exclusively, but something that's not being covered here is why, which IMO doesn't have the same ubiquitous answer from month-to-month.

If the month of February is spent booking one major angle, often it leaves little time on iMPACT! (or ReAction) to have the contenders matches themselves simply because the company runs out of time between trying to balance the time they want to dedicate to said angle and the time they want to dedicate to building the remainder of the card. This is also why a lot of times the opening card to a PPV is a sort of throw-together match that's created the week prior on iMPACT! with little build.

In a perfect world with a second mainline programming slot to help ease the roster demand TNA would likely be able to remain running the contenders matches on television and the titles matches on PPV, but until that happens I'm afraid time constraints will often play a heavy role when the opposite occurs.

 

[LSN80]

I really like it. I think one thing thats been failed to mention is what it does for the value of said title that match is being contested for. It serves to enhance it.

I see the negative, as if the No. 1 Contender match goes on first, it makes the outcome of the title match seem predictable. In those cases, as long as its not the World Title, have the title match go on first. While it may make the No 1 Contenders match more predictable, it also makes it feel special. The company is telling the viewer "This match is so important that we put it on PPV." It says the same thing about said title.

TNA puts a huge emphasis on their tag team division, so why not put a large emphasis on the contenders for it as well? in the case of Final Resolution, it's good that you're getting two established teams as Beer Money and Ink Inc. on the PPV as well. It's not something that should be done every month, nor should the subsequent title match appear on free TV. But I think it's solid booking rather then filler if you start the build at the PPV with a Nos. 1 Contenders match, allotting more time for the fallout on TV. Ive always enjoyed those matches, and felt it gave more importance to the title.

 

[Phoenix]

The best theory you could go with, not necessarily with TNA but with any company as WWE did contender's matches on PPV in the past, is that it's for the benefit of the build and the biggest irony that comes from this? One of the biggest PPVs in WWE history, the Royal Rumble, is based around one large No. 1 Contender's Match to get a title shot at Wrestlemania, two shows after.

You can see where I'm going with this, but this is the perfect example of how having a Contendership match on PPV is, you can get so much build to the point of how much of a match it can be like how they built up Bound for Glory. The main problem isn't having the matches on PPV, it's where they take it from there, it's all about using the momentum to build up to the title match, if it's a random iMPACT episode, then it defeats the point. Contendership matches on PPV are not a bad idea, providing you book it right afterwards with good build from it.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I agree in the case where the title shot appears the next night, thats a very poor idea. But ina time of the 12 PPV year, doing this can actually be highly beneficial as it allows from one PPV to the next to build the story inevitably making the actual title match more sought after. Plus showing a number one contender match on a PPV is a great way to tell people how much you think that title matters ie kurt angle v jeff hardy, and mr anderson v pope at the PPV preceding BFG. The match between angle and hardy set up an importance for the belt which was a nice touch, mind you having them go to no descisions TWICE wasn't!.....

 

[Havik917]

#1 Contender matches on PPVs is fine. It makes that match feel more important, and, as has already been said, elevates the title that the #1 contender spot is being contested for.

I remember there was a #1 contenders match on a PPV between HHH and Jeff Hardy. They had been friends and a tag team for a while leading in to this and it was a huge draw for the PPV itself.

 

[MMSoldier]

depending on how it happens, it could be a good thing or a bad thing. If the shot happens the next night, it's a bad idea. If it gives some time to work on, then it could work.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

I think that #1 contender matches on PPV are Good thing and I can help make what ever title you're contending for important because its saying that the match is big enough that it deserves to be On PPV. I think the only bad thing is the follow up if the person or team the wins the #1 contender match as their title match at Impact then its a waste, if they build the feud and have the match at a PPV then its a Good idea. The idea is good but the execution of it afterwards is what's important.

 

[Ferbian]

I agree with KB that it's more than fine to feature the match on Pay Per View. Not only does it give some extra interest towards the next show, but it also gives much more time to actually build the feud. On a rare occasion we have to spend one show to fill the number 1 contender spot which in this case can be spend on building the feud instead.

Besides, I've always liked the number one contender matches when they on a rare occasion are showcased. Much like the time where Jeff Hardy became the number one contender to the world title against Kane, Rey Mysterio and Chris Jericho back in 2009. It was a cool match, and at times the number one contendership matches are Pay Per View quality. So that adds another reason to why it could be a good thing to feature on Pay Per View.

And sure I see the problem with it ending up being a number one contendership that are "wasted" on an iMPACT show rather than the next Pay Per View. But even with that, it can work just as well. Because you're hyping the next iMPACT, which is the show that will draw ratings, which is always gonna be important for TNA, for any television show.

 

[Tech N9ne]

I think they are a good idea. It sure beats them having a filler match thrown in there.

It gives a match added hype as well as meaning. I think they should actually add a few more of them. Throwing in a match for a Mid Card number 1 contendership is an idea they should take more stock in. It should help bring credibility to that mid card title, because the match that determined the number 1 contender for it, was held in grueling fashion on PPV.

 

[Henhouse]

It depends how you do it. WWE did it quite well at TLC, with the Ladder Match. As long as you make the #1 contendership SEEM big enough to be on PPV, then it will be. If you just hype it as another match, or don't hype it at all, then it won't draw. The odd title match on the main show isn't necessarily a bad idea, because it keeps viewers interested. But not when it's done regularly.

 

[cliffordlfc]

Depends who's wrestling really. Neither Mr.Anderson nor Matt Morgan need the match on iMPACT cause they don't need to build this storyline any further. Morgan and Anderson have been feuding with Jeff Hardy for months now so it makes sense why it's on the Pay-Per-View. I have absolutely no problem with it at all, to be perfectly honest.

 

[ABMorales787]

I think what matters more is the build leading to the match. It's what drives the fan's to invest in the actual match. Regardless of who faces the champion or when. It reminds me of Armageddon 2007 when Triple H faced Jeff Hardy for a title shot and Jeff won. Back then, I felt that Triple obviously outmatched Hardy, but given the story leading up to it, I just couldn't help being curious about the match and how the two would react regardless of who won in the end.

In this case you have Morgan concerned over the well being of Anderson while he's struggling to recover from his concussion. It leaves you to wonder if Anderson will be 100% and how will Morgan react in the match given his stance as of late on injured wrestlers.

I highly doubt we'll get the ensuing title match on Impact. The reason being the one IDR! mentioned. There's just not enough time for it. It's best to take the story step by step like they are doing. Not to mention that the overall objective is to prolong Jeff Hardy's reign and the near inevitable Anderson title victory until possibly Lockdown. I see nothing wrong with a #1 Contender's match headlining Genesis. Especially if there's a well constructed story to sell it with.

 

[Hawkeye]

Actually,I have to disagree completely. Just last Sunday,John Morrison and Sheamus put on a stellar match to determine the No.1 Contender to the WWE Title at RR. The build to it was created seemingly out of thin air,as JoMo rushed in to save Santino from a savage beating at the hands of the Celtic Warrior. They then battled numerous times and became heated rivals even before the KOTR tournament was announced. However,Sheamus' victory propelled their animosity toward one another to new heights and to settle things,the Raw GM decided to offer of the now vacant spot to the two rivals. It's given Sheamus something to do until HHH gets back,it's revived John Morrison's career and sent it to the heavens and the match itself had great spots from start to finish. I might be a little biased because I love JoMo and saw the match personally but I think most would agree with me.

 

[ABMorales787]

Actually,I have to disagree completely. Just last Sunday,John Morrison and Sheamus put on a stellar match to determine the No.1 Contender to the WWE Title at RR. The build to it was created seemingly out of thin air,as JoMo rushed in to save Santino from a savage beating at the hands of the Celtic Warrior. They then battled numerous times and became heated rivals even before the KOTR tournament was announced. However,Sheamus' victory propelled their animosity toward one another to new heights and to settle things,the Raw GM decided to offer of the now vacant spot to the two rivals. It's given Sheamus something to do until HHH gets back,it's revived John Morrison's career and sent it to the heavens and the match itself had great spots from start to finish. I might be a little biased because I love JoMo and saw the match personally but I think most would agree with me.

You say there was no story, but then you wrote it out and mentioned why you invested in that particular Condender's match. It may not have been the main event of the show, but you just pointed out why it drew you in as well as what the match did. I don't see why that's a reason to disagree. Is it because it wasn't the main event?

 

[Hawkeye]

You say there was no story, but then you wrote it out and mentioned why you invested in that particular Condender's match. It may not have been the main event of the show, but you just pointed out why it drew you in as well as what the match did. I don't see why that's a reason to disagree. Is it because it wasn't the main event?

I was disagreeing with the OP. I think #1 contender matches on PPV are a great idea,if there's a solid story behind it and interest generated before the go home show.

 

[Marky-Marc]

I generally like the idea of #1 contenders matches on a PPV. It gives it a big fight feel and something more interesting to the match rather than the normal fued.

Though I agree with the OP where it is a let down when the title match happens on Impact. I hate when WWE does this (example Morrison). You announce that the #1 conters match is at a PPV and not Raw, the title match should be set for the following PPV, every time.

Think back to I believe 2007. Jeff Hardy had a #1 contenders match with HHH at Armageddon. Jeff won and faced Orton for the WWE Title at The Rumble. This is how it should be done. When Morrison beat Sheamus at TLC I figured he'd fight Miz at the Rumble, why he didn't I don't know but it was a let down.

Same for when TNZ does it. The title match should be held at the PPV, if this happens, I'm more than ok with #1 contenders matches at PPV's.