A rankings system in WWE?

[mikeyado]

From looking at a lot of the threads, it seems as though plenty of people are desperate to see some new ideas in the WWE. A lot of threads are centred around what can be improved and how, what can be saved, what should be done with a certain superstar etc, so I've come up with an idea that I think is completely new and would certainly freshen things up a bit.

How about a rankings system, similar to that in professional boxing, where all superstars are ranked from top to bottom. The WWE Champ/WHC are ranked at the top of their respective 'rosters' if the brand split continues and other wrestlers are ranked accordingly. Every match which happens on either show has ranking points available for it, the more you win, the higher up the ranking you move. The number 2 ranked wrestler at each show at a certain point can then be given a shot at the title at that months PPV.

Similarly, lets say the IC champ is ranked 10, whoever is ranked 11 gets shot at him etc.

Losing title matches would mean you lose points, to ensure that it wasnt always the same person challenging etc.

I think this would bring a few benefits:-

1.) It would give superstars not involved in title pictures something to do. Main eventers not currently going for the title and mid/low carders can have matches which mean something because there are ranking points involved, rather than just being filler.

2.) It would bring a bit of clarity to the No.1 Contendership malarkey, rather than just having arbitrary people picked to wrestle a match at the first raw of the month to determine who will be No.1 Contender. It can obviously still be manipulated by creative by booking certain people to win certain matches with ranking points at stake etc.

3.) Good possibilities for Creative: heel GM's/Consultants can place higher ranking points for matches involving their favoured superstars. Superstars can be sneaky and only really put the effort in in matches where ranking points are at stake (again, would apply to heels, deliberate countouts in non-ranking points matches). It's also an easy way to create a push, have someone hit a hot streak which rather than just going unnoticed, means they're on target for a title shot.

4.) It might actually help Creative out themsleves and give them a clear view of who they think should be/who they want to be at who's level and book the matches accordingly, rather than having somebody toe to toeing a main eventer one week and jobbing the next a la Rhodes/Mcintyre.

What are your thoughts, fellow armchair-elbowdroppers? Good idea? Could it work? Shall I book my flight to Connecticut now and pitch it to VKM?

As a P.S, I meant to write that there will be ranking point matches each week, not that every match each week would be a ranking point match.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

These rarely work and isn't that what the "Power 25" is supposed to do? The problem is that wrestling is built on blood fueds, storylines and not points... What is a point on a rankings board worth to a casual fan? Sure in sports like Football, where a title isn't decided till there is a winner... but wrestling works on a much shorter timescale.

WCW tried it in 1990 with the Round Robin tournament and it was dull... on paper a tourney with Sting, Flair, Luger and Muta should have been amazing...

#1 contenders matches are there to do this job... do we really care who the 2nd or 3rd in line is? Now what I would like to see come back is the old system of the IC champ is the number one contender to the World... that was a good system...

 

[silverwraith720]

The other issue with this is that the same people would stick around in the top 2 or 3 positions. Cena or Orton would be in every WWE title match. Yes, the 5-9 range might rotate, but the same people at the top would get stale.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It sounds like a good idea in theory, but it's something that will probably fall flat on its face in actual practice. As another poster mentioned, WCW did a tournament that was somewhat similar. In 1989, the entire premise of Starrcade for that year was built around what was called Iron Man tournaments for both the singles & tag team division.

The tournament used a point system to ultimately determine the winner rather than eliminations. You got 20 points for a pinfall or submission victory, 15 for a countout, 10 for a DQ, 5 for a draw and 0 for a loss. It was needlessly complicated and difficult trying to remember the point system and the matches were bogged down. Generally speaking, it almost didn't matter what the match outcomes were. It didn't even matter how you won the match, just as long as you won. It makes me think of how things are in Nascar. It doesn't matter if you don't win a single race but how many points you get that determines if you become THE champ at the end of the season. The Iron Man tourneys at Starrcade '89 was built on a somewhat similar premise.

Wrestling is built on feuds and storylines. That's what ultimately has to drive you to care enough about what's going on to make you want to see it played out inside the ring in wrestling matches. A ranking system based on points takes much of that emphasis out of the equation. As long as you're able to build up enough points, then that's all that matters. Depending upon how the fine tuning was ultimately set, you could wind up with a disaster. As long as a wrestler won a match, he'd ultimately get so many points. What if 90% of Santino Marella's victories came about as a result of count out or DQ and his points totaled enough for him to be #1 contender for the WWE Championship? The emphasis would be on gaining as many points as you can get rather than actually being a money and legit contender for the title.

TNA tried to do its ranking system over the summer. There weren't any points involved, it was decided by "fan votes" and by a "championship committee". What that means is that fans voted on who they liked in TNA while the honchos at TNA ultimately decided who would get the title shots anyhow. The results was RVD involved in single match feuds against a different opponent each month for the title. The result was a shitty, lame duck reign.

If professional wrestling was an actual "sport", this is something that could potentially work but it's not.

 

[fenfool]

I don't think this would help creative out, because they would become handcuffed by the system, e.g. 'we can't have Seamus beat Morrison this week, because that would affect Orton's rating, and we need him in X position next week'. It would force them to remember all that stuff, and I think that would cause more work than help. They also have developed a love for relatively random #1 contender matches, and it would limit who they could put in those. You'd really have to plan months ahead for major storylines, and if someone got hurt, it could derail more than one storyline. So I'm going with thinking it's not the best idea for WWE.

 

[Dzone]

Ranking systems are absolutely pointless in wrestling and should never even be contemplated in any wrestling promotion...

There are many reasons for this being absolutely pointless and one is that the creative will always have control of what happens, they will obviously rank the WWE champion higher than the IC champion and they will never rank say Kofi Kingston over Randy Orton so we'll end up seeing the same matches @ every PPV for the titles.

Another reason is that this really doesn't allow for building fueds up because say your building a fued before Wrestlemania this takes atleast 2-3 months and theres 2 PPVs in between which means the two superstars if it involves a title will have to be next to eachother. This just corrupts the whole system and if you decide to take the system off for the period before Wrestlemania it just looses all it's credit and admits to the WWE Universe that it's just there as a filler.

Also the WWE is PG right now, do you really think the WWE's predominant audience will understand such a system, as emphasized by Jack-Hammer it gets way to complicated for any fan to understand the system let alone children under the age of 13.

Furthermore, again emphasized by Jack-Hammer, TNA tried to do a similar ranking system and consequently ended up leaving the fans completely confused as to how the hell they were ranking their superstars. The only think that came from TNA's ranking system was Kurt Angle running through it and having great matches... which he could have had anyway if they just did random matches ¬.¬.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

It didn't really resonate with me when I read the title but I'd though I'd give it a shot and read through partly because you are a fellow scouser. My answer is going to have to rest upon no though because I wouldn't think WWE would want to do anything that TNA had done recently, it would make them look really dry for ideas and especially seen as how bad the TNA's system ended up.

Not only that but I'd be afraid it'd be too mechanical. It'd mean the #1 contender and champion would never HAVE to come into contact with each other, hence there wouldn't always be a need for a feud, hence the matches wouldn't have a "letting off steam factor", nobody would mark out if someone won. It works in situations where someone has to earn that spot like in real sports, but where you can decide who takes each spot it doesn't really make sense as TNA successfully proved.

 

[Remix]

From looking at a lot of the threads, it seems as though plenty of people are desperate to see some new ideas in the WWE. A lot of threads are centred around what can be improved and how, what can be saved, what should be done with a certain superstar etc, so I've come up with an idea that I think is completely new and would certainly freshen things up a bit.

I am filled with dread by this paragraph.

How about a rankings system, similar to that in professional boxing, where all superstars are ranked from top to bottom.

You mean how there are half a dozen different titles, and people typically fight a bunch of people who are completely and utterly terrible in order to boost their standings? Sounds like a simple idea that won't lead to any confusion on TV at all.

The WWE Champ/WHC are ranked at the top of their respective 'rosters' if the brand split continues and other wrestlers are ranked accordingly. Every match which happens on either show has ranking points available for it, the more you win, the higher up the ranking you move. The number 2 ranked wrestler at each show at a certain point can then be given a shot at the title at that months PPV.

I have a couple of questions. What about the guys on a monster push who squash the likes of Zack Ryder in 30 seconds but don't face any real tallent? are they more elligable than someone who has been facing the World champion the same number of times, but never getting a clean finish? How do tag matches factor in? And what if the world champion loses on TV and ends up with fewer points than someone else on the roster?

Similarly, lets say the IC champ is ranked 10, whoever is ranked 11 gets shot at him etc.

Losing title matches would mean you lose points, to ensure that it wasnt always the same person challenging etc.

I think this would bring a few benefits:-

Other than confusing the hell out of the audience?

1.) It would give superstars not involved in title pictures something to do. Main eventers not currently going for the title and mid/low carders can have matches which mean something because there are ranking points involved, rather than just being filler.

Or they'd act exactly like guys with records of 5-100 in boxing. And lets say that Zack Ryder goes on a winning streak, defeating the likes of Primo, Yoshi Tatsu, Curt Hawkins and Darren Young on Superstars and ends up with more points than someone like Randy Orton, who lost a match due to his opponent cheating. Is Zack Ryder REALLY going to be believable as number one contender over Randy Orton?

2.) It would bring a bit of clarity to the No.1 Contendership malarkey, rather than just having arbitrary people picked to wrestle a match at the first raw of the month to determine who will be No.1 Contender. It can obviously still be manipulated by creative by booking certain people to win certain matches with ranking points at stake etc.

Or it could end up with guys nowhere near title consideration ending up in title consideration. Another example: Lets say DH Smith gets a monster push, destroying everybody who stands in his path for a few weeks and ends up in title consideration. He's not ready for the title, so his winning streak has to end, hurting his push. The current system just works.

3.) Good possibilities for Creative: heel GM's/Consultants can place higher ranking points for matches involving their favoured superstars. Superstars can be sneaky and only really put the effort in in matches where ranking points are at stake (again, would apply to heels, deliberate countouts in non-ranking points matches). It's also an easy way to create a push, have someone hit a hot streak which rather than just going unnoticed, means they're on target for a title shot.

Or ends up with people ending up with meaningless streaks by beating soup cans so that their w/l records lok better than someone facing oposition that's actually credible at a ME level.

4.) It might actually help Creative out themsleves and give them a clear view of who they think should be/who they want to be at who's level and book the matches accordingly, rather than having somebody toe to toeing a main eventer one week and jobbing the next a la Rhodes/Mcintyre.

Creative already know who's at a ME level. That's why the same people are in title matches month after month. Having a ranking system, especially one as poor as the one you dreamed up just fails and screws up storylines because the guy creative want to be in the title matches will have to crush soup cans rather than being in matches with thy guy they're feuding with.

What are your thoughts, fellow armchair-elbowdroppers? Good idea? Could it work? Shall I book my flight to Connecticut now and pitch it to VKM?

Schedule a lobotomy instead. I think you need one to sort out your stupid ideas..

As a P.S, I meant to write that there will be ranking point matches each week, not that every match each week would be a ranking point match.

meaning that guys going on a winning streak on superstars WILL go unnoticed.

Ranking systems always look good on paper. However once they actually go into practice they get quickly dropped due to being too convoluted. That's why TNA tried a few times to have a ranking system, as did ROH. They al ended up getting dropped though because they just don't work in the real world.