Air House Shows Live on the Network

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

The WWE Network. It has multiple shows, but most of them are reality like shows or stupid shows.

So, I've been thinking. WWE is touring the entire world every single day. Why not place a camera at the house shows and stream them live on the WWE Network? It's their Network, so they can do what they want. They don't even need a special production crew. Just air the matches as they happen.

We have gotten matches like Lesnar vs Orton, vs Kofi, vs Owens.. Moments like HHH joining the Shield. Matches like HHH, Owens, Joe vs Balor, Rollins and Zayn/Jericho (I don't remember who it was). Crowds are always great at house shows. So, why not stream these events???

There was a match in Japan I think.. Owens vs Zayn vs Styles vs Nakamura.. Why not give that match to the world WWE?

 

[Richard Blonoff]

The entire point of house shows is to give the live audience things you don't normally see on TV. They also serve as the primary practice that the performers get on the road. They aren't meant to be broadcast. When you run a house show you don't have to pay the big production costs, so it is a way to make extra money without shilling out for cameras and lighting and sound equipment and all that jazz.

Besides, most house shows feature the same matches over and over on each tour, so if you see one then you see them all.

WWE does broadcast most things that happen that are big deals on house shows, like Beast in the East, so showing Roman spear Bray five nights a week for three months isn't necessary.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

You shouldn't air every house show on the network because they have the same card on house shows for months before they change it. It would fill repetitive if they would air every house show. But when they do a special house show like the Starrcade card or the India live event, they should air them especially since they tend to do something special on theses card.

 

[therockiswwf]

Well first of all, money. Airing it, lugging production equipment around, more labor. More road agents and longer preparation.

House shows are used as practice for numerous things. An appeal of a live event is that it is not on TV. You have to go to it to see it (as Yaz pointed out).

Not a good idea here.

 

[adam]

I can see some spot house shows being broadcast but no, the house shows are to work out the timing for the TV and PPV shows.

 

[ISkye]

The Madison Square Garden / First Roadblock / Beast in the East were cool. I'd love to see more straight up pro-wrestling shows from WWE, but not necessarily of that variety. Besides the obvious stuff already listed by pretty much every prior poster.. WWE has an insane amount of content they put out already. Between 205 Live, Smackdown, Raw, Up to 2 PPV's a month, NXT, and occasional tournament there really isn't a strong reason to push an idea like this beyond a "Hey, you know what would be cool?".

I would be interested in that upcoming Starrcade show being put on the Network. Also I would't mind seeing some matches from live events or whatever being put on a DVD or something of that nature. With that being said. Pro-Wrestling does move very fast and this kind of thing isn't exactly at the forefront of exciting to a lot of people.

 

[Rulk25]

I would say no barring special events
For a few reasons mentgioned above plus these ones
1) The paradigm of House shows
On House shows the faces rarely lose. It would be weird that Apollo Crews is a reguler winner on house shows but cant win to save himself on Raw
2) As Stated above House shows are test runs
Without a major audeince they have more ability to try things out to see what works before moving up. Put a camera on them you will see a lot of sloppy work during the felling out process
3) You think its bad how many times Roman and Big Show collided on Raw ....now multiply that by 10 for all the time it happened on house shows
4) Diminish the value of Live Events. Right now for your favorite wrestlers you only see them in action once a week(or twice if a PPV) but now if you can see them everyday some people may choose to NOT go to an event...Not a ton but every person who does not come is one less to a box office and and one less person who buys merch or over priced concessions
5) Practicality and expense
Now you mention a single camera which is just not practical as you have seen how much the action moves about in a match necessating a couple of cameras...plus lighting is not all that good for House shows.....and then there is that akward to many silence you will have after being used to commentary for years

 

[Mighty NorCal]

1. House shows have the same cards every night

2. Usually PPV level cards. Every night.

3. People practice things they can't do on tv, and have no time limits put on them.

These are what makes the loops worth going to, and why they can't be broadcast

 

[Navi]

As someone who goes to a lot of house shows, I must say I don't like the idea. For a long time here in Toronto all we got were house shows. It's just been in the last year or so we hosted Roadblock (which was originally a house show). Last year's Survivor Series and a RAW and SD Live this year. If I could watch the Network and see a house show I probably wouldn't buy a ticket to one.

As other's have said, all house shows follow the same pattern each time they go on tour. All you have to do is read the spoilers for one and you pretty much have an idea of what you will see. The WWE would lose a lot of money considering how much these shows cost. We are talking about $85.00 for a good seat, ridiculous prices for refreshments and then the merchandise. Easily the night costs me about 300-400 dollars including the price of the tickets. Money I would save and I'm sure a lot of others as well.

 

[BaconBits]

They couldn't/don't want to do it because airing all the house shows would be very expensive for what would be little reward financially. I mean, they're not even broadcasting the Starcade card on the network due to costs.

 

[Slyfox696]

Has anyone pointed out the fact house shows are big moneymakers for the WWE and if they were to broadcast them on TV, it would likely hurt ticket revenue at each show, akin to how the NFL struggles to fill seats now with HD TV?

If not, someone should.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Okay, I don't really have any more arguements for this case. The ticket revenue is a strong enough arguement to comletely destroy my idea.

But we can agree on the fact that the special house shows should air on the Network, if not live, then definately after a while. Right? I mean, matches like Lesnar vs anybody from the house shows, or big matches, they're all on Youtube, so why not put them on the Network?

 

[CyberPunk]

Okay, I don't really have any more arguements for this case. The ticket revenue is a strong enough arguement to comletely destroy my idea.

But we can agree on the fact that the special house shows should air on the Network, if not live, then definately after a while. Right? I mean, matches like Lesnar vs anybody from the house shows, or big matches, they're all on Youtube, so why not put them on the Network?

The problem would remain the same. They'll have to have production crew to film it to air it later. They already air the shows they believe are worth airing on WWE Network.

 

[Naniwa91]

Also, there's the potential of intense criticism from the most ardent of the so-called community of the Anti WWE of presenting such an unfinished product for many to see. It's like Jinder and his title run that was nigh universally detested,
but magnified somehow by fifteen.

Think of it as a highly classified document. You don't want your critics to see what you're gonna do as you're working out in your head, and lambast it for being so incomplete.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Interesting idea, though I don't think it's a very good one.

There is already WAY too much to watch in one week. Plus others have already mentioned how much more money it would cost to get all the production equipment around for these shows. The potential reward does not outweigh the costs involved. Nothing relevant toward Raw or Smackdown ever happens at those shows. You won't get more Network subscribers from it or more viewership for the main shows, so what would the point be? No thanks. If we are talking airing ALL house shows on the Network then it's a definitive "no" for me.

One thing I do want to see is more shows like Beast In The East. If they find house shows that will make special events that people might be really interested in seeing, more of those being aired on the Network is a good idea. Maybe showing events taking place in other parts of the world with different matches we might not see on other cards. Beast In The East was 2 years ago. If they picked one special house show like this per year to air on the Network, then I'd be up for watching that. It needs to be shows that bring something different to the table.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

This wouldn't be worth it. I seriously doubt they would bring in enough money to cover the costs.

Besides, we already have too much wrestling.

3 hours of Raw, 3 hours of Smackdown, 1 hour of 205 Live, 1 hour of NXT, Superstars, Main Event, and PPVs almost every other week. That's more than enough.