General "Too many ppvs" complaining / restructure the PPV schedule thread

[MinistryofDeath89]

The WWE nearly needs to shorten there PPV's. As we all know there's far to many PPV on the WWE calendar, if they got rid of at least 3 PPV's many 4. They can build on good storylines for like 6 week's then have a PPV. instead of just having them go on for like 3 week's then a PPV comes along, and the same old shit again it's just really annoying.

For the Gimmick PPV's they all need to go ( Hell in a Cell, TLC, Money in the Bank, Elimination chamber) These matches use to be very special at one stage in the WWE but it's just lost it's credibility and excitement it once had.
Now a days it's just over used and stale, The likes of unforgiven, No mercy, Armageddon, No Way out,when ever a match was booked in these PPV's it had the right right look for the match that was taking place. I don't if it's just Vince been to god dame lazy and not coming up with a proper PPV name but they need to go.

 

[Nate DaMac]

TLC and Elimination Chamber are both perfectly acceptable. I agree that Hell in a Cell matches should be used to close out feuds, not just because so and so are feuding in October and Mitb is better off at Mania, But TLC is a fun PPV and has been consistently good since it's inception and EC has become a staple on the Road to Wrestlemania. It works perfectly.

As for taking some PPVs off the schedule, meh. I suppose there are a bit too many but that doesn't matter as much as the price does. 45$ is way too damn high for any PPV other than Mania and 30$ is too high for a lot of them. I kind of wish they would bring back the In Your House concept. I'd be much more accepting of a PPV every month if it wasn't doubling my fucking cable bill. But as someone who streams everything, I don't care how many they have.

 

[MMK]

Im with Ministryofdeath on this one.

I'd go one step further and just do away with all the ppv's except the big 4: Rumble, Mania, SSlam, and S.Series.

4 ppvs. One for every season. Rumble in winter. Mania in Spring. Summerslam in Summer. SSeries in the fall. The only reason they ever expanded to 12 PPVS in the first place was because WCW had a ppv every month. There's no WCW to compete with anymore, so why have 14 ppvs a year? It oversaturates the product.

To spice up S.Series, I'd add the old Fall Brawl:War Games match from WCW as the new S.Series tradition. They could use the Elim Chamber or Hell In A Cell for it. I'd except 6 ppv's a year. Maybe one every second month. But I still like the old 4 ppv format.

At the very least I'd do away with the 3 generic ppvs that follow Wrestlemania (Extreme Rules, OTL, Capitol Punishment.) April-June is the weakest time of the year for WWE. Mania has just ended and all the big storylines have been resolved. Or at least they should be.

I've always felt WWE needs an off-season. Every sports league and tv show has an off season. No one goes 365 days a year. I believe April-June should be the WWE's off season. Give the performers time to heal - which could save lives- and give the creative team time to come up with months worth of new feuds and characters for the coming season.

Fans would understand the need for these wrestlers to get 2 months off. And we'd all be anxious for the new seaons to start to find out what new fresh ideas they came up with while they were away. Start the new season with the Draft and go from there.

Bottom line: Vince thinks more ppvs means more buy rates which means more money. Unfortunately he's wrong. More ppvs doesnt necessarily mean more buy rates. The more ppvs you have the less special they become and the less inclined folks are to buy each one. You could make the same amount of money, if not more, and get more buy rates with 4 very hyped up ppv's that felt like a big deal.

 

[RKOPUNK]

I've been a regular visitor to this site for around a year and a half now, and the amount of threads complaining about WWE pay-per views I've seen is ridiculous

You can bitch and complain all you want but you have to remember one very important thing, pay-per views mean MONEY! (hence the name 'pay-per view') The very thing that gets Vince hard just thinking about it (besides John Cena).

Bottom line, as long Vince is making money, he'll keep putting on more pay-per views.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

The number of PPV's should definitely be shortened. Monthly PPV's were a product of the Attitude Era anyway where both WWF and WCW tried to outdo each other on a monthly basis. We have moved on from those days now and WWE pretty much controls the business these days. There is no competition to speak of and so I think that WWE can go back to having either less PPV's or at least to an In Your House like format.

As for gimmick PPV's I think that EC should stay. It is fun to watch and there is no other way in which you can have an EC match anyway. It cannot be easily incorporated into a storyline otherwise. Money in The Bank can stay too I guess because having an MITB winner does add intrigue to your storylines. Hell In a Cell needs to go away though. Earlier a HIAC match was a feud ender, nowadays it basically looks like a streetfight inside a cage. I also think that it would be better off having other gimmick matches like the TLC as a part of a storyline rather than as a part of a PPV.

 

[MinistryofDeath89]

Im with Ministryofdeath on this one.

I'd go one step further and just do away with all the ppv's except the big 4: Rumble, Mania, SSlam, and S.Series.

4 ppvs. One for every season. Rumble in winter. Mania in Spring. Summerslam in Summer. SSeries in the fall. The only reason they ever expanded to 12 PPVS in the first place was because WCW had a ppv every month. There's no WCW to compete with anymore, so why have 14 ppvs a year? It oversaturates the product.

To spice up S.Series, I'd add the old Fall Brawl:War Games match from WCW as the new S.Series tradition. They could use the Elim Chamber or Hell In A Cell for it. I'd except 6 ppv's a year. Maybe one every second month. But I still like the old 4 ppv format.

At the very least I'd do away with the 3 generic ppvs that follow Wrestlemania (Extreme Rules, OTL, Capitol Punishment.) April-June is the weakest time of the year for WWE. Mania has just ended and all the big storylines have been resolved. Or at least they should be.

I've always felt WWE needs an off-season. Every sports league and tv show has an off season. No one goes 365 days a year. I believe April-June should be the WWE's off season. Give the performers time to heal - which could save lives- and give the creative team time to come up with months worth of new feuds and characters for the coming season.

Fans would understand the need for these wrestlers to get 2 months off. And we'd all be anxious for the new seaons to start to find out what new fresh ideas they came up with while they were away. Start the new season with the Draft and go from there.

Bottom line: Vince thinks more ppvs means more buy rates which means more money. Unfortunately he's wrong. More ppvs doesnt necessarily mean more buy rates. The more ppvs you have the less special they become and the less inclined folks are to buy each one. You could make the same amount of money, if not more, and get more buy rates with 4 very hyped up ppv's that felt like a big deal.

I totally agree with you there for a off season for the WWE it sounds like a very good plan. But vince doesn't believe in taking break's in the WWE he's a work a haulics. The only way wrestler's can take a break from the WWE either if there seriously injured or just want to be released from there contract's and come back to the WWE in a few months time. And the draft thing sounds pretty good when the new season starts all over again, but the sad thing is it won't happen.

 

[localcompetitor]

I think everybody agrees that at the moment the amount of pay-per-views is ridiculous. I wouldn't go back to having the big four but I would have maybe 8.
If you kept Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam and Survivor Series how they are then add four more. Personally I like the Elmination Chamber event and think it works as a bridge between the Rumble and Mania to create feuds swap titles and build towards the big one. Between Mania and Summerslam I would have two instead of the four we have at the moment I believe Money in the Bank should be one of those again you get most guys on the card and it does help to elevate stars just look at what it did for The Miz. The other pay-per-view could be an Extreme Rules type event or just a bog standard In Your House style card. Finally I would have a pay-per-view between Summerslam and Survivor Series perhaps keep Night of Champions as it does highlight the fact that these titles are important and it would also help build feuds in the mid-card.
So in summary I would say cut the events down but keep the gimmicks that work - Money in the Bank, Elimination Chamber and Night of Champions.

 

[Iversen]

I like PPV I mean who doesn't they're something to look forward to on a Sunday night, or very early Monday morning here in the UK. But I do agree with you. A lot of the glamour is taken away by them being so regular, you don't get a chance to get excited about them because they come around so often. Even more so if like me you watch WWE and TNA. But money speaks so I can't see it happening.

I do agree with you on the gimmick PPVs as well. Why call Elimination Chamber Elimination Chamber? It used to be No Way Out I believe and everyone knew that that probably meant a Chamber match. But it gives you the option to move it if you wish. I'd get rid of them all and cut it down to KOTR, Summerslam, Rumble and Mania. Throw in some IYHs and SNMEs every now and then and you're sorted.

 

[EastCoastFan]

As a wrestling fan, I'd like to see WWE scale down to 6-8 pay-per-views a year, along with completely getting rid of NXT and Superstars. Doing a PPV every month was OK during the Monday Night Wars because wrestling was red-hot and people couldn't get enough of it, but now it's so overexposed and oversaturated, people don't care as much.

As a realist, I have to agree with RKOPunk. As long as Vince makes money on all the pay-per-views, he'll continue having one every month. They've been around so long that they're guaranteed a certain buyrate no matter how good or bad the card is.

 

[dcarson108]

On the topic of an offseason, it's not exactly needed. I do think more days off are needed though. Just giving a few guys one week off from house shows and TV tapings a month would do wonders. No need to shut down for a few months.

As for the original topic, fewer PPV's would be better from a quality point, but not from a business stand point. While 4-8 PPV's a year would sell a lot better, I highly doubt the increase in sales would make up for the subtraction of 5-8 shows.

I'm not a huge fan of the gimmick PPVs. Like a few people already said, I enjoy Elimination Chamber, Extreme Rules, and TLC (it's cool how they divide it into 4 matches) but we don't need Fatal Four Way and HIAC.

What could solve this issue is making the PPVs brand only again, with the exception of the big 4. I do believe WWE should make the brands more exclusive. They have so many wrestlers not doing much yet there are a few guys appearing on both shows. I'd like to see the brands distance from each other like we originally saw. Remeber around 2004 and 2005 how cool it was to see interbrand matches? Now we get them every week. That could help with the number of PPVs. I can't see the buyrates getting worse by having only a Smackdown or only a Raw show. The people buying smaller PPVs like Over the Limit are buying the show regardless of what's on the card. This way the larger shows can have more of a build up.

 

[DethMetal]

The time of PPVs don't need to be shortned. The time betweened them needs to be lenghtened. 6 weeks should be enough. Also, the only good themed PPVs were Night of Champions, which I hope is now Vengeance again, and Breaking Point. Extreme Rules kicked Mania's ass this year(my opinion. IDK what is was). Themes, we could do without. What is Capitol Punishment anyway? Also, $45 for 3 hours and maybe three good matches is too damn high. If they went like TNA did(I believe they raised their prices also) and PPVs were $25-30, buys would increase.

 

[Savior with faith 101]

I think WWE would benefit from having 12 "Events" a year. One a month, but with one big difference, only 8 actual PPV's. Here in the UK we have 3 (or maybe 4) free events a year, usually these will be the "lower end" ones such as Capitol Punishment. The reason that these would be so benificial for WWE if they were free is people who wouldnt normally pay for the PPV's would tune in and if they do put on a good show then people are more likely to then purchase the next PPV. Heres how id lay out the PPV Schedual:

January: Royal Rumble - PPV
February: Elimination Chamber - PPV
March: Wrestlemania - PPV
April: In Your House - Free to air
May: Money in the Bank - PPV
June: Bragging Rights - PPV
July: In Your House - Free to Air
August: Summerslam - PPV
September: Night Of Champions - PPV
October: In Your House - Free to air
November - Survivor Series - PPV
December: TLC - PPV

Also Sky came up with a brilliant scheme 2 years ago, where if you ordered 3 PPV's you only paid for 2. That incorporated Survivor series. I would use that for the In Your House PPV's where the Main Eventers could have a night off and have a number 1 contenders match to finish the show with 2 mid carders. Anyone watching the show would automatically want to see how that mid carder faired in their main event shot. Little "freebies" could potentially cause them to have much higher buy rates for the next PPV.

 

[The Perfect Max]

Currently, I believe there is 13 PPV's. I'd have 12, one every month end (unless it works like Extreme Rules did and has to be on May 1 2011).

January: Royal Rumble
February: Elimination Chamber
March/April: WrestleMania
April: Backlash
May: Judgment Day
June: Vengeance
July: The Great American Bash
August: SummerSlam
September: Unforgiven
October: Cyber Sunday
November: Survivor Series
December: Armageddon

Notice, not that many gimmick PPV's. Royal Rumble is a Big 4 one, so, you need that. Elimination Chamber is the perfect way to ride into WrestleMania. If WWE don't have the Elimination Chamber PPV, then Survivor Series is where the WWE need to put the Elimination Chamber Match. Cyber Sunday has the potential to be the "fans" PPV and Survivor Series again is a Big 4 one.

The other year (2007 I think), Sky did an offer if you buy three PPV's, you get the third free. Why not say, pay for Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series as they are the Big 4 events. Then pay for Elimination Chamber and Cyber Sunday because they have a gimmick. Maybe pay for one between Backlash and The Great American Bash as well. That is enough.

OR, you pay a "Full Year PPV Package" which consists of all WWE PPV. Then, when you calculate that total with the seperate PPV prices, it will be cheaper.

 

[Seanjburkey]

The way I see it 9 shows will do. You have 3 Big PPVs that have a two month build up. Those PPVs are Summerslam, Some other non gimmick PPV, and Mania. In between the Big PPVs you have 2 lesser PPVs with only 1 month of build up. The only gimmick PPV I would keep is Elimination Chamber because in my opinion that has been a good edition to the road to Wrestlemania the last few years.I would put MITB back into Mania. This is how the schedule would turn out.

January - Elimination Chamber
February - Mania Build up
March - Wrestlemania
April - Backlash
May - Over the Limit
June - SS Build up, Perhaps King of the Ring fills the void.
July - SummerSlam
August - Vengeance, Every PPV should try and have all titles defended not just this.
September - Armageddon, I just pick an old PPV name, really doesn't matter.
October - Big PPV build up
November - A big PPV, don't really like Survivor Series but I guess it could work here.
December - Royal Rumble

 

[billm75]

The constant rotation of PPV events takes the shine off most of them for me. I'm old enough to remember when all you got was Wrestlemania. Then they added the other big 3, as I call them: Summer Slam, Royal Rumble and Survivor Series. I begged my parents to buy all 4 of those, and I never could get even one of them. They were big deals back in the day. They spent most of the year working story lines and building feuds so that when those PPV's did come around, you just HAD to see them somehow.

Now it's so common, it's like paying a subscription fee to your cable or satellite company for a premium channel. Too much for my tastes. I can't drop an extra $30 - $50 every 3 weeks just to see much of nothing happen. There's no build up, there's no good feud, and frankly, there's rarely a pay-off.

Let these champions keep their belts for 4 - 6 months minimum, defend them on TV and at live shows and let some up and comer start gunning for those titles. They'll feel more important to the fans. The feuds will be better and when the inevitable end to the feud comes, it will be a huge payoff.

I could honestly see myself dropping $40 for EVERY PPV event if they kept it to a maximum of 6 per year. They'd feel like true events to me. Time to build up to it, time to work storylines, etc.

I think this is a big reason that younger talent is having a hard time getting established. There are so many PPV's that they need the "TOP" guys involved in, that they spend way too much time pushing them and not nearly enough building talent depth.

Back in the day, Roddy Piper was a huge draw. Never held the top title, always had feuds going on and everyone wanted to see what he was going to do next. Hell, they can't even give Miz enough time week to week to promote himself now. Cena needs his back and forth with the Rock. Orton needs his posing time. Michael "mutha-effin'" cole needs his time to bullshit around with Lawler. Really? You're pushing an announcer for christ's sake?

Anyhow, all that to say, reduce the PPV events, make them more special and you'll make more money in the long run. Right now, I only buy Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania, because I have to choose. That's $90 they get out of me. If they reduce it to 6, make it worth while, at an average of $40/show, they'll get $240 out of me. Simple math.

 

[GameOver]

It's not going to happen, WHY do people keep saying this is what they need to do
They don't need to do it. PPV's are there big monthly revenue and keeps casual viewers tuned in on those dates any month they don't have a PPV is a month of lost revenue from casual viewers.

What they NEED to do is have say 6 BIG PPV's and the others as crossover PPV's for continuing or ending the fued of the previous PPV keep PPV names like they use to, i understand that maybe the names they had b4 weren't exactly "PG" but they weren't god awful gimmick names.

Or just have indivudual PPV's each month as they always have but have fueds go over 3-4 PPV's not 1, and scrap the gimmick PPV's, i'm sorry but it's a stupid idea for the most part. You know what type of matches the main events will be so there's no surprise and both shows have almost identical matches. Gimmick matches should be that Gimmicks, not PPV's

Let's go back to the Attitude era for a quick step or even the "New Generation"HBK era b4 that. There was no real "Gimmick" PPV's, they had 12+ PPV's a year and fueds lasted for several PPV's atleast, there's no real reason they can't do this other then writers are too lazy/thick and would be better suited writing for Days Of Our Lives or the likes where nothing has to make any sense, and maybe the "general" viewing audience (kids/teens)aren't interested in drawn out fueds as that would require having an attention span beyond that of a fish.

 

[ceasar330]

wwe will nvr cut ppvs down unless they have too (money maker).everyone complains bout wwe ppvs every month cause it dont allow fueds to grow. everyone complains about wwe gimmick ppvs cause there not used when they should be. so then why not just add more ppv gimmicks (like royal rumble) that take up more of the show since its the main event to also allow regular midcard matches for midcarders to get over and wont matter if it goes bad cause your buying the gimmick part. allows 12 ppvs or more, story build ups, and everyones happy
j. royal rumble (30, 40, or 50 man rr, winner gets title shot at wm)
f. elimination chamber (6 man ec, winner gets title shot at wm)
m. wrestlemania (2-3 main events, mitb, etc.)
a. uncensored (extreme rules type ppv)
m. king of the ring (8-16 man tourny, winner gets title shot next ppv)
j. clash of the champions (all title matches)
j.battle bowl ( 30 man bb where last two fight 1 on 1, winner gets a title shot next ppv)
a. summer slam ( biggest party of the summer)
s. wargames (raw vs smackdown wg)
o. fall brawl (biggest fest of the fall)
n. survivor series (old school ss matches)
d. gold rush (like king of the hill match minus the stupied little cage thing, call it gold rush, one for raw and smackdown)

what u think? saves both complaints on gimmicks and two many ppvs

 

[Yesiamaduck]

As a wrestling fan, I'd like to see WWE scale down to 6-8 pay-per-views a year, along with completely getting rid of NXT and Superstars. Doing a PPV every month was OK during the Monday Night Wars because wrestling was red-hot and people couldn't get enough of it, but now it's so overexposed and oversaturated, people don't care as much.

As a realist, I have to agree with RKOPunk. As long as Vince makes money on all the pay-per-views, he'll continue having one every month. They've been around so long that they're guaranteed a certain buyrate no matter how good or bad the card is.

I don't understand, why you as a wresting fan, would want to get rid of a free wrestling heavy show such as Superstars. At least without replacing anything else, it's a good way to showcase lowercard/lower midcard talent at a very low expense (they are just a compilation of dark matches before Smackdown & Raw after all)

 

[tripleddd]

As we all know PPVs bring in a lot of money to the wwe - so my question and thoughts are how many ppvs do you think we should have and what names what would you keep etc.
If it was me I would have the 12 main ppvs
1. Royal Rumble(FEB)
2. Wrestlemania(APRIL)
3.summerslam(AUG)
4.survivor series(DEC)
5. great american bash(JULY)
6.cyber sunday(OCT)
7. king of the ring(JAN)
8.backlash(MAY)
9judgement day(NOV)
10 armaggedon(SEPT)
11. saturday night main event(MARCH)
12 vengence(JUNE)

 

[S.J. Maximus]

I would only have 8 ppvs to make those 8 much more important and vital than the current 14 format. I want a 2 month build to WM each year (without a ppv getting in the way) and I love having Extreme Rules after WM because I think it's a fun concept that is very entertaining. Also Night of Champions is a fun ppv and I would make sure to have a 2 month build inbetween NoC and SummerSlam seeing as how SS is supposed to be the WM of the summer.

1. Royal Rumble last Sunday in January

2. WrestleMania in March

3. Extreme Rules in April

4. Night of Champions in June

5. SummerSlam in August

6. Unforgiven in September

7. No Mercy in October

8. Survivor Series in November

9. Armageddon in December

 

[bigbootydaddyV]

12 would be the maximum i would ever consider having... no more than once a month but even then that is a bit much, but with as much talent as they have and with two shows I think it can work, though I'd personally drop the price a bit or have some incentives in place to get people to order them all. I would definitely keep all the classics and add a few others

I would do

January - Royal Rumble

February - Elimination Chamber (I like the PPV here to help set a Mania main event for the brand that doesn't win the Rumble)

March - Wrestlemania

April - Cyber Sunday (rather than a re-hash of Mania matches how about the next ppv gives us a choice as to whether we want a feud to continue or if we want a new one)

June - King of the Ring (Was perfect where it was, never got why they removed it)

July - The Great American Bash (good summer tradition, one of 3 instances WCW got it right)

August - Summerslam

September - War Games (My favorite gimmick match of all time, was in Sept in WCW too I believe during Fall Brawl so it works, just skip the fall brawl name and call it War Games)

October - Halloween Havoc (the 3rd great WCW ppv and my personal all time favorite. Have the event close to halloween, theme it, red ring, the whole 9, ALWAYS a fav of mine in wcw)

November - Survivor Series (Little close to War Games but that may be ok since they are different match types and it's usually not factions fighting but rather combos of feuds happening in one match unlike War Games which is usually factions battling)

December - Vengeance (Great way to end the year, all the titles on the line, whoever loses will definitely be more inclined to get into the rumble to try and get their title shot again)

 

[triplehbk23]

As we all know PPVs bring in a lot of money to the wwe - so my question and thoughts are how many ppvs do you think we should have and what names what would you keep etc.
If it was me I would have the 12 main ppvs
1. Royal Rumble(FEB)
2. Wrestlemania(APRIL)
3.summerslam(AUG)
4.survivor series(DEC)
5. great american bash(JULY)
6.cyber sunday(OCT)
7. king of the ring(JAN)
8.backlash(MAY)
9judgement day(NOV)
10 armaggedon(SEPT)
11. saturday night main event(MARCH)
12 vengence(JUNE)

Now idk if i would agree with 12 ppvs a year, because i think that 8 would be perfect however the idea of a Saturday night main Event ppv is absolutely awesome. Ill elaborate on that in a minute some more(GREAT IDEA TRIPLEDDD). I would go with soemthing like this:

1. Royal Rumble(JAN)
2. Elimination Chamber(FERUARY)
3. Wrestlemania(APRIL)
4. Backlash (MAY)
5. King of The Ring (JUNE)
6. Summerslam (AUGUST)
7. Saturday Nights Main Event (SEPTEMBER)
8. Survivor Series (NOVEMBER)

Now in order for this to be done correctly and to get an outrageous number of ppv buys this would be the perfect way to do it. You start the year with The Rumble. Nothing in December so you have a 2 month build towards it. Have Chamber in Feb. A 2 month build to Wmania in April. Your fallout from Mania at BAcklash in May. A KOTR tournament in June like back in the day. A 2 month build into SUmmerslam. Then an end of summer Saturday night ppv party with the old SNME setting and old school 2 out of 3 falls, lumberjack, elimination and 6 man tag matches. A great innovative new ppv idea but on a Sat night. and then a 2 month build into A TRADIONAL ALL AROUND OLD SCHOOL SURVIVOR SERIES culminating all feuds for the end of the year and startin a fresh build into the rumble. Now the reason this is done this way and so important is this....You have 2 months in between all the original BIG ONES...the old schooll original ppvs...Wmania, Sslam, Surv Series and the Royal Rumble. That will put the major focus back on those 4 events and in turn will boost up buys for the other 4 additional ppvs because of the concept of each one. If this was done correctly i believe it would re-capture some of the fan following that has been lost in the shuffle of the PG era and it would also increase the desire of the current WWE fans to want to buy more ppvs, and especially ones with better concepts and matches. WWE could really benefit from this and so could the fans.

 

[4-Real]

One a month. That's been the norm since the Monday Night Wars. And I have no problem with that either. It's a great source of revenue, so deducting PPV's could amount to a loss in money as a whole. That said, I HATE a lot of these PPV concepts. Here's how I would build the PPV lineup.

January: Royal rumble
February: No Way Out (Elimination Chamber is a stupid name for an event)
March: Wrestlemania
April: Backlash
May: Over The Limit
June: Night of Champions
July: Capitol Punishment
August: SummerSlam
September: Vengeance
October: King of the Ring
November: Survivor Series
December: December to Dismember

The four staple PPV's remain, obviously. No Way Out holds the same concept as Elimination Chamber, just with a different name. Backlash replaces Extreme Rules because the name suited the event so well. 'It's the PPV after Wrestlemania, so who will face the Backlash?' It works(ed). Plus, I hate naming shows after match names. It's so unoriginal, plus it sounds really weird. Just imagine hearing someone like, say, John Cena saying, "At Tables, Ladders and Chairs, I will win the WWE Title." I hate it, doesn't work for me. Over the Limit in May works. I like the concept of it, just off the cuff, Over The Limit. It keeps Judgment Day fresh. I like having Capitol Punishment, but why not move it to 4th of July weekend instead of in June? In June, you can have Night of Champions, which was a cool concept itself. September, you have the already confirmed Vengeance, which works like a Backlash for SummerSlam. October is when things get fun. You have the King of the Ring tournament made into a PPV event, just like how it used to be. This time, we move it to October to coincide with November's Survivor Series. The winner of the KOTR in October gets the trophy and gets a title shot at Survivor Series, which will add to the excitement of a PPV that over the past couple years is said to have lost its luster. And in December, you have December to Dismember, which works like an Armageddon/TLC mix. You can still have the yearly TLC Match, as well as the other matches that are customary for TLC, but you have an original name to go with it. I think this lineup would be sweet, and really give the superstars the opportunity to put on the best show possible.

 

[Montague]

Jan - Royal Rumble
Mar/Apr - Wrestlemania
Apr/May - Extreme Rules
June - King of the Ring
Aug - Summer Slam
Sep - Money in the Bank
Nov - Survivor Series
Dec - Cyber Sunday

Get rid of 4 PPVs so that they have more story and matches arnt just thrown in at the end

RR, WM, SS, and SvS - The big 4
KotR - crown a king but make it a bigger deal like it was for Austin or Savage rather than Regal or Shamus
MitB - to elevate a mid card to main event status
ExR - Entertaining with all the gimmick matches
CS - the Dec ppv doesnt matter so much it doesnt really even need to be there

 

[Dagger Dias]

Here is how my lineup would look:

January - Royal Rumble
February - Elimination Chamber
April - Wrestlemania
May - Over the Limit
June - Night of Champions
July - Money in the Bank
August - Summerslam
September - Bragging Rights
October - Hell in a Cell
November - Survivor Series
December - TLC

The way they have it set up right now, but tweaked a little so that there is at least 4 weeks to build up each PPV. I also took out the useless Extreme Rules, "extremely boring" rules is more like it. While I would prefer the older format of only the big 5 (with King of the Ring as the 5th), the monthly format can work if they give each show enough time to build up feuds because people need to care enough about the storylines to buy a show or else they will just skip it.