Making WWE Superstars on WGN (More) Relevant

[johnbragg]

I've said this before, but I'm saying it again.

Why not put a championship on Superstars? Keep it distinct from the other titles--don't even call it a title. Find a sponsor, and call it the 7-Eleven Series Cup or the Taco Bell Trophy or the Boost Mobile Challenge. Let the name be corny. Make the gimmick a (kayfabe) $2000 prize given to the winner every week, plus the chance to defend next week, but part of the contract with the sponsor is that the winner is exclusive to Superstars.

Suddenly, it makes all the sense in the world why Yoshi Tatsu would fight the fight of his life against Mark Henry for a Boost Mobile Challenge spot, while the Miz wouldn't return a phone call from the BMC and give up pay-per-view paydays. Cody Rhodes, MVP and Kofi Kingston would have a kayfabe dilemna--is it worth taking a step back from IC/US contendership to dominate the BMC for a while and get a little spotlight back?

It also would give a focus to Superstars, which it really doesn't have. Watch Superstars this week, and you at least know one guy who's on next week. Sometimes you'd even have an announced match.

This could also give WWE a little more data on some midcarders--can they interest a TV audience enough to tune in?

 

[Tech N9ne]

Who knows if that would work. Solid idea though. They (WWE) definitely need to do something though. Superstars never attracts me to tune in. All the matches and even the wrestlers competing in those matches, just do not interest me.

It isn't really the wrestlers themselves I guess. But more how they are used on there. What these guys do on Superstars really have no relevance to their characters or storylines or even their pushes on the 2 main shows.

If Zach Ryder wins a match on Superstars one day. That momentum will not carry over to Raw the next week. He will not walk to the ring and mention that he had just beat, R-Truth for example, the week before. Instead, he will just walk out there and get squashed by Ezekiel Jackson or some other face.

I do believe they can, but even more important, NEED to do something to make Superstars a better show. Maybe not just better, but more relevant to what is going on. Use it to extend mid card storylines or even Main Event storylines. More exposure to any storyline in WWE couldn't hurt.

EDIT: There have been other threads complaining about Mid-Card storylines not getting enough time to develop, and not really getting too much face time. A good way would be to do more involving these storylines as Main Events on Superstars. Maybe have some matches on Superstars occasionally effect a stipulation for a match at a PPV. Or have a Number 1 Contenders Match or something like that.

 

[Sora/roxas]

I have made made many of these threads so i guess its my turn to comment on the ideas. For one no way should it be labeled a title and no way should the winning superstar be excluisve to superstars. What WWE needs to do is cross brand matches with the occasional title defense from the midcards titles and actually have the titles switch hands. This would make people watch superstars knowing the chance the title may change hands. Although your idea could work, they should only do this every once in a while and have the deciding match be at a PPV. Have it kinda like KOTR, except all the matches would be on superstars just not the last match this would give someone like Yoshi tatsu a strong push and wouldnt be considered a step back for anyone higher on the card. Plus you can have a storyline where a upper midcarder or someone in the ME is low on money and they come in thinking its easy money, but they lose the PPV match and you gotta fued that propels the other guy up in the card.

 

[Trill Co$by]

uh oh.... It's the IWC acting like they are "EXPERTS" again......VINCE AND DIXIE WATCH OUT!!!!! LOL!!!!! you assholes are pathetic!!! you think you know so much just by typing on a laptop and/or a pc talking to fred,carl,steve,mike,and paulie instead of taking action...oh i forgot...with the IWC...it goes in 1 ear and out the other because with you kids you act like you own TNA or WWE instead of VINCE or DIXIE!!!! GROW THE FUCK UP!!!!

Says the ignorant fool who took time to register up and comment on this thread... hmmmm.


As for the OP's idea, I'm not sure it would work. I think that with something that meaningless, fans would get tired of it eventually. However, I will say that there needs to be more excitement on the shows. Like maybe have Riley and Daniel build up a side rivalry over there that could carry on to Raw. Maybe have the tag champs on that show more often. Cross promotional matches would work too...

Also, recording a full show in one night could solve a lot of problems.

 

[johnbragg]

What WWE needs to do is cross brand matches with the occasional title defense from the midcards titles and actually have the titles switch hands.

I don't think this would help that much. If Bryan lost the US title on Superstars, it would be more confusing than anything else, since most of the audience wouldn't see it. Next Raw, Bryan comes out without the belt for a rematch with Ted Dibiase or whoever took the title from him. Audience reaction: Wha? It's like title changes at house shows--they don't build up the house shows, they tear down the title. Midcard title switches wouldn't build Superstars, they would just further devalue the midcard titles.

The King-of-the-Ring-on-Superstars idea is interesting, but an eight-man tournament with the finals on PPV would only program Superstars for three weeks if you have two tournament matches a week.

I figure that Superstars is going to be the show that WWE dumps guys it has little use for. I'm trying to figure out how to make those guys and that show more useful.

Zach Ryder would be a good choice for who the 7-Eleven Series Cup, or the Ricky Steamboat Invitational Sponsored by the Army National Guard, would benefit. It would give his character a focus, winning and then defending the title every week. Maybe Zach Ryder can connect with the fans and keep the audience coming back next week. Maybe not. But I think WWE would like to know.

 

[Sora/roxas]

I don't think this would help that much. If Bryan lost the US title on Superstars, it would be more confusing than anything else, since most of the audience wouldn't see it. Next Raw, Bryan comes out without the belt for a rematch with Ted Dibiase or whoever took the title from him. Audience reaction: Wha? It's like title changes at house shows--they don't build up the house shows, they tear down the title. Midcard title switches wouldn't build Superstars, they would just further devalue the midcard titles.

Just show the clip of the match where He loses the title in one of those raw rebounds or whatever. And its not the same thing as a house show at all. almost everyone can watch superstars they choose not too. And even if you cant its on hulu in full so if you really wanted too you could watch it. And if you wanted too you could have the match be set on RAW. and have the Superstars taping after RAW. There you go.You got build up. You got a reason to watch it and if you dont thats your problem. And this would only be a problem the first time you do it. Once people realize that the title could change hands the show becomes important. One of the main reason people dont care about superstars is because WWE doesnt care about superstars AT ALL. So if WWE were to make it look like they cared it would be alot better product and alot better rating.

 

[Stephen11]

I don't necessary think that title changes or any majorly important matches need to take place but they need to make it somewhat relevant. For example, they should be pushing Raw or Smackdown feuds like Morrison & Sheamus or Bryan & DiBiase. I like how Superstars is mostly wrestling but honestly, it needs more promos to make it relevant to SD & RAW. It wouldn't necessarily take away from the wrestling from the show since so much of it is used to review the week's RAW.

Currently, Superstars has random matches and does build feuds but they don't exist anywhere else or have any relevance on the main show that the superstar is. They need to at least push current feuds and make it even the slightest bit relevant besides just random crap.

 

[LSN80]

I've said this before, but I'm saying it again.

Why not put a championship on Superstars? Keep it distinct from the other titles--don't even call it a title. Find a sponsor, and call it the 7-Eleven Series Cup or the Taco Bell Trophy or the Boost Mobile Challenge. Let the name be corny. Make the gimmick a (kayfabe) $2000 prize given to the winner every week, plus the chance to defend next week, but part of the contract with the sponsor is that the winner is exclusive to Superstars.

You're right, that would be incredibly corny. And corny has worked out SO well for NXT, hasn't it?

Suddenly, it makes all the sense in the world why Yoshi Tatsu would fight the fight of his life against Mark Henry for a Boost Mobile Challenge spot, while the Miz wouldn't return a phone call from the BMC and give up pay-per-view paydays. Cody Rhodes, MVP and Kofi Kingston would have a kayfabe dilemna--is it worth taking a step back from IC/US contendership to dominate the BMC for a while and get a little spotlight back?

The titles are watered down already. They've unified two titles over the course of the past year and a half, and instead of making them seem more important, they've devalued them even more.

And for wrestlers to "take a step down", why would they? Their goal should be to elevate themselves for the bigger title, the ultimate prize. Stepping down a notch on the ladder would be counterintuitive to the reason they got into the business in the first place.

It also would give a focus to Superstars, which it really doesn't have. Watch Superstars this week, and you at least know one guy who's on next week. Sometimes you'd even have an announced match.

The same guys compete on Superstars every week anyway. Superstars does have a focus. It's the place for the lower card men to get on TV every week.

This could also give WWE a little more data on some midcarders--can they interest a TV audience enough to tune in?

No, because Superstars in pre-empted in alot of areas on any given night anyway. So even if someone were to "invest" in said title, they may not be able to see it the very next week. I give you credit for ingenuity, but the show isn't going to change any time soon.

 

[johnbragg]

You're right, that would be incredibly corny. And corny has worked out SO well for NXT, hasn't it?

But corny works out fine for the Champs Sports Bowl, and the Doritos Fiesta Bowl, and the Nextel Cup, and the McDonalds NFL Player of the Game. So why not a Dean Malenko Snickers Invitational in pro wrestling?

And for wrestlers to "take a step down", why would they?

1. Money. Would you "take a step down" for double your weekly check?
2. Because, kayfabe, they're getting lost in the shuffle in the IC/US title hunt. There are a half-dozen superstars going for that midcard title, and you're at the back of the line all of a sudden. Seriously, if you're Drew McIntyre or or Kofi Kingston or Zach Ryder or Evan Bourne or Cody Rhodes, do you really expect to get a midcard title shot anytime soon? Are you in a feud that will get you a PPV check? If not, why pass up the chance at an extra $2000 a week for as long as you keep winning?

Their goal should be to elevate themselves for the bigger title, the ultimate prize.

Which is going to elevate you more, being on Superstars for 8 weeks winning the Dean Malenko Axe Bodyspray Cup, defending it 6 times before finally losing, or drifting around in the background on Raw or Smackdown for 8 weeks?

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I don't know johnbragg. There is already a PPV around a similar concept of a trophy being given to the victor and we all know how well thats' working out. Bragging Rights was the least bought PPV in 2009 and I have no doubt that that will be the case in 2010 as well.

I think the thing that could be done is that WWE could make a stipulation that whoever wins his match on Superstars will be allowed to have a match on either Raw or Smackdown the next week against an opponent of his choice. That way it makes Superstars relevant and also heightens the prestige of both Raw and Smackdown in the way that wrestlers have to earn their matches at Raw or Smackdown

Another thing that could be done is having a title match on Superstars once in a while. Not the World or the WWE title but an IC or US title match could draw in the numbers.

 

[johnbragg]

I don't know johnbragg. There is already a PPV around a similar concept of a trophy being given to the victor and we all know how well thats' working out. Bragging Rights was the least bought PPV in 2009 and I have no doubt that that will be the case in 2010 as well.

I dunno. I think that if there were a fake mountain of cash to go with that trophy, we might have an easier time believing that the wrestlers care about that match.

Would folks actually like this idea better if I called it a WGN TV Title and made it a belt?

I think the thing that could be done is that WWE could make a stipulation that whoever wins his match on Superstars will be allowed to have a match on either Raw or Smackdown the next week against an opponent of his choice.

That's creative. I like that.

Another thing that could be done is having a title match on Superstars once in a while. Not the World or the WWE title but an IC or US title match could draw in the numbers.

Your faith in the drawing power of the midcard titles is touching, but misplaced.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I dunno. I think that if there were a fake mountain of cash to go with that trophy, we might have an easier time believing that the wrestlers care about that match.

Would folks actually like this idea better if I called it a WGN TV Title and made it a belt?

The cash thing would not go down very well with the old school fans imo. Think about it. If people are getting paid to defeat a guy like Yoshi Tatsu, then why isn't a wrestler like John Cena challenging him. For Cena, defeating Tatsu could be a piece of cake. Everyone likes to earn a bit extra no matter how much one has.

But I think the more important point is that it would make belts seem a bit secondary if you are giving away money for winning matches. Titles are the be all and end all of pro wrestling.

The thing with the TV title is a better idea but again you gotta wonder how much a title is going to matter if a guy like Yoshi Tatsu is the one holding it. Plus how could you explain the fact that a title holder is a mere jobber on the main shows: ie Raw and Smackdown?

Your faith in the drawing power of the midcard titles is touching, but misplaced.

I'm not saying a midcard title match would draw in huge numbers. But I guess people would be more interested to see Daniel Bryan vs John Morrison than they would be to see Yoshi Tatsu vs Zack Ryder.

 

[johnbragg]

The cash thing would not go down very well with the old school fans imo. Think about it. If people are getting paid to defeat a guy like Yoshi Tatsu, then why isn't a wrestler like John Cena challenging him.

Because if Cena did beat him, he'd be exclusive to WGN Superstars until he was defeated for the belt/trophy/title. No Raw paydays, no pay-per-view paydays. Compared to his payday for working Survivor Series or Breaking Point, the $2000 a week is peanuts.

But I think the more important point is that it would make belts seem a bit secondary if you are giving away money for winning matches.

Not if you get over the idea that the Lance Storm Invitational Taco Bell Cup is small potatoes compared to the IC or US title. Heck, it might boost the US title to have someone turn down the Michael Hayes Freebird KFC Challenge because they have a US title shot lined up. Just like Tiger Woods is bigger than the Podunk Prudential Open with a $50,000 grand prize, because he's saving himself for the US Open.

The thing with the TV title is a better idea but again you gotta wonder how much a title is going to matter if a guy like Yoshi Tatsu is the one holding it. Plus how could you explain the fact that a title holder is a mere jobber on the main shows: ie Raw and Smackdown?

The champion makes the belt. If Yoshi Tatsu holds the title for three or four months, defeating a half-dozen different challengers and winning two or three month-long minifeuds, then when he finally does lose, he's in good shape to move up to challenge upper midcarders. On the other hand, if the title popcorns around six guys for a few months, no one really gets anywhere.

I tried to avoid making it a TV title, because I really dislike midcard titles, to be honest. They almost always beg the question, if this guy's so good how come he's not world champ and/or how important is this belt if this schmuck has it. The $2000 a week gimmick hints at answers to both of those questions.

I'm not saying a midcard title match would draw in huge numbers. But I guess people would be more interested to see Daniel Bryan vs John Morrison than they would be to see Yoshi Tatsu vs Zack Ryder.

More people would be interested in Bryan vs Morrison whether or not a midcard belt is on the line. The PaperJamz Challenge would be a vehicle to build a Zach Ryder to the point where he's a credible opponent for Bryan or Morrison.

 

[Dagger Dias]

No way!!!! No championships should be defended on Superstars. That's a bad idea because it's not a major brand. Superstars is the modern day equivalent of what Heat and Velocity were. A jobber show for the guys who did not make it onscreen that week. That's what it should remain. The casual fans don't care about most of the guys who appear on Superstars and therefore the title defended there would have virtually no value. Superstars does not need to become more relevant than what it already is, a jobber show. They have two brands. The guys who need to be pushed onscreen should be on Raw or Smackdown, like they currently are. Superstars was honestly never needed in the first place.