Pay-per-views such as Elimination Chamber, TLC and Hell in a Cell are simply bad for booking purposes. How so, you ask? Imagine this. You end the big summer feud with a blow-off at Summerslam. You rush into the fall with the champion finishing his summer feud, catapult him into a feud with a new challenger, and within a month or two; bam! You have to a HiaC match for a feud that probably doesn't deserve it. Not only does it take away from the mystique and and danger factor of big-time gimmick matches (knowing when they're coming) but you have to force feed feuds into these matches that sometimes would be better off in a regular match, or nothing more than a NO DQ match at most. And why? Because you have to have the gimmick match for the sake of the fact the PPV is named after it. It ruins the prestige of match types that used to be a MUCH bigger deal, which also diminishes the amount of match types you can use to blow off a big feud, because all of a sudden, HiaC and TLC matches aren't a big deal anymore.
Money in the Bank I can see as an exception. It's not a match type that was used a feud blow off, or a marquee match such as EC was. It was already only done once a year, at Mania. It's also been the most successful of the gimmick match PPV's and has become a lesser version of the RR, or a KotR replacement to me. It's becoming the little brother of the Big 4 quickly, and the show is great year in, year out, and it's getting to the point that you know you're gonna see a great show, and missing who wins the case could be missing out on the match/moment that creates the next big superstar.
I do not want to see the older PPV brands come back. With the gimmick themed PPV brands you know what to expect. TLC has 4 gimmicks in one: Tables, Ladders, Chairs, and TLC. Elimination Chamber, Hell In a Cell, and Money In the Bank feature matches containing their gimmick namesake match type. Night of Champions has every belt on the line. Over the Limit is more open, but has featured types such as the I Quit match. Brands such as Unforgiven, No Mercy, and Backlash all need to stay in the past. None of them stood out from the other. There was literally nothing separating an Unforgiven card from a No Mercy card, and the Big 4 were always made to be superior, so my mindset was often why bother with these lesser shows? I'd rather know what's coming, and with the gimmick themed shows we get just that.
The current PPV lineup is just fine other than two little things I would change. Chances are Payback is just going to be about as pointless as No Way Out or Capitol Punishment, although it is still worth giving a chance. I'd put it where Extreme Rules is and get rid of that brand. Extreme Rules continues to be my least favorite PPV brand and I doubt that will change this year. If Payback is moved to April then that also frees up a summer slot for Over the Limit, which I would move there. That makes Hell In a Cell the only October PPV event. That's where Over the Limit used to be anyhow, I don't understand why it got moved to October where it is doomed to likely have the lowest buy rate of the year. Why do they keep insisting on having two October PPV's and then get upset when they don't get the desired number of PPV buys? It's not rocket science, WWE. There's absolutely no reason to do 2 PPV's in October. NONE.
So, yes, I am in favor of keeping the gimmick themed PPV brands. Why bring back the old names and have 8 shows per year that are interchangeable other than their name when they can continue to make the lesser shows stand out from each other regardless of how far away they are from the Big 4 in historical value? I hope the old PPV brands never come back and that they continue to build on the importance of the brands they currently have. They struggle enough with convincing fans to purchase the shows as it is. If the fans know what type of match is coming, the WWE can focus more on the storyline leading into the match to help make them want to buy it as opposed to worrying about what type of card to make when they have enough to be concerned about with promos and building up to each PPV.
Here is where I think you're wrong, my friend. Yeah, the cards were usually no different, but each PPV was still it's own distinctive event with it's own distinctive name. Plus, it's not like anything has changed. Instead of No Mercy and Judgement Day being B-shows with the focus on the big 4, now HiaC and TLC are B-shows with the focus where it was before. That's never gonna change unless they reduce the number of PPV's to 5 or 6 with every show being a big one, which will never happen, and in today's business shouldn't.
To be frank, I'd rather see an underwhelming undercard with a main event of a month long feud culminating in a regular match, than the same card with the same feud ending in a very forced Hell in a Cell or TLC match. Plus, it isn't like WWE has to go back to the old PPV names. They just need to generate names that sound like they weren't thought up by a elementary student. Payback? Capitol Punishment? Bragging Rights? They had Breaking Point and still have Over The Limit, both acceptable. How about some more? Retribution, Cross Roads, Guerrilla Warfare, Fahrenheit Rising, etc.. all sound better than anything the WWE has created in recent times.
I will agree with you on one point, though; Extreme Rules needs to go.
