Simple Idea about the belts.

[jbremner2]

I just thought of a simple idea to make the WWE titles seem to have more prestege about them. Why not make it a rule tht if you lose a world championship match, you cannot have a title shot for at least a year. This rule obviously wont apply to a Royal Rumble winner or a winner of a tournament. I think this would fresh up the title picture also if you imagine and this is jst a quick example but imagine HHH got a title shot against Cena and lost clean. Jst think off the storyline a year later, HHH has been waiting for this day to come ever since he lost to Cena a year ago. The rule would only apply if you lose clean to them so you can still hav a 2 month feud. Hav a title shot win on a dq, you will still be allowed to get another shot at the title. If a champion lost the belt, they get a rematch for the belt. I also think tht this will allow other superstars to get a shot at a title and not jst the same old people gettin shots. It would also mean something for the champion if he won a title match and also we wont have to see the same feud being overused and repeated again and again. The challanger also has a lot to gain from this stipulation as he has to win the match becouse if he doesnt, he can kiss he shot til a year goodbye.

 

[JSin1884]

I like where you are going with this idea, however, I would shorten that up to maybe 6 months instead of a year. I think a full year might be a bit excessive, and some fans would lose interest and ratings would go down. If one of thier favorites lost and was unable to challenge for the title for a full year, why the hell would they still want to watch the show? Six months would be a better time fram I believe. Great Idea though man, I'm feelin that.

 

[justinsayne]

I'd go with 8 months, and would have the champion vacate his title if they were to intentionally get themselves DQed or counted out, so the heels would have to actually win the match and not give us fans the same garbage ending week after week, also if another superstar were to interfer in the match at any point then they would forfit any future title shots for the next year

 

[Y 2 Jake]

If they built credible feud's and did'nt swap title's around like hot potato's they would have more prestige already. Although I like you're idea.

 

[Dj Martyn]

Yea good idea man , although like JSin1884 and justinsayne said...6-8 months in my opinion not a year, its too long, they would have to play it safe i guess as well accounting for injury times if people got injured and there was no contenders because they had all had recent shots.

 

[shawnmichaels111690]

It is a good idea, but it would be so hard for the fans to keep it straight

 

[wwe2006]

Not only that, but WWE is not very good with keeping things straight, so they if happen to make this rule they would just end of breaking it anyways.

 

[Totally Crazy]

How about until the next of the 'big four' of the PPVs, that they can't compete for a title? I'd also scrap the rematch clause for lost titles, and go with NWA rule of losing the title if your DQ'd. This would force heels to be credible for a change.

 

[Shadowmancer]

I'd also scrap the rematch clause for lost titles, and go with NWA rule of losing the title if your DQ'd. This would force heels to be credible for a change.

Its a TNA rule as far as I know not NWA. I like the idea but would this ban on the rechallenge be in place if say they have a rematch and the belt was passed back and forth. I see that as a possible problem in terms of getting others into the main event picture.

I think a good exception would be if the Champion loses at Wrestlemania than he gets Two or Three chances. (Im thinking in terms of the Batista/Triple H feud of a couple of years ago. That was a decent storyline.) It would keep stuff like that being intresting. Three Chances or Two PPV's would be the extent of the title Rematch clause after WM. every other would fall into the other category. but if they can't reclaim then they have to wait until the Royal rumble too get their chance again. It may be Harsh but it would counteract the longer rematch chance that they get.

 

[Totally Crazy]

Its a TNA rule as far as I know not NWA. I like the idea but would this ban on the rechallenge be in place if say they have a rematch and the belt was passed back and forth. I see that as a possible problem in terms of getting others into the main event picture.

I think a good exception would be if the Champion loses at Wrestlemania than he gets Two or Three chances. (Im thinking in terms of the Batista/Triple H feud of a couple of years ago. That was a decent storyline.) It would keep stuff like that being intresting. Three Chances or Two PPV's would be the extent of the title Rematch clause after WM. every other would fall into the other category. but if they can't reclaim then they have to wait until the Royal rumble too get their chance again. It may be Harsh but it would counteract the longer rematch chance that they get.

I specifically remember Mike Tenay saying "under NWA rules, etc etc". TNA doesnt have their own World Title, they use the NWA world title...but thats besides the point.

 

[lokisbaine]

I specifically remember Mike Tenay saying "under NWA rules, etc etc". TNA doesnt have their own World Title, they use the NWA world title...but thats besides the point.

It's a BS rule they only use when they want to give a heel the belt without a clean finish, not as bad as the ole WCW rule that if you threw a guy over the tope rope you were DQ'd