The Rematch Clause

[Mac Attack]

Personally I think that the Rematch Cluase should disappear. I feel that the PPV's these days are losing money because your guarnateed to see at least one of the mathces that were on that card on the next. I would like to see some variety with the PPV's. The rematch clause is giving guys like John Cena and Randy Orton and Sheamus so many oppurtunities to Main event so many different PPV's where I think if the rematch clause was uplifted it would help add the variety that is needed

Instead of a rematch clause have someone win a rematch to continue a feud and not have it be just another match probaly with a gimmick to change it up a little. Have number one contender matches more on Raw and Smackdown and we could see more interesting matchu-ups. There is no reason why the rematch cluase should be what drives most PPV's. The last time I saw somebody not use a rematch clause is when Taker lost at Elimination Chamber to Jericho and did not ask for a rematch.

I just want to know if you agree or not

 

[Layorz]

Rematch clauses can be used at any time, not just at PPV's. The Hart Dynasty used their rematch clause (unless I'm mistaken) on Smackdown last week and lost. John Cena used his rematch clause on Seamus the night following his loss at TLC. Kofi Kingston also used his rematch clause for the IC title at a Smackdown show.

Besides, the rematch clause allows feuds to continue if they should ever need to. It's a fine rule that should stay.

 

[Syborgg]

You can't have a different main event at every PPV. Quality fueds can take months to build and hype. Thus why you have DQ finishes and what not. Especially in this current circumstance where there is only 2 weeks between Night of Champions and Hell In A Cell.

Think of it this way, if you have Seamus vs. Orton at HIAC and somehow Seamus gains an unfair advantage(i.e. interference) and wins the title back, then all the fans witnessing the PPV would go home unhappy and would want to see Orton seek revenge the next night on Raw. Thus the battle goes on. Now Hell in the Cell might be a bad example, cuz a match of this magnitude usually ends the fued but my point has been made.

My only complaint about the rematch clause is when they invoke it on free T.V. the former champs usually lose, which makes it too predictable. I was 99.99% sure The Harts weren't getting the titles back on Smackdown.

 

[DanTheCenaFan]

I personally like the idea of the rematch-clause. I think it should go on for a little bit more, I would love to see it change! It will still be there, but it would just change. Maybe make it be like, when you lose your championship, you have to face a random person to get a title match. It could start new feuds easily and keep people out of the championship picture (Cena, Sheamus, etc). That's just what I think, it could be a good idea, but if you don't think so, I'd love to hear your point.

 

[healyz84]

I've always been a big fan of the rematch clause. It allows the guy who lost the title a chance to redeem themselves. Sometimes, the rematch is contested under some sort of stipulation, and the former champ is able to regain the gold. Also, these don't always happen on ppv's, as a lot of the time we see the night after the ppv or 2 weeks later being the switch. Finally, as it pertains to the world championships, if you look at the last 3 title switches, they have been a 6-man elimination chamber match, a fatal four way, and a 6 pack challenge. SD!s just the same, with an elimination chamber switch, a mitb cash in, fatal four way, and another mitb cash in. With that being said, there hasn't really been a true rematch as back to back singles matches. You now have an Orton/Sheamus match that was not the previous ppv title match (though it was summerslam).

 

[LSP]

i like the rematch clause, and i think that someone should try cashing in their rematch clause similar to how someone cashes in Money In The Bank, when the other person's not expecting it or like just had a match or something...being able to cash in the rematch clause anytime would be cool and it would be something new.

 

[KoC417]

The rematch clause has been around for ages and it is PERFECT. It sets the stage for redemption. HOWEVER there are some cases where a rematch clause can/should sometimes be over looked. That would be if the first match was horrendous and horrible (basically ANY of the Great Khali's matches) those are just unbearable and make me want to change the channel so there is no way I'd order the PPV. Look back to Kane's match with Great Khali...so boring. But then look at HBK vs. Undertaker can you imagine if that had been for the title all 3 times!? AMAZING. The rematch clause helps continue feuds and makes things interesting because as one of the previous posters said usually there is a stipulation involved. That makes the match more interesting (usually). So what's to dislike about the rematch clause?

 

[Dzone]

I get what you mean about the rematch clauses, number one contender matches are much more fun to watch *IMO*. But rematch clauses do allow for the continuation or stoppage or a fued... which does help.