What would you do to fix Survivor Series

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

Its no secret that Survivor Series has clearly become #4 of the big four. On top of that most people see Money in the Bank as a better event and others would argue that events like Elimination Chamber, and Hell in a Cell have been better. So the question is what can be done to make Survivor Series better? Here is what I would do.

1) Only one classic Survivor Series match on the card which should be the main event. You event is called Survivor Series so that should be the focal point of the show. I would only carry one classic match as having multiple classic matches would dilute the product.

2) Something should be on the line in the main event. I like most of the classic matches from the early part of the 2000's that saw things like the commissioner spot on the line as well as stipulations that saw the winning team controlling Raw for a week. Things like that add to the match. Other ideas could be:

Each member of winning team gets a shot at the WWE champion

Winning team members get a chance to compete for the 30th entrant in the Rumble

Losing team members compete against each other to avoid being the #1 entrant in the Rumble

Possibly have WWE title on the line in the match where the person who eliminates the champ wins the title and if they then get eliminated they lose the title too, and so on till the match ends

 

[ajdb]

Simple.

Have 1 Survivor Series main event. All survivor left compete for a title shot.

Losing team competes in a 1-fall match on RAW the next night and the person who gets pinned, gets fired.

 

[Wolf Pac]

Make the Survivor Series matches a big deal again. It's hard to care for the PPV when the WWE are doing nothing to make us care about the theme of the show. The past few events, the SS Elimination matches have been thrown together last minute and have had no real story behind them. Give the matches a proper build up, put in guys who are currently feuding with each other on opposite teams, maybe book 2 of the matches, one for the undercard, the other as the main event or the co-main event. Just put more focus back on the SS matches. If they don't, it may aswell be another B-PPV or they should just scrap the Survivor Series as a PPV as Vince originally planned to do a few years ago.

 

[rbv13]

1) Move the event back to Thanksgiving night. With the Network carrying the “super cards” there is less importance on standard Sunday events. Reviving an old tradition would provide a boost and give the event a unique feel.

2) Make the event an MSG exclusive.

3) Air the following Smackdown live. Give it that post WM RAW type of feel. Make it Smackdown’s biggest show of the year.

4) Feature multiple Survivor Series style matches. One for the Divas, one for the NXT stars, two mid card main roster matches and one upper card match. The main event would feature a four way elimination match for the WWE WHC.

 

[A11oftheLights]

Have survivor series before elimination chamber or Hell in a Cell. The winning team of 5 goes into the elimination chamber or an Armagedon Hell in a Cell match which they probably won't do because of how similar it is to EC, but on the other hand WWE like to have the chamber between RR and WM as a way of saying that the superstars will shave lives off their careers to get to WM as champion

 

[bioshock]

The ideas above all sound bad, and none sound any better then what WWE does now. How is having 1 team elimination match make it better?

IMO Survivor Series 1990 had the best concept on paper. Teams of 4 against each other in all the matches, and the winners of each move on to the grand finale where I think it was 3 vs 8.

What I would like to see.. Something like this: for the build up someone in power like Stephanie announces that Survivor Series is going back to its roots, but with a twist.

That concept is the top 8 guys in the company including the champion and the others being the top 8 contenders are all matched up like Bryan vs Orton, Bray vs Cena ect.. Then each captain has to gather up 3 others to make a team, so for the weeks building up to the PPV we see the captains all do their best to make the best team they can, some teams being a guy with all his buddies, others being teams with heels and faces.

And then the twist. The twist would be that the winning survivors would compete in a grand finale match. That match would either be a battle royal, or something of a six pack challenge, or a championship scramble match, or maybe they give it some new gimmick name like that Final Four PPV had with the 4 way match where you can be pinned/submit anywhere, or be thrown over the top rope and lose.

Thus that grand finale match would be for the WWE WHC title.

And then you add some diva matches to the card to fill in between the last elimination tag match, and the grand finale match.

 

[JoshRP81]

Put the Chamber match back on the event it originated from and go back to calling the February PPV No Way Out (which makes a ton more sense from storyline perspectives to me). Nothing screams survival more than the Elimination Chamber. And being that they're one month away from Wrestlemania, there's No Way Out from here, ya know?

 

[TheICChampion]

It's too bad they don't have separate brands anymore, back in 2005 the build up for the Smackdown Vs. Raw 5-on-5 match was awesome. Now, as for fixing SSeries, I'd just have more classic elimination matches. After the summer, have the Wyatts and the Shield feud again. There's a lot left in that tank, and have it culminate with each team finding a fourth member. Winning team all get title shots within the next 30 days. You could even have other superstars fighting to see who gets on either team.

 

[Cub McCallister]

Survivor Series needs to be fixed badly I loved this pay per view specially when it was an all elimination event, I would make it an all elimination event again have roughly about 5 to 6 matches 1 for the nxt 1 for the diva's 1 for the mid carders 1 where tag teams will team up with other tag teams and then have 1 full of main eventers and 1 one for the pre-show or I would go another route and have every survivor got to the grand finale match but instead of having it faces vs heels I would mix it up and do a lethal lottery where the teams are mixed.

Survivor Series has lost its flare over the years they need to make it a big deal the last couple of Survivor Series have been shocking specially 2013 hopefully soon they will go back to having an all elimination event.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Keep it as it is. I'd prefer there to be more traditional S.S. matches but that's unlikely to happen.

WWE need to be realistic. Survivor Series draws a whole lot more than a typical 'B' show, so while it doesn't draw the numbers they used to, rebranding or changing it won't increase the number of buys it has. Calling it Starrcade or Halloween Havoc or whatever won't make it into a bigger show.

 

[Soulblazed]

The Survivor Series PPV has been shitty since the 21st Century came around. What I miss most about the Survivor Series PPVs in the 80s and early 90s was the actual story lines behind forming the teams and actually having multiple elimination matches on the card. My idea to fix it-Have 4 on 4 Elimination matches and title matches only on the PPV. An example-NXT Elimination match on the kick-off show, while all other matches are on the PPV. There's a Diva's Title match, a Tag Team Title Match, a US Title Match, an IC Title match and WWE World Heavyweight Championship Match. That still leaves room for a good 3-4 Survivor Series Elimination matches on the PPV itself. Also, as others have mentioned, holding the PPV on Thanksgiving Day again would help set it apart again, along with having a final match of the night consisting of all the sole survivors from each team in a Battle Royal.

 

[TheICChampion]

The Survivor Series PPV has been shitty since the 21st Century came around. What I miss most about the Survivor Series PPVs in the 80s and early 90s was the actual story lines behind forming the teams and actually having multiple elimination matches on the card. My idea to fix it-Have 4 on 4 Elimination matches and title matches only on the PPV. An example-NXT Elimination match on the kick-off show, while all other matches are on the PPV. There's a Diva's Title match, a Tag Team Title Match, a US Title Match, an IC Title match and WWE World Heavyweight Championship Match. That still leaves room for a good 3-4 Survivor Series Elimination matches on the PPV itself. Also, as others have mentioned, holding the PPV on Thanksgiving Day again would help set it apart again, along with having a final match of the night consisting of all the sole survivors from each team in a Battle Royal.

While I agree that Survivor Series as a whole hasn't been great, it's had its moments. I like your idea, with 2 exceptions. Don't put every single title on the line, 'cause that just clutters up the card and doesn't make Night of Champions as special as it should be. Secondly, since there are going to be so many matches, how are they supposed to make the elimination matches seem important, as well as all the title matches? Most matches will just feel thrown together and therefore not feel as special. You need credible challengers for each title while finding enough guys with importance/history together to make enough decent teams for 3-4 elimination matches. Unless you're putting something on the line, why have another elimination battle royal? It's the same problem I mentioned to the guy who wants 8 MitB qualifiers on the PPV. Too many matches, not enough time.

 

[Soulblazed]

While I agree that Survivor Series as a whole hasn't been great, it's had its moments. I like your idea, with 2 exceptions. Don't put every single title on the line, 'cause that just clutters up the card and doesn't make Night of Champions as special as it should be. Secondly, since there are going to be so many matches, how are they supposed to make the elimination matches seem important, as well as all the title matches? Most matches will just feel thrown together and therefore not feel as special. You need credible challengers for each title while finding enough guys with importance/history together to make enough decent teams for 3-4 elimination matches. Unless you're putting something on the line, why have another elimination battle royal? It's the same problem I mentioned to the guy who wants 8 MitB qualifiers on the PPV. Too many matches, not enough time.

I see your points. I'll elaborate on a few of my points. As far as Night Of Champions goes, I'd rather see the King Of The Ring come back and replace NOC as a PPV, which is why I'm proposing that every title be defended at the Survivor Series. With all the shows that WWE now has(Main Event, Smackdown, Raw), they could use all these shows to build up the title matches along with the elimination matches.

For example, you could have the WWE WHC Title and IC Title matches built up on Raw, the US Title and Tag Titles could be built up on Smackdown while the Diva's Title could be built up on Main Event.

Say there's 5 elimination matches (including the NXT elimination match which is on the pre-show). You could build the NXT elimination match up on NXT, while building up the Diva's elimination tag match along with one of the other lower-tier elimination tag matches on Main Event. Use Smackdown to build up 1 of the other high-profile elimination tag matches while Raw builds up the most hyped elimination tag match.

In order to make the Sole Survivor Battle Royal mean something, the winner could secure a number between #20 and #30 for entering the Royal Rumble. Hence that'd obviously give him incentive to win the Sole Survivor Battle Royal.

 

[TheICChampion]

I see your points. I'll elaborate on a few of my points. As far as Night Of Champions goes, I'd rather see the King Of The Ring come back and replace NOC as a PPV, which is why I'm proposing that every title be defended at the Survivor Series. With all the shows that WWE now has(Main Event, Smackdown, Raw), they could use all these shows to build up the title matches along with the elimination matches.

For example, you could have the WWE WHC Title and IC Title matches built up on Raw, the US Title and Tag Titles could be built up on Smackdown while the Diva's Title could be built up on Main Event.

Say there's 5 elimination matches (including the NXT elimination match which is on the pre-show). You could build the NXT elimination match up on NXT, while building up the Diva's elimination tag match along with one of the other lower-tier elimination tag matches on Main Event. Use Smackdown to build up 1 of the other high-profile elimination tag matches while Raw builds up the most hyped elimination tag match.

In order to make the Sole Survivor Battle Royal mean something, the winner could secure a number between #20 and #30 for entering the Royal Rumble. Hence that'd obviously give him incentive to win the Sole Survivor Battle Royal.

Fair enough, but could you maybe elaborate on how WWE can fit roughly 10 matches into a 3 hour PPV and still make sure every match, especially the title matches, the battle royal, and the biggest classic elimination matches have enough time so they won't all be rushed and not as good as they could/should be? I'm not saying EVERY match has to be awesome or EVERY match has to have 10-15 minutes but if you're rushing the good ones then it just doesn't make them as good. Unless most, if not all elimination matches are squash matches, then they usually take about a minimum of 15 minutes. So let me try and break this down as best I can.

Opening match: Classic elimination tag: Since this is the opener, and most likely not very important, give it 10 minutes, not counting entrances, so 13 minutes.

Time: 8:15 (because they have to introduce us to the show and hype up the matches)

(Cue promo about the Main events/other matches, maybe a backstage segment, 5 minutes)

2nd match: Classic SSeries match: Ok, maybe another 15 minutes, including entrances.

(Time: 8:35)

(Show video package about a huge rivalry culminating later in the show. Another backstage segment. 10 minutes. Cut back to the ring, champion already in the ring)

Match 3: Title match: 10 minutes in total

(Time: 8:55)

(Hype next PPV, ok maybe a minute. Announcers talk about Main event, WWE App, WWE network, etc. The usual shtick. 2-3 minutes total)


Match 4: Title match: One of the midcard titles, so solid 10-12 minutes not counting entrances. 14 minutes total.)

(Time: 9:15, roughly. Show one or more of the superstars in one of the main events. Interview, perhaps. 1-2 minutes)

(Ok, not bad so far, but now the card isn't halfway done yet)

5th match: One of the better hyped classic elimination matches. This one should go a minimum of 15 minutes, not counting intros.

(Approx. 9:40)

6th and 7th matches: Title matches. These can be diva's and tag title matches, so 10 for the tag title, 5 for the divas, total of 20 minutes so far, minumum. If you add more talking and what-not, it's another 5 minutes.)

(Approx. 10:05)

8th match: The final classic SSeries match. MINIMUM 20 minutes. Not counting intros

(Approx. 10:30)

You see my point? The WWE has a maximum 3 hour block to present their PPV. I know they have the network now, but they still haven't released it anywhere outside the states. So once the three hours are up, they drop right off the air. And I haven't even brought up what happens after the matches. Is there a shocker, a swerve? Does someone get seriously injured, etc.? Count all that in, plus another 20 minutes for the WWE title (at least) and 15 for that battle royal, and you're looking at the PPV not ending until 11:30.

 

[whoopin' ass]

Make it count for something. I understand they don't want a bunch of 5 on 5 matches but without that, how is it any different than any other ppv? Personally, I would have 2 or 4 5-on-5 matches where the guys who makes the pin in each match face each other in singles matches later that night - final winner gets a title shot either the next night or at the next ppv. Personally I would chuck all other matches and do the 4 initial matches as that gives you 7 matches in total, all of which matter. No filler matches, no junk. It isn't that hard to pick 20 guys to do this. It is a combo of the old Survivor Series and King of the Ring. But wwe being wwe, they would probably just go for the 2 initial matches as that gives them 3 and they can put in other junk. But that is what I would do - makes the ppv important and would give people a reason to tune into RAW the next night.

 

[PeterSellersSTL]

Book Survivor Series with Royal Rumble in mind. For instance I'd love to see two WWEWHC contenders/rivals have a "2 or 27" match, loser is the number 2 entrant in the Royal Rumble, winner gets the most successful 27 spot. Then imagine #2 who lasting until #27 and eliminating that guy orrr lasting long enough but getting thrown out by the guy who stuck you with #2 in the first place. Think of what that would do for a feud.

The entire PPV doesn't have to have Rumble implications but with 30 rumble spots you can get creative.

 

[berlinbrawler]

Here is how to fix Survivor Series:

Have three Survivor matches plus the WWE champion defending the title.
Two 5 on 5 matches, or 6 on 6. Then have these matches go very long, 1-2 hours each. Make them epic. Give it enough time so the audience can feel how the dynamic changes once a guy gets eliminated. After those matches the WWE champion defends the title. And after that you have a third Survivor match, where the two surviving teams face one another. The survivors of that match are then all number one contenders for the WWE championship at the next PPV. It could be a one on one match, Triple threat, fatal four way, etc., depending on how many survivors there are.

With this setup you can even play with the whole babyface/heel dynamic. Arch rivals can be on the same team, but they will have to work together because they both know they can help each other get that title shot. Things can get interesting when in the third match they try sabotaging each other so they won't be their opponents at the next PPV.

Now THAT would be a Survivor Series I would care to see!

 

[Dead-Angel]

really simple just return the original idea 5 VS 5 elimination tag team match, raw vs smackdown, with the stipulation that the guy who scores the last pin and win for the team gets the title shot at the next ppv, then it would be really competitive

 

[Soulblazed]

Fair enough, but could you maybe elaborate on how WWE can fit roughly 10 matches into a 3 hour PPV and still make sure every match, especially the title matches, the battle royal, and the biggest classic elimination matches have enough time so they won't all be rushed and not as good as they could/should be? I'm not saying EVERY match has to be awesome or EVERY match has to have 10-15 minutes but if you're rushing the good ones then it just doesn't make them as good. Unless most, if not all elimination matches are squash matches, then they usually take about a minimum of 15 minutes. So let me try and break this down as best I can.

Opening match: Classic elimination tag: Since this is the opener, and most likely not very important, give it 10 minutes, not counting entrances, so 13 minutes.

Time: 8:15 (because they have to introduce us to the show and hype up the matches)

(Cue promo about the Main events/other matches, maybe a backstage segment, 5 minutes)

2nd match: Classic SSeries match: Ok, maybe another 15 minutes, including entrances.

(Time: 8:35)

(Show video package about a huge rivalry culminating later in the show. Another backstage segment. 10 minutes. Cut back to the ring, champion already in the ring)

Match 3: Title match: 10 minutes in total

(Time: 8:55)

(Hype next PPV, ok maybe a minute. Announcers talk about Main event, WWE App, WWE network, etc. The usual shtick. 2-3 minutes total)


Match 4: Title match: One of the midcard titles, so solid 10-12 minutes not counting entrances. 14 minutes total.)

(Time: 9:15, roughly. Show one or more of the superstars in one of the main events. Interview, perhaps. 1-2 minutes)

(Ok, not bad so far, but now the card isn't halfway done yet)

5th match: One of the better hyped classic elimination matches. This one should go a minimum of 15 minutes, not counting intros.

(Approx. 9:40)

6th and 7th matches: Title matches. These can be diva's and tag title matches, so 10 for the tag title, 5 for the divas, total of 20 minutes so far, minumum. If you add more talking and what-not, it's another 5 minutes.)

(Approx. 10:05)

8th match: The final classic SSeries match. MINIMUM 20 minutes. Not counting intros

(Approx. 10:30)

You see my point? The WWE has a maximum 3 hour block to present their PPV. I know they have the network now, but they still haven't released it anywhere outside the states. So once the three hours are up, they drop right off the air. And I haven't even brought up what happens after the matches. Is there a shocker, a swerve? Does someone get seriously injured, etc.? Count all that in, plus another 20 minutes for the WWE title (at least) and 15 for that battle royal, and you're looking at the PPV not ending until 11:30.

Yea that'd be a problem with things running over-time and the feed cutting off prematurely. WWE could add an extra hour to the Survivor Series PPV so that way there'd be enough time to have all the title matches/elimination tag matches.

 

[kadroan]

They just need to focus on long term booking. They do a good job going into Summerslam, Royal Rumble and WrestleMania.

These days we're lucky to get one gimmick match that the pay per view is named after. I propose maybe the one Survivor Series match they have, the winner gets to pick his spot in the Royal Rumble match or get a title shot at the Royal Rumble.

 

[ccotreau1]

I liked Survivor Series 1990, where all survivors made it to the grand finale series, where it was 3 on 5. I think the WWE needs to go back to that, have it be 4 vs 4 (like Shield and Cena vs Wyatts and Orton) and then the Grand Finale, whomever survives gets a opportunity at the next PPV for the WWE WHC

 

[GameOver]

Thats a given the only thing that will make it the way it was is to bring back the team elimination matches, so in your idea the Grand Finale is an all out brawl, last man standing? cause you'd concievable have a dozen guys who have survived if you had 3 matches, having just 1 match would be pointless

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Get away from this "title shot" or "using it to create stars" rubbish. The reason the original format worked so well was that it was a one night "crash course" to the WWE roster. Each team of 5 had a "captain" who was the main eventer, a tag team, a midcarder/up and comer and a jobber.

You could see through the eliminations and the course of the match who was on the way up, who was on the way down and who were the "stars". A fan who had not watched WWF for years could get that just from one show a year. In the Hogan era it was also a show where faces COULD lose a pinfall and it not affect their momentum like Jake in 1990.

You did get pushes in the Surivor Matches in the first 3 years but they were subtle, like Bret's in 1990 a strong performance and a "nearly" win over DiBiase. That match did more for Bret's career and finally proved he could be the solo act they'd aborted on 3 times prior, even putting he and Jim on different teams the year prior. Taker debuted, pinned Koko quickly as he was the fodder for him and then brawled out of the match with Dusty... the job was done. He didn't need to be the "sole survivor" or even run through the team for DiBiase...

So get back to that strict reason for the PPV, no major "changes" or turns, this is your "way in" to the WWE if you're a casual fan, match today might look like.

The Vipers

Evolution , Bad News Barrett, Bo Dallas v The Shield, RVD & Tyson Kidd

Cena, Sheamus, The Usos & Christian v The Wyatt Family, ADR & Fandango

Perhaps bring back 1990's finale match but only for sole survivors... that way you could end up with say Barrett vs Cena as Evolution and Shield take each other out and Bo and Tyson are "easy pins" for someone. The Wyatts get disruped in some way or Cena is able to overcome Bray at the death to be sole surivor...

They can then introduce the idea of Barrett as a top guy but not have the distraction a title shot or prize etc at stake... They can talk of his history, even have him do the "Bad News...the match starts now" That's just one example, but it'd be more meaningful than having a title shot as the prize...

 

[Dagger Dias]

The biggest problem with the Survivor Series brand is the lack of attention paid to its namesake matches. The traditional tag team Survivor Series matches for a long time now have just been thrown together for the sake of having a match. I would place more emphasis on the team matches. There also needs to be more of them! It is an opportunity to get nearly the entire roster onto the card. There should be at the very least three traditional Survivor Series matches on the card. One for midcarders, one for divas, and one for upper carders or main eventers. Then you have your world title match, a midcard title match, and a filler match. There's your Survivor Series card.

Midcarder tier Surivor Series match
Midcard title match
Filler
World Heavyweight Championship match
Divas Survivor Series match
Main event tier Survivor Series match

Now that is a card format I could get behind. The main focus needs to be on the namesake matches with more effort put into the formations of the teams and their alliances going into the match. I'm fine with the main event tier Survivor Series match going on last. It would help the match type and this brand seem important again. Pushes come afterward for the captains of the winning teams, I'd consider them getting title shots at TLC or at the Royal Rumble.

 

[bestintheworld.j.h33]

To fix Survivor Series they'd have to go back to the 4 on 4 elimination matches with team name and captains for EVERY MATCH on the card like it used to be. And the matches back then lasted more than 5 or 10 min. I also like the year that all the survivors for each face or heel team faced off in an ultimate survivor match at the end. That's how i'd fix it