Why don't they book stable vs stable?

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

I've wondering about this for ages. Stables sell. Isn't the Invasion angle considered one of the most entertaining angles ever? Same goes for Nexus, too. Authority was also entertaining up until WM 30. Four Horsemen, Evolution, DX. Bullet Club. Stables sell!

DX vs Nation is one of the most entertaining angles ever and it did wonders for Rock and HHH. And it's the only angle where two stables came to blows, just because they were there at the time. In all the other angles (Invasion, Nexus) the good guys came together to fight the bad guys. What I'm talking about is two existing stables coming to blows for supremacy.

RAW, with Lesnar holding the title hostage, could be the perfect place for such angle in order to give the fans something new and entertaining and in order to give many wrestlers something to fight for when Lesnar isn't there.

You have 3 "kings" currently on RAW:
1) King of Kings, Triple H
2) Demon King, Finn Balor
3) King of the Cruiserweights, Neville
These are the perfect people to create stables under their name

Add there the angle of Bray Wyatt looking for new followers. Add a mini-Shield reunion. How can I be the only one hyped for an angle like that that can play out and be a subtitute to the Universal Championship?
You can have alliances, betrayals, heel turns, face turns. Unpredictability and with some good writing it can become gold.

But let's not take thing so far and create 4 stables on RAW and turn it into Game of Thrones. Let's ask the simple question first:

Why don't they book stable vs stable angles more frequently?

and then,

Would you like to see an angle where 4 stables go to the ultimate war against one another?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I sorta look at WWE being on one end of the extreme while other promotions, like ROH or New Japan, are on the other. WWE doesn't do stable vs. stable angles very often at all while ROH and New Japan do too damn often. WWE has never really been stable happy as in they usually don't have 3, 4 or 5 stables running around all at once and have gone the route of trying to keep stables more of a rarity in the hopes that it'll have more impact when they do pop up. When WWE is serious about stables, such as the Corporation, DX, Evolution and the Shield, we're treated to a good deal of classic feuds, matches and moments. Other times, we get stuff like either the Brood, 3MB or the Nation of Domination that are either jokes or are viewed retroactively as being much better than they were at the time if there were legit breakout stars like Edge & Christian and the Rock; I sure as hell wasn't paying money to see Gangrel, Kama, Farooq or D-Lo Brown.

Usually, it's easier to have one dominant stable sort of...well dominating things than it is to have 2, 3 or even 4 at one time vying for control. Stable vs. stable angles, for me, only work if the stables are on a comparable level and that's easier to do with 2 of them going at it instead of a three or fourway stable war going on. By keeping such angles between only 2 stables, there's much less of a chance that the stables will be able to provide big moments for all those involved rather than for the vast majority of the people involved being little more than background players. The number of people in the stable is something important to consider as well with 3 or 4 being, in my view, the ideal numbers.

It'd be cool if these sorts of things took place more, but only if the creative output is there and that's a crapshoot. Vince McMahon can be very high on something one week and be really tired of it the next, so it all comes down to the decision of a singular individual who can be quite unstable when it comes to booking decisions at times. Plus, Vince puts a lot of limitations on the creative team that, again, there's the risk of things just not coming close to realizing their full potential.

 

[Radical]

Why don't they book stable vs stable angles more frequently?

and then,

Would you like to see an angle where 4 stables go to the ultimate war against one another?

They don't book stable vs stable angles more frequently, frankly, because Vince doesn't seem to be interested in that right now. Stables are big investments because if they aren't given proper care they turn into jokes like 3MB.

The other thing about stables is, they do have to be pretty full investment by WWE (Vince) because if they are going to be done well, they have to come across dominant and serious. They basically have to be a big part of a show, not just a tiny part like how a tag team might have some good segments, if they just stay in the tag division they really haven't taken over the show unless they get a push to go bigger.

So, with a stable, generally they have to have a main goal. Is their goal to have their leader become the top champion? (which, generally should be the case) or to just cause chaos? (this can be okay for a little while, but can't go on for too long)

But, if you look at any of the major stables of the past, yes, the main goal is for the leader (and sometimes the other members) to become champion.

- Ministry of Darkness worked to get Undertaker a title shot
- DX worked to get Triple H in titles shots and by extension New Age Outlaws into tag title shots
- Evolution mainly worked for Triple H to be champion but also got ALL of their members to become champion at one point
- Nexus worked to get leader Wade Barrett into title matches
- The Shield, first caused chaos, but then worked to get into title opportunities, first tag champs and then a mid-card title

So, the stable doesn't HAVE to have the leader go for the TOP title (Shield) or be fully successful in getting the top title (Nexus) in order to be successful, but they do pretty much have to be involved in title opportunities relatively soon after their formation or there is not much point in having it to begin with.


To do a stable right now you would basically have to look at who are the top stars in line for top titles right now an decide if you could put them into a stable, who would start it up, and who would be left out. Eventually, you can then decide which babyfaces team up to try and stop the stable running amok.


But with all those 'issues' you need to consider when creating a stable. I think it is definitely worth it. All the week to week interest that comes from a dominant stable growing and those resisting it. The inevitable alliances, betrayals and turns to look out for are all part of the interest.



Would I like to see 4 stables go at it in an ultimate war? Technically yes, but logistically, I don't think WWE has EVER successfully done that. Someone can correct me on that if it has happened before but the track record for just ONE dominant stable vs others is not even that great, let alone more than one. Unless you count tag teams, but they aren't really stables unless they have more than 2 members (not including a manager).

Realistically, I'd just like to see that most of the year in WWE there is a dominant stable on Raw and SmackDown and a few smaller teams (teams of 2 or 3) that band together to try and defeat the top stable, and through that, come all the interesting twists and turns. You can still have your new stars debuting and having matches and title shots. You can still have titles that aren't the focus of the stable, but having a fairly significant stable most of the year in WWE, I think would be important.

 

[Rulk25]

The closest I can think of to a full on 4 way Stable battle was during what WWE called Gang Wars
Featuring the Nation, Los Boriquas and Disciples of Apoc.....and then to round it out a fourth group was thrown in the TRUTH Commision.....
The fact that only one group had any legs and is even recalled proves your point...I mean the Only Breakout of anyone besdies the Rock was the manager of the TC who went onto become Cyrus in ECW

They don't book stable vs stable angles more frequently, frankly, because Vince doesn't seem to be interested in that right now. Stables are big investments because if they aren't given proper care they turn into jokes like 3MB.

The other thing about stables is, they do have to be pretty full investment by WWE (Vince) because if they are going to be done well, they have to come across dominant and serious. They basically have to be a big part of a show, not just a tiny part like how a tag team might have some good segments, if they just stay in the tag division they really haven't taken over the show unless they get a push to go bigger.

So, with a stable, generally they have to have a main goal. Is their goal to have their leader become the top champion? (which, generally should be the case) or to just cause chaos? (this can be okay for a little while, but can't go on for too long)

But, if you look at any of the major stables of the past, yes, the main goal is for the leader (and sometimes the other members) to become champion.

- Ministry of Darkness worked to get Undertaker a title shot
- DX worked to get Triple H in titles shots and by extension New Age Outlaws into tag title shots
- Evolution mainly worked for Triple H to be champion but also got ALL of their members to become champion at one point
- Nexus worked to get leader Wade Barrett into title matches
- The Shield, first caused chaos, but then worked to get into title opportunities, first tag champs and then a mid-card title

So, the stable doesn't HAVE to have the leader go for the TOP title (Shield) or be fully successful in getting the top title (Nexus) in order to be successful, but they do pretty much have to be involved in title opportunities relatively soon after their formation or there is not much point in having it to begin with.


To do a stable right now you would basically have to look at who are the top stars in line for top titles right now an decide if you could put them into a stable, who would start it up, and who would be left out. Eventually, you can then decide which babyfaces team up to try and stop the stable running amok.


But with all those 'issues' you need to consider when creating a stable. I think it is definitely worth it. All the week to week interest that comes from a dominant stable growing and those resisting it. The inevitable alliances, betrayals and turns to look out for are all part of the interest.



Would I like to see 4 stables go at it in an ultimate war? Technically yes, but logistically, I don't think WWE has EVER successfully done that. Someone can correct me on that if it has happened before but the track record for just ONE dominant stable vs others is not even that great, let alone more than one. Unless you count tag teams, but they aren't really stables unless they have more than 2 members (not including a manager).

Realistically, I'd just like to see that most of the year in WWE there is a dominant stable on Raw and SmackDown and a few smaller teams (teams of 2 or 3) that band together to try and defeat the top stable, and through that, come all the interesting twists and turns. You can still have your new stars debuting and having matches and title shots. You can still have titles that aren't the focus of the stable, but having a fairly significant stable most of the year in WWE, I think would be important.