Would it bother you if WWE made PPVs just like UFC?

[Ferreira]

Hi,

For quite some time when I do Booking threads I usually book PPVs for WWE, but I do it a little different from reality, as you know every single PPV has WWE Championship Match, World Heavyweight Championship Match and maybe one or two defenses of the other belts.

When I do it, I use the style UFC use, for example: let's say the next PPV is WWE Backlash, what I usually do is book ONE championship match for that PPV or maybe two, and make them the big deal of that pay-per-view, after all a Championship Match should be the matches you wanted to see.

UFC does this to perfection, every division gets to headline PPVs from time to time, when it's the Middleweight Division Championship on the line, that's the headline of the PPV, not World Heavyweight Championship. The problem with World Wrestling Entertainment is that they don't book their midcard titles as they should, because if they made a big deal of a US Championship or Intercontinental Championship Match I could see them main-eventing alone a PPV.

Would you mind or be bothered if World Wrestling Entertainment started to use UFC model and instead of having every single title on the line at PPVs, make every single defense of the title mean something and put them on their singles PPVs?

I believe it could work but it would take a change to make it work, WWE should focus more on every single belt and reduce the price of the PPVs. Of course you can say they would never do this, and I believe you are 100% correct, but that's not my question, my question is: if booked properly would you mind it?

PS: This of course means that WWE Championship Matches or World Heavyweight Championship Matches wouldn't be a part of RAW or SmackDown as often as they do...

 

[Davi323]

This would only work using the UFC's model for matches. How many fights does a UFC fighter have in a year? Is it less matches than a WWE wrestler has in a week? If wrestlers only wrestled a few times a year, following the UFC's schedule, then of course even the mid-card titles would have more meaning. UFC can get away with only having one title match on a card because that belt is only defended a few times a year, so they have to spread out the title defenses to generate interest in every PPV. If you have 6 titles, they only need to be defended twice a year to cover 12 monthly PPVs.

The WWE simply doesn't work that way.

 

[shafe_41]

Yes. Easy. UFC is real. When you're watching something real, you take quality over quantity. Generally, UFC fights are pretty damn good. They can go 15 minutes, 25 minutes, or be over in the blink of an eye. WWE is fake, timed out, and matches don't mean as much. So if I'm watching something that doesn't mean as much, of course I'm going to want MORE of it. So a 3 hr or 4 hr PPV for WWE is necessary. I (and probably along with many other people of the world that are fans of both) give more of a shit about Jon Jones 2 or 3 fights a year or GSPs 2 or 3 fights per year than I do about John Cena's 23rd televised match of the year in June at a B level PPV. Plus title matches in UFC actually mean something. WWE titles kind of used to mean something, but they're just more of a prop now more than ever the way it gets hot potato'd around.

 

[That Other Guy]

I get what you're trying to say, and it would make sense except for one small detail: the titles in UFC are all equal in prestige. You cannot compare the WWE championship/WHC to the Intercontinental/US championships. There is a specific hierarchy. The so-called "main eventers" battle over the top-tier belts while the mid-carders hold the mid-card belts. In the UFC, the lightweight title is worth just as much as the heavyweight title. Is it Ben Henderson's fault that he isn't 6'3''? No. But he battled his way to the top of his division just like Brock Lesnar (I know he isn't the current champion, but there's your WWE tie-in). His wins are not worth any less than Brock's just because his opponents are smaller. They are viewed as being the same caliber.

So while you have a nice idea, it simply would not work. The Intercontinental belt cannot headline a PPV because you don't have your top guys in contention. And in the end, it's the match-ups that sell tickets, not the title that's on the line.

 

[mlp420]

The first problem with that idea is that not all of the titles in the WWE are divisional. The IC/US titles are meant to be for lower card wrestlers who aren't in the WWE title picture. In the UFC every title is a World title, just for a different weight class.

Another problem is the WWE's model. They have 4 hours of prime time TV every week. UFC usually shows footage of old fights and hype for upcoming PPVs when they're on TV while the WWE has fresh cards. This idea could have worked for the WWE in the late 80s and early 90s when they had a similar model to the one UFC has now, but not in the current enviornment.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

This wouldn't work with WWE's current system and rosters... Too many talents to pay. UFC fighters get paid per fight and are licensed so can only fight when medically cleared by law.

If WWE cut the roster by half, merged all the titles AND split each weight class it would still be the poor relation to UFC.

Where WWE needs to book big events smarter is to take all title matches off of RAW and Smackdown and make title defenses a major thing like back in the 80's. At the moment PPV's are just extended RAW shows with not much to differentiate them.

The "Big 5" concept always worked well as it left at least 2-3 months of TV only to build a feud. A PPV each month means storylines have to play out much quicker and that doesn't work with the UFC style model.

 

[Azane]

WWE has to generate buyrates around entertainment, because competition is a fake mechanic.

WWE pay per views without title defenses would not sell.
It's funny really, WWE doesn't sell it's wrestling value, there's a few really strong wrestlers, but the majority of their roster is more geared toward's entertainment rather than pure athleticism. The current product just won't sell based on pure wrestling, the target audience cares more for storyline, psychology and above all else, hype. PPVs are all about hype in WWE, UFC sells their matches as directly what they are, with much less hype surrounding them.

Remember when WWE were doing Smackdown or RAW only ppvs mixed in with the main ppvs around when the split happened? That idea died fast, as they needed to combine the shows to have relevant buyrates, defending only 1 title basically cuts off half the audience, and you'll notice it's very very rare to not involve a world title, because it does sell.

US/Intercontinental titles aren't worth a damn in drawing power, it's so very rare to see a midcard title match that generates buys, even when the champion is doing well. The main point of midcard titles is to help elevate people from mid to main eventing (At least in today's generation). Switching the focus from that to being a prestigious title is something that would take years of mentality switching, and not even near viable right now, since the youth movement has so many stars caught between mid and main event status.

 

[Pedigree1]

It could work if the WWE titles were held in the same regard as the UFC titles are!! I like this idea but the title in the WWE especially the the US and IC are not held in todays WWE in high regard. UFC titles are held in the same class not one title means more than the other!!

UFC fighters typically champions might fight 3-4 times a year. Its a hard grueling training camp they go through and UFC countdown does an excellent job of showing that!!

I agree i wish the titles were held in prestige the way they are in the UFC. I dont think its practical for the WWE to cut their roster in half and have different weight classes for each title. I think it be an awesome idea i dont wanna see Cena defend his title on some October C rated PPV for the 500th time!! I hope im making sense but probably not

 

[Dagger Dias]

I personally would not support this idea. WWE and UFC are two different sports. The system works for UFC but would not necessarily work in WWE. They struggle to get people to buy the lesser PPV events as it is. If an Intercontinental or United States Championship main evented a PPV that neither world title would be up for grabs at, I guarantee you that it would suffer a low buyrate. I'm talking December to Dismember low. Lower than anyone involved with WWE will ever want to see in the future. They are smart enough to not take such a risk right now.

I'm not saying it would be impossible to ever see this format come to WWE. They have bigger problems to fix before they can even consider it. Will the midcard and world tiers of their titles be unified like the divas and tag team titles did? Will the brand extension end completely? How can they make the fans care enough about the midcard, tag team, and divas titles to purchase a show that has no world title match? Every single WWE PPV event has at least 1 world title match on the card. ALL of them. To suddenly take that away would be a huge risk on WWE's part.

They should focus less on trying to be like UFC (which is exactly what they would be doing in this scenario) and instead focus on trying to rebuild the prestige of the events below the main event. There once was a day when the midcard titles, tag team titles, and even the divas mattered. Until they can get back to that point, this format change will NEVER be possible because they would see buyrates as low as December to Dismember for any show that does not have a world title match on it. They have to make the fans care about ALL divisions like UFC does if they want to do this kind of PPV format. In the end, I still prefer the format they have now. Each show should have at least one world title match and I honestly would probably never purchase a show that does not have one. Even if booking fixed any prestige issues.

 

[Huey]

I think there's a middle ground between what they do now, and the infrequency of titles defenses in the ufc, that would work. For one month they could promote the WHC title, IC or us title, and number one contender for the WWE title. Next month WWE title, IC or US title, and maybe a triple threat or something for the WHC title.

The big 4 have both title matches, the others generally have one or the other. Move the Midcard belts up to a second main event (instead of a smackdown and raw main event have a world title and a midcard title main event) and some kind of number one contender or other main event level storyline without a belt involved. If they can build back some of the prestige to the midcard titles it would be easier for main event and the newer mid carder talents to move back and forth and be competitive.

All that said I'm not sure it would generate any more interest in the titles or buy rates.

 

[sdelfin]

I like the idea, but it would require a big shift in booking philosophy. It's one I think is necessary. It would require that WWE quits giving away title matches on free TV as often as they do. It would also require that they keep top superstars away from each other so that PPV matches would have that big fight feel again. They gave away Jericho vs. Undertaker on Smackdown, twice. Miz vs. CM Punk. 3 times on Raw I think. And of course, Champion vs. Champion with Punk and Brian. Champ vs. Champ used to be special, now it's just a typical Monday. All this change would require another big change, and that is making the mid card strong enough to carry the TV shows so you don't have to give away all your big matches on TV, but that's a whole different topic...

 

[Larry]

I think that a mixture of the two would work rather well, let me explain.

I think that if you PRESENTED the product in the same quickfire way as say UFC Fight Night or UFC Unleashed that it would work. Imagine watching RAW and you don't get a bunch of promo's and video packages. Instead they present every match much in the same way the UFC presents every fight, just one right after the other, then allow your announcers to fill in the audience or squeeze in a few short clips showing a build-up to the match. Present it like a real fight rather than a catalyst in a soap opera storyline and I think that might work. As for PPV's same thing applies, and they aren't too far off as it stands. I wouldn't feature one belt per PPV, I would use this style/format change to make sure EVERY title is on the line every PPV and just as the poster above mentioned, stop giving away the title matches on TV and save them for these PPV's. With less room filled by talking segments, video packages, and other types of promos you could make the matches a little shorter in time but faster paced, and have room FOR all the titles on the card. By the time a PPV was over the viewer would be exhausted from all the rapid paced action and most likely feel like they got more of their moneys worth.

 

[scomvp316]

For it to work first VKM would have to acknowledge that anoter entertainment company exists and is clobbering him. Good luck with that even though the new version of WWEClassics.com looks exactly like UFC's archive online network. WWE would have to make a talent acquistion with either ROH or DGate. WWE just doesn't have enough talent currently and alot of talent in other promotions don't want to go to WWE seeing wrestling is third most important to WWE Management. If they had a huge talent acquisition you could easily seperate the rosters of RAW and SD. No more title matches on tv and better wrestling matches like PPV matches on tv would have to happen and thats not going to happen with this company. VKM will only change his philosophy when HHH actually speaks his mind and UFC totally clobbers WWE in every finacial statistical category!

 

[scottyshowman82]

Interesting thread. WWE booking like the UFC came across my mind when I was thinking about the guys being on the road as much as they do. Guys in the UFC get a lot of time off between matches. I know some people may think this is unheard of but on paper it would be better for the lifestyle aspect of the guys and gals who work their bodies to the bone and are away from family for so long.

You bring up another interesting thing to consider though if they booked UFC style, the importance that would be put on all titles. I've been watching pro wrestling for over 25 years at this point I would welcome seeing something new. If the wrestlers were cool with it in the WWE I'd support it.

 

[Smokeydogg7]

WWE has to generate buyrates around entertainment, because competition is a fake mechanic.

WWE pay per views without title defenses would not sell.
It's funny really, WWE doesn't sell it's wrestling value, there's a few really strong wrestlers, but the majority of their roster is more geared toward's entertainment rather than pure athleticism. The current product just won't sell based on pure wrestling, the target audience cares more for storyline, psychology and above all else, hype. PPVs are all about hype in WWE, UFC sells their matches as directly what they are, with much less hype surrounding them.

Remember when WWE were doing Smackdown or RAW only ppvs mixed in with the main ppvs around when the split happened? That idea died fast, as they needed to combine the shows to have relevant buyrates, defending only 1 title basically cuts off half the audience, and you'll notice it's very very rare to not involve a world title, because it does sell.

US/Intercontinental titles aren't worth a damn in drawing power, it's so very rare to see a midcard title match that generates buys, even when the champion is doing well. The main point of midcard titles is to help elevate people from mid to main eventing (At least in today's generation). Switching the focus from that to being a prestigious title is something that would take years of mentality switching, and not even near viable right now, since the youth movement has so many stars caught between mid and main event status.

the ic belt used to mean just as much as the wwe title remember austin and rocks fued started with the ic belt id say the ic belt at the time was bigger then the wwf belt

 

[ZiggingThenZagging]

I think this could work, but instead of doing it just like UFC, they'd have to do it as a hybrid of the two.

For example: PPV 1 - WWE Title, Intercontinental Title, Divas Championship
PPV 2 - WHC, US Title, Tag Team Championships

What this would do is allow more time to be focused on each individual title. It would put more emphasis on the WHC, Intercontinental Title, and US Title. Instead of the WHC almost always being second fiddle to the WWE Title, it would always get to top it's own PPV. Also, instead of the Intercontinental Title and US Title always being first or second on the card, they could be what is seen in the UFC as the "co-main event." This would allow feuds to actually build for all of the titles, and actually allow the midcard titles a little more spotlight on their respective programs right before a PPV they are being defended at.

As I set it up above, PPV 1 has Raw main championship, Smackdown secondary championship, and interbrand championship. PPV 2 has Smackdown main championship, Raw secondary championship, and interbrand championship. If PPV 1 were drawing near, Smackdown could focus more on the IC title since they don't have to worry about the WHC being defended. When PPV 2 comes up, Raw could focus more on the US title since they don't have to worry about the WWE title being defended.

 

[Azane]

the ic belt used to mean just as much as the wwe title remember austin and rocks fued started with the ic belt id say the ic belt at the time was bigger then the wwf belt

That's why I said it's rare, but not that it never happens, Rock and Austin was one of those exceptions, another is one of the later Y2J Reigns where he made the IC belt look nearly as important as the World Title, but look where those belts are now, I had to actually think for a few minutes to remember Swagger holds the US title, and Cody Rhodes is fighting for the World Title more than he's defending the IC title. Giving the IC/US title to someone like RKO or Cena would only bring them down, not bring the titles up, it'd be a long slippery slope to make the midcard titles mean a lot.

I think this could work, but instead of doing it just like UFC, they'd have to do it as a hybrid of the two.

For example: PPV 1 - WWE Title, Intercontinental Title, Divas Championship
PPV 2 - WHC, US Title, Tag Team Championships

What this would do is allow more time to be focused on each individual title. It would put more emphasis on the WHC, Intercontinental Title, and US Title. Instead of the WHC almost always being second fiddle to the WWE Title, it would always get to top it's own PPV. Also, instead of the Intercontinental Title and US Title always being first or second on the card, they could be what is seen in the UFC as the "co-main event." This would allow feuds to actually build for all of the titles, and actually allow the midcard titles a little more spotlight on their respective programs right before a PPV they are being defended at.

As I set it up above, PPV 1 has Raw main championship, Smackdown secondary championship, and interbrand championship. PPV 2 has Smackdown main championship, Raw secondary championship, and interbrand championship. If PPV 1 were drawing near, Smackdown could focus more on the IC title since they don't have to worry about the WHC being defended. When PPV 2 comes up, Raw could focus more on the US title since they don't have to worry about the WWE title being defended.

The major issue I see with this setup, is that it hurts Kayfabe to make the titles alternate defenses, just to appease a system of raising and lowering standards. You'll still get a bigger draw from having both world titles defended than 1 World, 1 mid and 1 lower title.

It's something that kayfabe allows, for the WWE to setup 4+ title matches per month, and it's something they need to do to draw, rarer title defenses won't actually increases buyrates significantly, and it definitely wouldn't make up for the lost buyrates of crap cards, keep in mind they already are getting terrible buyrates on many off-events with their current system of overbooking.