Normally, I agree with the two of you on a variety of topics, but today, I completely DISAGREE. I look at this stipulation as a way to keep fans interested heading into a "nothing" pay-per-view.
It's no secret that the WWE usually goes into cruise-control after Summerslam and doesn't start getting serious again until after New Year's when they officially start "The Road to Wrestlemania". I look at TLC no differently than I looked at Hell in a Cell...filler.
After Brock Lesnar retained his title at Night of Champions, many of us were excited because we expected Brock to become a semi-regular character again. At the very least, we thought he would show up on Raw the night after the pay-per-view to address his situation and at least defend his title at alternative pay-per-views. We soon learned that he would not be wrestling again until The Royal Rumble, and we would not even see him again in-person until January (or late December).
I think fans were pretty irate over this news, and because the WWE rarely focuses on more than one angle at a time, fans had little to no interest in the next pay-per-view (Hell in a Cell). Luckily, Dean Ambrose returned from filming and resumed his feud with Seth Rollins (so at least the fans had something), but overall, there was not much else for the fans to invest in.
Rather than go all-in with Rollins vs. Ambrose at Hell in a Cell, the WWE decided to hedge their bet. They booked John Cena vs. Randy Orton as their fail-safe. Now, even though these two are the top two stars of the company, we've seen them face-off numerous times, including inside a cell. So what did the WWE do? They added a stipulation: The winner becomes the #1 contender for the WWE Championship. At the very least, this upped the stakes, gave fans hope that Randy Orton could come out on top, and provided potential for Brock Lesnar to start a fresh feud. People actually bought in. I did not (although I may have had a teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy amount of hope that Randy Orton could miraculously pull out the match). Nonetheless, the match came and went with Cena predictably winning and becoming (or staying) the #1 contender. The WWE accomplished what their goal was...killing time.
Now, here we are two months later, and I see the exact scenario taking place again. TLC is nothing more than filler. John Cena vs. Seth Rollins is nothing more than filler. It might as well be John Cena vs. Randy Orton again. And at a pay-per-view like this, a 1 on 1 match with John Cena is as predictable as it gets. John Cena will win, and that will be that. But again, the WWE tries to spice things up so they added a stipulation. This time, the stipulation would take away what the prior stipulation gave him. Ironic, huh? But again, much like Hell in a Cell, this stipulation is merely meant to keep people interested until New Year's. At least with this stipulation, fans can ponder who could potentially be the new #1 contender? Would Seth Rollins automatically become the new #1 contender? Would it be handed to someone? Would they have to earn it? Who's in the mix? Dolph Ziggler has momentum. What about a returning Randy Orton? Does Daniel Bryan shock everyone and return out-of-nowhere? The possibilities are endless...except they're not.
John Cena is winning this match. Yes, Rollins will have his cronies, Joey Mercury and Jamie Noble, interfere. And they can because it's a "Tables Match" so disqualification is allowed, even encouraged. And this will setup a return by The Viper. He will cost Rollins the match (and Rollins will not look weak because he'll simply get tossed through a table rather than get pinned or submit), and this will kickoff Orton vs. Rollins heading into New Year's.
But again, this whole pay-per-view is nothing more than filler. I mean, look at the card. Dean Ambrose vs. Bray Wyatt is nothing. They have practically no storyline and keep making these two cut tiresome promo after promo. Personally, I like both of them and think they could be main-eventers, but clearly, the higher ups have no desire to make their feud interesting. We also have Ryback vs. Kane. Can you say squash match? Does it even elevate Ryback or give him further momentum? Not really. Dolph Ziggler vs. Luke Harper should be a really good match, but it won't sell the pay-per-view. I will admit that Erick Rowan is interesting right now and continues to improve in the ring. I had him pegged for "future endeavored" once The Wyatt Family dissolved, but he has a little momentum. Unfortunately, a match against The Big Show isn't going to be long enough or exciting enough to elevate him even higher. I can't even keep up with The Big Show's allegiances anymore, anyway. I've always liked The Big Show but his heel-to-face flip-flopping is ridiculous. And then we have the tag team titles. Damien San...I mean Mizdow is completely over with the crowd, but I have zero confidence the WWE will actually take advantage of his buzz in the long-run. As for the match itself, the Usos aren't winning. This is a mini-feud meant to kill time as is TLC, itself.
On a side note: I also find it ironic that at Survivor Series, John Cena was bitching about The Authority and how unfair they were, but he had EVERYTHING to gain and NOTHING to lose. Now, with The Authority gone, in his next match, he has EVERYTHING to lose and NOTHING to gain.
