Re: Opinion: PPV-schedule
Obviously, you're a TNA fan, thinking they should readopt the format. Here's the problem with that; TNA wasn't generating enough money from the PPV's to justify having them. I'm not saying they were tanking, because they weren't but the new set up is more beneficial for them. WWE on the other hand would lose money reducing it less than 12 a year. They did cut one this year though, they cut Over the Limit and moved Extreme Rules til May.
There's also a big flaw not only with you're thinking about the gimmick PPVs but over all. Royal Rumble, King of The Ring, Survivor Series they were all gimmick PPV's, the only difference is they were old, so it made them "traditional". From a marketing stand point "Elimination Chamber" "Extreme Rules" "Money In The Bank" "Hell In A Cell" and "TLC" are better than "No Way Out" "Armageddon" etc. because they actually say what's going on. It might not be is catchy, neither but it's better than a generic name that means nothing to the show. "Payback" coming up is stupid.
The PPV will NEVER be named "One Night Stand" again, for obvious reasons. The current schedule is fine, honestly, the only PPV that hurts is Hell In A Cell because the feuds are never aligned to justify a hell in a cell. Which is why HHH vs Undertaker had the best Hell in A Cell in years.
Why is 12 PPV's to much, it's one a month.
Plus, TNA isn't doing anything revolutionary. This is kind of EXACTLY what the In Your House serious was to be to the big four. Originally, they cost less than the big four and were an hour shorter. Eventually WWE just changed it to a full PPV a month with Mania being the only real price/time difference.
When WWE had 15 a year it was over kill. One a month is fine. They need to figure out what they want to do with June instead of changing it every year.