Wrestling Forum banner

Yay or Nay? WWE needs to cut down on PPVs in 2016

4K views 66 replies 61 participants last post by  Bazinga 
#1 ·
For me I think so WWE has 2 many PPVs to worry about when they can be putting on better RAWs and SmackDowns! like they use to. If I could pick the 2016 WWE PPVs I would cut back and just do this:

January - Royal Rumble (have 3 month ppv break to have a great road to wm)

April - WrestleMania 32

May - Extreme Rules

June - Money in the Bank

August - SummerSlam

October - No Mercy

November - Survivor Series

December - TLC
 
#4 · (Edited)
If I had it my way, there would 6 PPVs a year. That way, feuds don't get stale because their big match would occur every two months and they would get wrapped up better and more often because they wouldn't want four months of the same feud without matches. The eventual match would also seem like a bigger deal.
 
#43 ·
You would probably have to cut the price down in the off months then. IF they wanted to do this, then they should of done so at the start of the network now they are in to deep.

Also we are dealing with wwe creative, not as bad as tna creative but still pretty bad, the shows are still the same. Honestly many months the only saving grace has been their pay per views, the raws and smackdowns are SO bad. You would have to increase the product TEN FOLD to this.
 
#14 ·
Oh my goodness, another one of these silly threads? When are people going to learn. It's to the point where I have to take an old post of mind...and add on top of it.

I actually want MORE PPVs like Elimination Chamber and more Supercards like Beast In The East.

To me, Monday Night Raw can suffer some doldrums periods, because sometimes it can suffer from house show levels of workrate and playing it safe.

Since, NO MATTER WHAT Raw will be Raw, if there's more Network PPVs or Supercards like Beast In The East, we'll get more PPV-level matches, instead of having to wait, every 4 weeks for them, especially during horrible waits, like Battleground (arguably the worst PPV brand of the Reality Era with the laziest build since the writers just really want to get to SummerSlam already).

Being that they also perform some stellar house show work and do have things like Madison Square Garden shows coming up, it'll be great to see those high level performances and side-builds, while we wait for the other PPVs.

Even in the 80s/Early 90s, business always took severe nosedives between Wrestlemania and SummerSlam, especially often if a babyface was champion during that period winning it from Wrestlemania. (Since you already had what you want when you watched it)

So, no, don't cut the PPVs now in the Reality Era when we have the WWE Network to sell. The whole point of the Network was to be able to support 12 PPVs a year for a modern day over-the-top concept format, in pricing and delivery.
The writers said they felt smoother writing ppvs with some specials thrown in every 2 weeks. You can hate Payback, Elimination Chamber and MITB all you want, but instead, you'd be complaining about the long wait between Payback and Money In The Bank. The stakes of TV matches would actually worsen over time, for viewers who want snippets of WWE history, anything monumental gets lost in a bunch of numbered Raws.

At least with what they added, you got MORE great matches, with no commercials. They also rotated the talent better when they did Payback and Chamber, Roman Reigns was already building up for MITB before Chamber even started, meanwhile, Ambrose was trying to hype up Chamber. It rotated very smoothly.

More specials, let you do things off to the side that you couldn't do normally. That's what Chamber did.

Also, you would BARELY see mid-card talent get their time on PPVs, you'd see the same people get to wrestle long big-feel matches.

For those that complain about the B-ppv feel, well it would be way worse if you got rid of them, then you'd be complaining about someones WWE Championship match getting lost in the fold on a Raw.

We still need the PPVs, because we need a time that tells the audience:

- You are watching an event with more wrestling on it.
- You are probably a more hardcore fan for ordering this event so you don't need more mainstream presentation of promos and plugs to get you to invest in it. You're probably here for the wrestling matches, an apex of a feud.
- You are less likely to be screwed over by a non-finish at a PPV. (Note, less likely)
- Even if you do get a non-finish, you're probably still going to get a PPV-quality match out of it anyways.
- Because you are a paying customer, you get to watch gimmick matches that don't normally happen on Raw or even if you are watching matches you've seen before, wrestlers will pull out arsenal that they only use on PPVs.

There's just so much to the business you guys aren't getting and you would be cheating yourself to more doldrums Raws where they dilly dally for 3 hours. Ratings would go down and they'd only start watching again around when the PPVs start. Now people want more big-feeling matches in general in this new Reality Era.

You have to accommodate that.
 
#3 ·
No they dont need less but they need to rotate talent better. Maybe at Hell in a cell Sasha Banks vs Nikki gets alot build and time. Then at survivor series Rollins vs Takeror something. Then at tlc Dudleys vs Ambrose&Reigns gets build and time. Doesnt have to be the same people getting time. You can rotate around so that everybody gets a little shine at the end of the year. After hell in a cell everybody talk about Sasha taking the belt from Nikki. At tlc everybody talk about the dudleys killing ambrose&reigns in a tlc match etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: ITRK93
#6 ·
IMO 12 PPVs only works if the Brand Split occurs.

Come to think of it, Outside the big 4 (well 3, Survivor Series lost tons of reputation IMO) and Money In The Bank, we can get more weeks of build up (that two week build up for Elimination Chamber and Money In The Bank was a disaster), we get the draft back and no rushed storylines. But then again, Main Roster proved that even with months of build up (look at this year's RTWM) the storylines were a failure.

And the gimmick PPVs such as Extreme Rules, TLC, Hell In A Cell and Elimination Chamber should be totally scrapped.
 
#12 ·
They need to stop having tag team matches involving two singles competitors who are having a match at the PPV a week before the PPV. The PPV matches are supposed to have a big build up to the confrontation. Its hard to get excited for something that you just saw last week.
 
#13 ·
I say less "PPVs" and more live events on the Network. Beast in the east was fantastic, NXT Brookyln was awesome and the atmosphere was amazing. Can't wait for the Madison Square Garden live event. :mark::mark::mark:

Seriously those events had such an old school edge to them that I'm amazed it's the same company that did Summerslam. How so much go wrong in 24 hours blows my mind.
 
#24 ·
Less is more, I would like to see 6, 8 max during a year:

Royal Rumble
Wrestlemania
Summerslam
Survivor Series

+ 2/4 "minor" ones
 
  • Like
Reactions: southrnbygrace
#34 ·
Apparently, WWE makes money on having this amount of PPVs per year, so they should keep it like this, unfortunately, from a business standpoint. But from a fan perspective and keeping shit fresh perspective, I'd rather they do it like this:

January: Royal Rumble

March: WrestleMania

June: KOTR

August: SummerSlam

November: Survivor Series

That will never happen again, unfortunately.
 
#62 ·
I recall reading somewhere during that time in May-June where they had like shitloads of PPVs that they wanted to increase the amount of specials and PPVs they did per year. Having to come up with content for RAW and SmackDown in between PPVs was frustrating for them and hard. They felt that it was less stressful to come up with PPV content than RAW and SmackDown content. I personally like the shorter periods between PPVs and specials. It helps progress storylines and keeps things fresh.

The longer time between PPVs makes shit really fucking boring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ITRK93
#5 ·
Of course they need less. No more than 6 a year. Hell most of them are like episodes of RAW pretty much anyways.
 
#15 ·
Eight PPV's seems like the right number to me.

January - Royal Rumble

April - Wrestlemania

May - Backlash

June - Judgement Day

August - Summerslam

September - Unforgiven

November - Survivor Series

December - Armageddon

I'd totally scrap gimmick PPV's that are named after matches and I'd move the MITB match back to Wrestlemania.

Will never happen though.
 
#17 ·
personally I think there are too many.

That said 12 could be accommodated but at the moment it all seems rushed.

if you look at Nikki Bellas reign the title hasn't been defended at every PPV there have been Tag matches and such so if you could still keep the title matches to around 6 a year I think it would be workable without devaluing the titles.

it would take a lot of planning but it do able
 
#18 ·
The 12 PPVs would work well if they can rotate their talent efficiently, and if they build their feuds and book matches that are great as well. If they can't it's better to lessen the number of PPVs, enough that $9.99 for the network is worth it, build feuds in time and have their rosters have their moments while not sacrificing their story lines.
 
#19 ·
Yes. 4 to 6 would be the ideal number, but it will never happen. Monthly PPV's are a big selling point for the network. Plus, 3 hour Raws and 2 hour Smackdowns weekly they wouldn't be able to sustain the build seeing as they give away most big matches for free anyway. If they had less PPV's, they wouldn't burn threw all of their stories to quickly. I don't see them cutting PPV's anytime soon if ever.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top