Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, ROH, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums

Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, ROH, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/)
-   WWE PPV (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-ppv/)
-   -   Opinion: PPV-schedule (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-ppv/729722-opinion-ppv-schedule.html)

WWE-TNA-Fan 03-17-2013 01:28 PM

Opinion: PPV-schedule
 
I think one major problem in WWE currently is the overfilled PPV-schedule and all those gimmick PPVs! I don't like the idea of a PPV which is specific for one match type like Hell in a Cell or TLC! Also do I think that 12 PPVs are far too much! Because of that I would love to have a reform in this criteria: Well I would book it like that:

WWE has 4 major PPVs with WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble! These are PPVs that should stay and be the main angle in the development of WWE! So I would suggest to have a specific date for each of these shows:

Royal Rumble: Last Sunday of January
Wrestlemania: Last Sunday of April
Summer Slam: Last Sunday of July
Survivor Series: Last Sunday of October


Now with this schedule you have your 4 major PPVs set! Now you have to fill up the time between these shows! I think one supporting PPV between 2 major PPVs is more then enough! Since you would have about 12-14 weeks between the major PPVs, you could place supporting PPVs right in the middle of 2 major ones! So I would suggest following schedule:
  • Royal Rumble
  • One Night Stand
  • WrestleMania
  • King of the Ring (or something else)
  • Summer Slam
  • Night of Champions
  • Survivor Series
  • Armageddon

With this schedule you would have 8 PPVs a year and the major PPVs would gain some prestige! This would also help WWE to build some good feuds between the PPVs because they would have about 6 or 7 weeks between two PPVs! Also would all the unnecessary gimmick PPVs be gone!

So what do you think about this?

redban 03-17-2013 01:33 PM

Re: Opinion: PPV-schedule
 
I agree with you. We have too many PPVs. We have too many shows in general. I really think WWE should cut Smackdown, Superstars, and all that other dead weight. The only shows they need are RAW each week and 4-8 PPVs per year.

The reason they created Smackdown and 12 PPVS is because WCW did it; they felt they needed to create these extra shows to remain competitive (they didn't).

Today, there is no reason to have so many shows on television.

I'M A CM PUNK GIRL 03-17-2013 01:35 PM

Re: Opinion: PPV-schedule
 
good idea, having 12 ppvs a year is ridiculous especially when you have gimmick ppvs like hiac where you only have 1 match with a cell in it

RenegadexParagon 03-17-2013 01:37 PM

Re: Opinion: PPV-schedule
 
Six PPV's is ideal imo.

Royal Rumble
WrestleMania
King of The Ring
SummerSlam
Night Of Champions
Survivor Series

Your PPV schedule is also good. As long as there isn't 9-12 PPV's a year, I shall endorse it. (Y)

I'M A CM PUNK GIRL 03-17-2013 01:39 PM

Re: Opinion: PPV-schedule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by redban (Post 15486290)
I agree with you. We have too many PPVs. We have too many shows in general. I really think WWE should cut Smackdown, Superstars, and all that other dead weight. The only shows they need are RAW each week and 4-8 PPVs per year.

The reason they created Smackdown and 12 PPVS is because WCW did it; they felt they needed to create these extra shows to remain competitive (they didn't).

Today, there is no reason to have so many shows on television.

maybe have just raw smackdown and nxt, like you said we dont need morning slam, superstars, main event etc and then just the 8 ppvs a year

WWE-TNA-Fan 03-17-2013 01:48 PM

Re: Opinion: PPV-schedule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by england66 (Post 15486442)
maybe have just raw smackdown and nxt, like you said we dont need morning slam, superstars, main event etc and then just the 8 ppvs a year

I think SmackDown should be live! Because since it isn't live anymore the WHC has lost its prestige because SD was the WHCs show! Now the match for the World title is an opener! I mean back in 2008/09 you had 2 very good booked brands! With Raw having John Cena vs Randy Orton and Smackdown having CM Punk vs Jeff Hardy! That was a great time! But since then the booking has permanentely gone down!

ninealevyn 03-17-2013 01:49 PM

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.

WWE-TNA-Fan 03-17-2013 01:57 PM

Re: Opinion: PPV-schedule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ninealevyn (Post 15486762)
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.

First of all I am not a TNA fan! I am watching both WWE and TNA but I think that WWE's schedule is overfilled! I mean why do they need 12 PPVs! Because of the gimmick PPVs the big four are losing prestige, especially Survivor Series! It just seems to be one of many!

Actually there are too much because the time between the PPVs varies a lot! I mean from Royal Rumble to Elimination Chamber there are 3 weeks! Then to WrestleMania there are 7 weeks! And as you see currently the creative doesn't have the time to build up some lenghty rivalries! Especially in the mid-card! So to reduce the number of PPVs would have a good impact on the product in the future!

ZBrillBladeTim 03-17-2013 02:42 PM

Re: Opinion: PPV-schedule
 
I know most people hate the gimmick PPVS, but I kind of like them. Sorry! There are 2 major problems with them though: the names are often rubbish (Elimination Chamber or Extreme Rules aren't very endearing names for a wrestling show) and the fact that the novelty of special matches such as Hell in a Cell is ruined because you know they will happen and they are used for feuds which haven't reached the necessary level to make such a match type worthwhile. However, I do think the gimmicks help the match quality - MITB 2011 was one of the greatest WWE PPVs ever, not just because of the great main event, but because it was backed up by an exciting undercard which helped to elevate young stars such as Daniel Bryan and Alberto Del Rio. TLC 2012 encouraged the bookers to think innovatively and give us the Shield/Hell No + Ryback TLC match, which was awesome and would not have been considered for an ordinary ppv. With that said, this would be my ideal, 10-show-per-year PPV schedule:

January: Royal Rumble
February: No Way Out (Elimination Chamber Main Event, maybe the opener is EC too)
March/April: WrestleMania
May: Backlash ('Extreme' WM rematches)
June: Breaking Point (I actually love this concept, but its execution in 2009 wasn't great - the Main Event(s) is/are a Submission/Iron-Man/I Quit/Last Man Standing match to fit the PPV name)
July: King of the Ring (the tournament winner gets a WWE/World title match at Summerslam - a Royal Rumble equivalent)
August: Summerslam
September/October: TLC (1 TLC match, 1 Ladder match, 1 Tables match, 1 Chairs match - I like this concept, it always results in a entertaining show, and it made the inevitable trainwreck of a Triple H/Kevin Nash match actually quite decent!)
November: Survivor Series (a traditional 5-vs-5 Elimination Tag match should be the main event)
December: Armageddon (1 Hell in a Cell main event to close the year's out in dramatic style)

Basically, I would keep the gimmick PPVs, but change their names and tone down the number of matches using the gimmicks in order to make the PPVs less formulaic and predictable

TripleHEvolution 03-17-2013 03:03 PM

Re: Opinion: PPV-schedule
 
I think that 8/9 a year would be fine, you could then have at least an extra week or so of build for the main 5 cause let's face it, Night of Champions is basically considered the 5th major PPV nowadays. Bring back King of the Ring without doubt! But put that in December to end the year with the winner becoming No.1 Contender at the Rumble which'd bring some prestige back to the tournament, so it's a must win tournament for big names as well. Get rid of the dead wood PPVs like Over the Limit and whatever they decide to have in June (No Way Out, Capitol Punishment, Payback) for example. Anyway here's my personal PPV schedule:

January - Royal Rumble
February - Elimination Chamber
April - WrestleMania
May - Extreme Rules
Late June/Early July - Money in the Bank
August - SummerSlam
Late September/Early October - Night of Champions
November - Survivor Series
December - King of the Ring

:)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2