Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With so many PPV's nowdays and a lack of new stars and the Top-Level PPV's not drawing as much (excluding mania) I was thinking that everyone of the Big 4 PPV's should have something set-up at the PPV before it.

Think of it this way, the Royal Rumble designates the man who should face the WWE champ at mania, it's a huge thing for anyone. Sometimes WWE are too cautious to give it to a new person so they do it with an existing star e.g. Batista and this years rumble.
Which is why I thought WWE could do the same for summerslam and survivor series. Before SummerSlam, have Money in the Bank. Have the winner in a big upper midcard match at summerslam or have them cash it in, in advance e.g. Roman Reigns wins and says the next night on Raw that he's going to cash in at summerslam and you have 4 weeks to build the main event, makes Reigns look much stronger rather than cashing in after someone elses match which is SO played out and predictable now.

The biggest help I think though will be having King of the Ring as the set-up PPV for Survivor Series. The viewership usually takes a dive after night of champions until around Rumble time, and Survivor Series is a shell of the PPV it once was.
Imagine in October you have King of the Ring where you really test and showcase midcard talents by having three matches in one night (makes booking easy with not having to create storylines or random feuds to put 2 midcard guys together). Guys like Cesaro and Rollins would absolutely excel in something like this, and at the end of it you will have a king of the ring who looks formidable and would have something huge to market survivor series on, 'the king of the ring vs the world heavyweight champion'.

You could even have a set-up for Rumble if you want by starting the rumble qualifying matches at the december ppv, if its TLC then a ladder or TLC match for the number 30 spot? or at least a no.1 contenders match for the world heavyweight title at rumble.

what do you guys think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,046 Posts
I like tying them all together in some way. But the long time in between hurts. What if you screw up like letting Batista win the Rumble? You could do that 4 times a year. But then again, you'd have some other good potential setups.

What would also be cool is if the Rumble winner loses to anyone before WM, that person should win their slot in the ME. And the champ should be defending his title leading up to WM so he can get replaced last minute.

Same thing with Money in the Bank. If you lose to someone before you cash in MITB, you lose your briefcase to that person.
 

·
Such a Man
Joined
·
538 Posts
I don't think they need something that formulaic - doing that would make them even more lazy and complacent in terms of their PPV build. They just need to make better use of the time they have between events and do a better job at long term, quality storytelling.

There's the same amount of PPV's these days as there was 14-15 years ago; only these days there's more time to flesh things out between events. The number of PPV's isn't the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,661 Posts
I know what you are saying, but I can't see it happening.

I do wish they would switch Elim Chamber and MITB. Money in the Bank right before Mania would add so much I feel.

WCW back in the old days had it perfect with a Clash shortly before each PPV event.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top