[GamerGirl]

Know tri= 3 brands but duo-brand ppvs didn't make sense.

PG, aside I think wwe did alot better when, they had RAW ppvs, then SD ppvs.
It gives, the champ plus challenger more than 3 weeks of build up, gives the US/IC title match build up:shocked: also gives some mid-card grudge feud, along side other matches.
Sales also started going to shit after the tri-brand ppvs took place. People pay to see there fav. superstar, and its alot eaiser if you can do so ever 8 weeks and not 3.

What made Summerslam, Survivor Series, Rumble, and Mania the big 4. Cause both world titles were defended at one ppv. Now all ppvs are the same.

Is there any indication that wwe might end this crap?

 

[Ryu Hayabusa]

not in this day and age no because back in the day the wwe actually built up its mid card and had more grudge matches and even when there was a brand extention each show had their set of main eventers (wwe and whc title division) Mid Card (US & IC Title Division) and even the jobbers were interesting because they could wrestle better then most of the roster or they had an interesting gimmick but nowadays wwe gives like 80% of their TV time to the main event fueds thus they dont bother to build up the mid card and they couldnt care less about the US or IC titles and the tag team titles are gathering dust too

back in the day before 2007 i believe both shows still had the ability to put as much focus in their main event products as they put into their mid card but from then onwards not so much i mean look at wrestlemania 26 that kind of card used to be so common and used regularly but nowadays we're lucky to get more then 4 matches that dont completely suck

 

[sayne]

It was a lot worse when they were single brand PPVs. We'll end up with Mark Henry matches on every other PPV and I could really do without that.

 

[Castigear]

They would be hurting their PPV numbers when fans of wrestler X knew their superstar wasn't going to be in every alternating PPV.

 

[Ryu Hayabusa]

also it would help if they didnt have a ppv every other week it seems like these ppvs are becoming like Raw & Smackdown theyre so frequent and not to mention they add unadvertised matches which no-one could care less about

 

[Adramelech]

The current set-up is better than the single-brand PPVs simply because the WWE has seemingly completely forgotten that anything besides the upper card exists. Still, the entire PPV schedule and, to a lesser extent, the entire brand extension make little sense in today's WWE.

Unfortunately, the last I heard WWE were very happy with their PPV set-up, with someone claiming that they would only add more PPVs if they changed it at all.

So no, we're stuck with WWE PRESENTS: ON-A-POLE, THIS SUNDAY ON PPV every three weeks for the foreseeable future.

 

[tombstone1]

Know tri= 3 brands but duo-brand ppvs didn't make sense.

PG, aside I think wwe did alot better when, they had RAW ppvs, then SD ppvs.
It gives, the champ plus challenger more than 3 weeks of build up, gives the US/IC title match build up:shocked: also gives some mid-card grudge feud, along side other matches.
Sales also started going to shit after the tri-brand ppvs took place. People pay to see there fav. superstar, and its alot eaiser if you can do so ever 8 weeks and not 3.

What made Summerslam, Survivor Series, Rumble, and Mania the big 4. Cause both world titles were defended at one ppv. Now all ppvs are the same.

Is there any indication that wwe might end this crap?

I was thinking about the same thing today. I'd prefer it too, but I recognize that it could hurt sales if the top stars appeared every second PPV. What they could do was to have both championships defended on every PPV, so that more big names appear. They could also have more duo-brand PPVs due to their theme(Night of Champions and Bragging Rights for example don't make sense to be single-branded and they could have one more duo-branded PPV, like Elimination Chamber which is on the road to Wrestlemania). This leaves us with half PPVs being duo-branded and the other half being single-branded.
Unfortunately I don't see this ending very soon.

 

[Vin Ghostal]

So no, we're stuck with WWE PRESENTS: ON-A-POLE, THIS SUNDAY ON PPV every three weeks for the foreseeable future.

God, if only, right?!?

Bi-branded (*immature giggling*) PPVs are here to stay. Most of the worst PPVs in WWE history were single-branded shows from 2004-2006, and the roster then was better than it is now. We needn't return to the days of Luther Reigns v. Charlie Haas on PPV.

 

[RVD 1010]

No. Going back to dual-brand PPVs was a good thing. Raw PPVs were still good but the Smackdown ones were horrible most of the time. I don't see that being a possibility anyways with all of the gimmick PPVs there are now.

 

[Mister Hands]

There's a third brand?

 

[MillionDollarProns]

Yeah man, ECW November to Dismember.

 

[Ph3n0m]

I really think anyone who asks for the single branded PPVs to return surely doesn't remember how bad some of them were. There was a point where the only match on the SD one that interested me was Eddie in the main event. Everything else on it would BLOW.

I mean, I get it - you have both brands on the same PPV and then most of the build goes into two world title matches, leaving little room for anyone under them to develop on PPV - but if you go the opposite end and give brands their own PPV - we're gonna see a stretched SD roster trying to fill three hours when they only have enough of a roster to put out maybe three decent matches at an absolute push.

I've been against it for so long, but with the current roster - one brand probably is the best option - but even that has it's flaws too and I don't see it happening anyway.

 

[Demandred]

Know tri= 3 brands but duo-brand ppvs didn't make sense.

PG, aside I think wwe did alot better when, they had RAW ppvs, then SD ppvs.
It gives, the champ plus challenger more than 3 weeks of build up, gives the US/IC title match build up:shocked: also gives some mid-card grudge feud, along side other matches.
Sales also started going to shit after the tri-brand ppvs took place. People pay to see there fav. superstar, and its alot eaiser if you can do so ever 8 weeks and not 3.

What made Summerslam, Survivor Series, Rumble, and Mania the big 4. Cause both world titles were defended at one ppv. Now all ppvs are the same.

Is there any indication that wwe might end this crap?

Yea lets go back to single brand PPVs. Because if theres anything to make people want to throw out $45 on a PPV, its seeing Great Khali, Mark Henry, 2 divas matches, and the Usos.

 

[Crayo]

There's a third brand?

YE TNA.

I actually think the OP is dumb enough to believe that. OP needs to realize how wrong he is and get this thread closed. Single brand PPV's would be fucking shit.

 

[Smackdownfan777]

I liked to have single ppvs back. First of all the wwe would have to build up new stars to sell the ppv. Second, it'll keep raw away from SD.

 

[Camoron]

Nobody ordered the PPVs when they were single branded. Makes more business sense this way.

 

[dxbender]

Days of single branded ppvs sucked! WWE had to pay guys more(needed more refs, commentators and diff superstars making more appearances then they usually did).

Don't get why people liked them, if anything ending the branded ppvs should have made raw and sd better since some feuds that would be ppv worthy with branded ppvs would become feuds we see on tv.

I remember on this forum how much ppl were excited when hearing wwe was ending the branded ppvs, now suddenly ppl hate it?

Am I the only one who hated seeing branded ppvs where some guys who weren't even gonna move up in wwe were in matches. Seeing matches like Kane-Snitsky or guys who'd barely be good enough to compete on superstars on ppv sucked.

Now we have 2 main event title matches, 2 mid card matches and the rest are fillers. Compared to branded where it'd be 1 main event, 1 midcard and 5 fillers.

If anything, WWE just needs to make ppvs more unpredictable. It's boring watching(or going to watch) a match like Miz-King knowing who'll obviouslly win. Though some other ppv matches like Ziggler-Bryan were great not just for the action, but because it really was like a 50-50 shot in terms of who would win.

 

[CamillePunk]

That'd be horrible.

 

[Chris_Walmer]

The current set-up is better than the single-brand PPVs simply because the WWE has seemingly completely forgotten that anything besides the upper card exists.

The reason why the midcard has been forgotten about is BECAUSE of the dual-branded PPVs every month. There are only half as many guys from each brand on PPV every month, so they don't have time to build the mid-card, since all of the important angles on tv are to build for PPVs.

If they went back to the seperate PPVs, you'd see more guys get a chance, both on PPV and on weekly TV.

 

[rotljed]

Considering how abysmal the buyrates were with the single brand PPV's, I'm guessing nope. Not anytime soon.