Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Current WWE


Smack2k

Recommended Posts

I don't think a brand split is necessary, but I kind of wish they didn't feel like they have to involve certain guys in *every* PPV. I think this is something they could learn from UFC. UFC has monthly shows, but it's not like the heavyweight champ defends on every PPV. I know it's not a perfect comparison, but I would like to see WWE recognize when a smaller show like Battleground is going to do more harm than good for certain programs and instead build the show around guys who maybe don't get to feature as much in the bigger shows.

 

Problem is that in order for that to work you need your secondary titles to mean something so that you can have say...the IC title main event a PPV. They are obviously a long way off from that.

 

I guess my point is that they have enough talent to fill out all the TV and PPV's they have, but they rarely make the best use of that talent and that tends to send a clear message that certain guys aren't important enough to get significant PPV time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I don't think a brand split is necessary, but I kind of wish they didn't feel like they have to involve certain guys in *every* PPV. I think this is something they could learn from UFC. UFC has monthly shows, but it's not like the heavyweight champ defends on every PPV. I know it's not a perfect comparison, but I would like to see WWE recognize when a smaller show like Battleground is going to do more harm than good for certain programs and instead build the show around guys who maybe don't get to feature as much in the bigger shows.

 

Problem is that in order for that to work you need your secondary titles to mean something so that you can have say...the IC title main event a PPV. They are obviously a long way off from that.

 

I guess my point is that they have enough talent to fill out all the TV and PPV's they have, but they rarely make the best use of that talent and that tends to send a clear message that certain guys aren't important enough to get significant PPV time.

I agree with a lot of this and before the Monday Night Wars, you saw this practiced. Then when it became all about ratings, the top guy needed to be on every week. You see how much they panic now to one bad non-Cena main event, it's ridiculous. I think having four or five over guys would help but they don't seem willing to do that. It's Cena then a huge step down to everyone else. No reason why they can't have some Piper's and Savage's to supplement their Hogan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see them willingly cancelling Smackdown or throttling down the PPV schedule, not when Wall Street is flinching over projected WWE Network subscriber numbers.

 

The brand split comment is interesting because, in a way, they already have a brand split that would work for splitting PPVs: WWE and NXT. NXT's deliberately set up as the "developmental" organization, but that hasn't stopped people from being enthusiastic about it -- to me, it seems more viable as a second brand than an arbitrary split of the "big league" roster, especially since the current WWE is so thin that they're already re-running matches in the undercard constantly.

 

If they ramped up the roster in NXT so that they could handle a longer PPV-level card (rather than the two-hour specials that they're doing now), they'd be doing themselves two separate favors -- they'd not only buy themselves from breathing room from a storyline standpoint in WWE, but they'd also theoretically be building a strong developmental roster that could ascend and eventually excel in WWE.

 

Here's a potential schedule, with WWE PPVs in bold:

 

Late January - Royal Rumble

Late February - NXT PPV1

Late March - Wrestlemania

Late April - NXT PPV2

Mid May - WWE PPV3: Payback, Backlash

Late June - Money in the Bank

Mid July - NXT PPV3

Mid-August - Summer Slam

Early September - NXT PPV4

Mid-October - WWE PPV6: Fall Brawl, Halloween Havoc

Late November - Survivor Series (with Elimination Chamber match?)

Mid December - NXT PPV5 (most important NXT PPV of the year - think Starrcade)

 

This gives PPVs in both brands some time between major events to build up storylines. Plus, NXT talent that are ready to make the jump to WWE could seamlessly transition from a big blowoff in NXT PPV5 into the Royal Rumble.

 

EDIT: Another option with this plan, though it would probably require re-negotiation of the TV deal - use a replay of NXT from the previous Thursday to replace the first or third hour of Raw. That gives NXT exposure on TV (though Network subscribers would still get the incentive of seeing it live), plus it brings Raw back to a more compact two-hour timeslot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see how much they panic now to one bad non-Cena main event, it's ridiculous. I think having four or five over guys would help but they don't seem willing to do that. It's Cena then a huge step down to everyone else. No reason why they can't have some Piper's and Savage's to supplement their Hogan.

 

 

I don't remember where I heard or read it from but this has come up in the past before & was answered with "if you have a lot of top guys, you have to pay a lot of top guys top guy money" or something like that. I'm not sure how much validity that even has but it is something to ponder, I reckon. I do imagine that Cena makes more in WWE than most. Maybe it's a thought-process layover from the guaranteed contracts in WCW where guys would have stipulations where if someone made more money than them, their pay went up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You see how much they panic now to one bad non-Cena main event, it's ridiculous. I think having four or five over guys would help but they don't seem willing to do that. It's Cena then a huge step down to everyone else. No reason why they can't have some Piper's and Savage's to supplement their Hogan.

 

I don't remember where I heard or read it from but this has come up in the past before & was answered with "if you have a lot of top guys, you have to pay a lot of top guys top guy money" or something like that. I'm not sure how much validity that even has but it is something to ponder, I reckon. I do imagine that Cena makes more in WWE than most. Maybe it's a thought-process layover from the guaranteed contracts in WCW where guys would have stipulations where if someone made more money than them, their pay went up.

I can see that to an extene, but it seems short sighted. Wouldn't a lot of top guys make your company a lot of money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll never scale Raw back to 2 hours. The loss of ad revenue would kill their bottom line. You're talking about cutting their main ad revenue source by 33%. They'll continue to water down the product before ever giving that money up.

 

This article seems to imply that ad revenue isn't that great for wrestling anyway - is it really that big of a chunk of WWE's revenue? Does WWE even get a piece of that ad revenue or does it go to NBC Universal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that to an extene, but it seems short sighted. Wouldn't a lot of top guys make your company a lot of money?

 

You would think, right? It seems flawed. But with the current direction of the company, with the roster cuts, the new USA contract, the lack of subscribers for the WWE Network, stock coming back down to earth, etc. I'm not sure WWE higher ups would see anything other than "pay more money" ya know?

 

Plus, I really like the UFC idea where every other month you could have a different match on top. It would be really cool to see a PPV where the main event is the IC title or Tag Team title & Cena isn't on the show. That just doesn't seem realistic though with the current landscape of WWE. It would take a lot of work & reconditioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how right after the Lana promo last night, the WWE Creative parody twitter made a comment along the lines of "Lana was referring to some other current event and totally not the one you're thinking about".....then today the real WWE issued a non-apology basically saying the exact same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...