Too many PPV's?

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by dochalladay32

It was as close to pointless as you can get. Hell, Sheamus won it after being a 2-time WWE champion. For guys like Savage, Hart, Austin, Triple H, Angle, Edge, Lesnar, it was that next step. Didn't really pan out for Shamrock and Owen Hart as much and Mabel and Gunn... don't know why. But yea, having Booker and Sheamus win it was just like a huh? The tourney was meant to push a guy to main event status and was its purpose for years. Should not have been brought back the 3 times we've seen if that's all they were going to do. However, as it is 2012, we are due for another. Probably won't be until later in the year like 2010, though.

Edge won KOTR in 2001 and still didn't main event until 04-05, so that wasn't it. And guys like Mr. *** and Mabel. Shamrock actually was worse after he won KOTR, he had already main evented before that. So it's not always used to push a guy to ME status, sometimes it's just to give someone something to do and see what happens like with Sheamus, Regal, Booker, Shamrock. Could it be good if used correctly? Yes, but is it an automatic launching pad to success? Just like w/ the IC title, people seem to be overplacing the prestige of KOTR.

On topic though, there are too many PPVs. Over the Limit has always been a worthless PPV with slapped together storylines. Also they need to be spaced out better. If you're going to insist on 12 PPVs a year, have them at the end of each month or very start of the next month to give at least 4 weeks to build to them, and more for the big PPVs like Summerslam and WM.

[soltrain]

Quote: Originally Posted by rangerrick012

Edge won KOTR in 2001 and still didn't main event until 04-05, so that wasn't it. And guys like Mr. *** and Mabel. Shamrock actually was worse after he won KOTR, he had already main evented before that. So it's not always used to push a guy to ME status, sometimes it's just to give someone something to do and see what happens like with Sheamus, Regal, Booker, Shamrock. Could it be good if used correctly? Yes, but is it an automatic launching pad to success? Just like w/ the IC title, people seem to be overplacing the prestige of KOTR. On topic though, there are too many PPVs. Over the Limit has always been a worthless PPV with slapped together storylines. Also they need to be spaced out better. If you're going to insist on 12 PPVs a year, have them at the end of each month or very start of the next month to give at least 4 weeks to build to them, and more for the big PPVs like Summerslam and WM.

I think 8 would be a good number.

[rangerrick012]

Even as far back as 1996 there was at least 12 PPVs a year and usually between 13-14 a year. The problem isn't necessarily too many PPVs as it is PPVs too close together it seems. In the past there was usually a good month between PPVs, now it goes under a month a lot more often.

http://www.hoffco-inc.com/wwe/ppv/ppvindex.html

[dochalladay32]

Quote: Originally Posted by rangerrick012

Even as far back as 1996 there was at least 12 PPVs a year and usually between 13-14 a year. The problem isn't necessarily too many PPVs as it is PPVs too close together it seems. In the past there was usually a good month between PPVs, now it goes under a month a lot more often. http://www.hoffco-inc.com/wwe/ppv/ppvindex.html

Want to know why? PPV's weren't usually at the end of the month, that's why. Wrestlemania happened with a week left in March. the Rumble was in mid-January. Half the PPV's occurred on the 10th or before. Not sure why WWE doesn't go back to a schedule like this. I looked at 1997 by the way.

[GnarlyKing]

The NFL pushing the Super Bowl into February is what made the Rumble later than it used to be. Except for the handful of years where there was no off week, it has always been on the off week between the conference championships and Super Bowl.

[DJ]

Quote: Originally Posted by soltrain

I think 8 would be a good number.

Yeah, that would be good.

Royal Rumble
Wrestlemania
Over The Limit
King of the Ring
Money In The Bank
SummerSlam
Hell In A Cell
Survivor Series

[TracerBullet]

Quote: Originally Posted by DJ

Yeah, that would be good. Royal Rumble Wrestlemania Over The Limit King of the Ring Money In The Bank SummerSlam Hell In A Cell Survivor Series

Now if we can replace these two, particularly HiaC, we'd be good.

[dochalladay32]

I think 6 PPV's makes more sense.

Royal Rumble (late January)
Wrestlemania (late March/early April)
??? (late June)
Summerslam (mid August)
??? (late September/early October)
Survivor Series (mid/late November)

With 3 hour Raws, 12 PPV's don't seem essential anymore. They'd never get rid of them because they at least make some money. Would work a little better if Survivor Series was moved into early/mid December, and since they already tried getting rid of it once, might be time for Starrcade... but that will never happen. Ideally it'd be cool to bring back King of the Ring in June, move Surivor Series up a bit and then add Starrcade. That way you have the big 4 and two historical PPV names. None of this gimmick-based stuff that just kills matches like the chamber or hell in a cell so they are overdone.

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by dochalladay32

I think 6 PPV's makes more sense. Royal Rumble (late January) Wrestlemania (late March/early April) ??? (late June) Summerslam (mid August) ??? (late September/early October) Survivor Series (mid/late November) With 3 hour Raws, 12 PPV's don't seem essential anymore. They'd never get rid of them because they at least make some money. Would work a little better if Survivor Series was moved into early/mid December, and since they already tried getting rid of it once, might be time for Starrcade... but that will never happen. Ideally it'd be cool to bring back King of the Ring in June, move Surivor Series up a bit and then add Starrcade. That way you have the big 4 and two historical PPV names. None of this gimmick-based stuff that just kills matches like the chamber or hell in a cell so they are overdone.

The WWE makes too much $ to ever think 6 PPVs would be seriously considered. The best case is 10-12 with better positioning and more time between the respective PPVs.

[DJ]

Quote: Originally Posted by TracerBullet

Now if we can replace these two, particularly HiaC, we'd be good.

Agreed. It was late and I was running out of PPV names.