Too many PPV's?

[UMhester04]

What is everyones opinion on the ammount of pay per views in a year? I wanted to hear everyones opinion on this because I cannot afford paying for every ppv in the year, as I am only a college student and do not have the money. I would like people to put their business hats on and tell me what they think about the current ppv situation and what the would do if they were to change the way things are.


What do you guys think would happen if they got rid of some of these ppvs that they can just mix with other ppvs? (having the money in the bank at wrestlemania instead of a whole ppv for it, having elimination chamber at something like no way out, etc.)

Would it be better to only have like 6-8 ppvs every year, but make them longer to be able to fit all the fueds in?



Any other comments you may have are welcome, as the two questions were just my own thoughts.

[MNgoph]

Re: Too many PPV's?

Yeah, there are way too many ppv's. I personally think 8 would be fine but I am not a share holder.

I personally liked when they had the Big 4 and the mini ppv's were brand specific. Raw one month, Smackdown the next month, Main PPV the next.

[Redacted01]

Re: Too many PPV's?

What feuds? If they got rid of PPV's, they wouldn't have to add any matches. Feuds would actually have a point instead of forcing a PPV match because they have to have one that month.

No Way Out was already the home of the elimination chamber matches before they renamed the PPV.

And since you wanted business hats, this is the answer you get, though: money. Just because we think there are too many doesn't change that someone buys them and they make money off of them. If the network ever gets off the ground (doubt it at this point), then a lot of them would be moved that hopefully and just be monthly specials.

[BlueNGold]

Re: Too many PPV's?

I just buy the good ones or really important ones (WrestleMania, Royal Rumble) and either skip or illegally watch the ones I'm not completely sold on.

[PhilliesFan13]

Re: Too many PPV's?

I remember when it was just strictly Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, King of the Ring, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series.

I also miss when all the other PPV's were called "In Your House" with the house entrance stage. Good old days.

[BlueNGold]

Re: Too many PPV's?

I miss King of the Ring.

[Redacted01]

Re: Too many PPV's?

I miss King of the Ring.

It would actually be good this year or next year with lots of new talent coming up. It started to become pointless when they had veterans filling the bracket and they moved it to regular TV. Was nice to see a tourney at least, but Regal and Booker winning it seemed to go the complete opposite direction of when guys like Angle, Edge, and Lesnar were winning it early in their careers.

[Santino]

Re: Too many PPV's?

The King of the Ring moniker breathing new life into a stale gimmick is far from pointless.

[Redacted01]

Re: Too many PPV's?

The King of the Ring moniker breathing new life into a stale gimmick is far from pointless.

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.

[Santino]

Re: Too many PPV's?

King Booker was a top heel for two years and had a six month long World Title reign thanks that "pointless" gimmick. The gimmick also put over Race, Haku, Owen, and Mabel. Savage didn't need it but he made it work after dropping the title to Hogan. King Regal was off to a great start but it was eventually scrapped thanks to his violation of the Wellness Policy. The KOTOR gimmick put on the right wrestler (which obviously wasn't Sheamus) can do wonders.

[rangerrick012]

Re: Too many PPV's?

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]

Re: Too many PPV's?

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]

Re: Too many PPV's?

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

[Redacted01]

Re: Too many PPV's?

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]

Re: Too many PPV's?

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.