Idea: Remove the rematch clause

[goh]

Who actually wins these things? They're useless. Did anyone actually expect Cena or Orton to lose this last PPV? It'd open up many more chances and new main events. That shot could've gone to R-Truth or Mark Henry. Since 2005 for both main titles there's been 6 rematches where the title changed hands and 2 of those were off of MITB cash-in rematches and another was the same night. Average of 1 per year at best but nearly half the PPVs have the same main event. Not that Truth or Henry would've won but at least we wouldn't have been saying Cena/Orton just beat Miz/Christian,Miz/Christian has no chance.

[55]

I was thinking about something like this the other day.

My idea would be to keep the rematch clause but if the challenger loses the rematch then he would be banished from any other chances at that title as long as the current champion still has it. The only exception would be if they had a Money in the Bank briefcase. Otherwise, they go to the back of the line until that title changes hands and the next former champion gets their rematch. That would prevent having the same match at more than two consecutive PPV events without a title change. What kind of feud is it anyway if the same guy beats someone three times in a row? Fair enough?

[rangerrick012]

Maybe for the lesser titles, but I still think the rematch clause is a big part of booking for the major titles and helping to extend feuds an extra few weeks. As for people getting multiple shots, I don't have a problem w/ it if someone earns (kayfabe) the shot. I don' think it should be a hard rule though.

At the end of the day, if WWE writers want someone to be in the main event, they will find a way to make them. The rematch clause doesn't restrict the booking as much as you're making it seem like it does.

[goh]

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

I was thinking about something like this the other day. My idea would be to keep the rematch clause but if the challenger loses the rematch then he would be banished from any other chances at that title as long as the current champion still has it. The only exception would be if they had a Money in the Bank briefcase. Otherwise, they go to the back of the line until that title changes hands and the next former champion gets their rematch. That would prevent having the same match at more than two consecutive PPV events without a title change. What kind of feud is it anyway if the same guy beats someone three times in a row? Fair enough?

Sure but only if the rematch happens on Raw/SD. They'd still be taking up a PPV slot with a match everyone is 99.9% sure who'll win.

Quote: Originally Posted by rangerrick012

Maybe for the lesser titles, but I still think the rematch clause is a big part of booking for the major titles and helping to extend feuds an extra few weeks.

That's the point. The extra weeks are a bit useless aren't they? It's not leading to anything.

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by goh

That's the point. The extra weeks are a bit useless aren't they? It's not leading to anything.

I guess I see what you're saying, but I still don't have much of a gripe with it due to the fact that like I said, WWE will find a way to put someone in a PPV match if they want them to be. It's not like they go 4 weeks at a time, I'm sure WWE already has plans in place for Summerslam and who they want main eventing, barring injury. I don't think a rematch clause can be blamed for the guys you named not getting a PPV title shot, just WWE not having a plan for them as increasing buyrates in a PPV title match, among other reasons.

Plus if you wanted to get rid of predictability, there's a lot more that could be changed about WWE. If the extra matches help enhance the storyline, like they did w/ Taker-Kane last year, I have no problem with it.

[Cyphre]

I don't think the "rematch clause" should be banned out dropped.....It actually can be a tool to push up and coming superstars....for example: Miz lost to Cena in rematch and had blamed Riley...so this opened a feud with him and left the title picture "vacant" were they can try to push other superstars....like R-truth

If the WWE plays it right......I can see a 2 PPV long feud between Miz-Riley which would end in a loser leave Raw match....Miz wins and keeps his top tear status and at the same time elevates Riley to a top "midcarder" that would move to SD and Challenge for the US title....if he does well they can turn him heel again and have a new contender for Austin 2.0 World title....I mean Randy Orton (lol)...or Orton can turn and still make it a good feud.

The "vacant" challenger slot can be fill by several superstars....like R-truth right now and later on...ADR, CM Punk, Ziggler, Mason or others that are being held back and can get the oportunity to step up to the plate.

Same with SD...I'm hoping that Christian goes full blown heel and maybe have a chance to recover the title and have a good run that would last a few months...he deserves it.....as a heel he can have a few good matches with all the top babyfaces there to give him some credibility....while Orton can help put over some of the talent there.

What I would like to see WWE (and TNA for that matter) stop turning rematches into 3 way matches....I think 3 and 4 ways should be used only to push talent or if there are more than 1 guys that deserve a tittle shot....but it needs to be build up to that match.....like guy A beats Guy B but loses to guy C and Guy C had lost to guy B giving each a win and a loss.....thus building up the match...

In title matches I really hate when they "throw in" a third guy to make it a 3 way .....they should build some kind of history between participants which would make it a more intriguing match rather than a something just thrown together to give a different type of match to the event.