Curtain Jerker, 2/7/13: Reducing WWE

15 Submitted by on Thu, 07 February 2013, 08:00

big4

 

After TNA made the decision to scale back their live PPVs to just 4 a year, that opens the door to the possibility of WWE doing the same. This is especially true if they can pull off this network idea once and for all, and turn a number of their lesser-bought PPVs into once-a-month free shows (which will seem more special if Raw goes back to 2 hours).

So it’d be like 1989-92: Royal Rumble in January, WrestleMania in March/April, Summerslam in August, and Survivor Series in November.

Of course, 1993-94 featured a 5 PPV-a-year calendar, when King of the Ring was plucked from the house show schedule, and planted in June. It wasn’t the worst way to bridge ‘Mania with SummerFest, and it produced a number of classic moments itself, before leaving the PPV landscape post-2002.

So let’s say WWE does this, and goes back to the big four, plus one bridger in June.

Does that June PPV become King of the Ring again? Do you make it Money in the Bank, or Hell in a Cell, or TLC, or another of their theme PPVs? Or do you give it a new concept, one that WWE hasn’t done before?

Written by

Justin Henry is WrestleCrap's inquiring newsman, thirsting for knowledge always. He enjoys the art of satire, as you'll find in many of his works here at WrestleCrap. Drop him a line on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/notoriousjrh) and Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/jrhwriting)
15 Responses to "Curtain Jerker, 2/7/13: Reducing WWE"
  1. Jason says:

    Night of Champions for June

  2. JMA says:

    I think it’s a great idea. Personally, I’d go back to the five a year (the Big Four plus KOTR), return Raw to two hours but with three hour specials 7 times a year (sort of like the Clash or SNME). I think this would be an effective model and make PPVs seem special again.

    I’d also limit WWE’s number of shows, with no recap shows and ONLY 3 TV shows (Raw, SmackDown, and SMS), not counting developmental.

  3. Superstarl says:

    King of the Ring or War Games would be great. I guess MItB would be ok if they really wanted that concept.

  4. Ralphus says:

    King of the Ring, without a doubt! I loved that PPV, and could never understand why so many people disliked it. It’s also good to provide a challenger for a title at SummerSlam, like what happened with Brock when he won KOTR.

  5. Walter Kovacs says:

    Money in the Bank would work best as the bridger. It’s sort of the modern day equivalent of the King of the Ring, the means of trying to elevate a midcarder to the main event. Just like SummerSlam is supposed to be a mini-Wrestlemania, MitB is a pseudo Royal Rumble. Survivor Series is just sort of there, mostly due to its timing, since the elimination matches have not been an important part of it for a long time.

  6. Frank says:

    I’d drop Survivor Series and replace it with Starrcade. The July PPV can be Bash at the Beach.

  7. John Rike says:

    Reducing the number of WWE PPVs only means the WWE can justify charging the same idiotic prices the UFC and Boxing do. So thanks but no thanks on the typical ‘wah-wah we want fewer WWE PPVs’ bull-honky

  8. Darwin says:

    I’m up for Money in the Bank being the fifth pay-per-view. That, or Hell in a Cell if the whole “one PPV a year must be in a cage” thing carries over from TNA for some reason.

  9. Down With OPC says:

    As much as Survivor Series is beloved, it really doesn’t serve much purpose anymore. If it went away I wouldn’t be all that sad.

  10. A.C. Sativa says:

    I say cut it down to 8 PPVs. Get rid of Elimination Chamber (move the match itself to Survivor Series), HITC, Over the Limit, and one more, maybe TLC. Get rid of Night of Champions too (every title should be defended on PPV anyway) and replace it with KOTR.

  11. DeweyDTruman says:

    I’d keep MitB but that’s about it, along with the big four. While I don’t think MitB is a match type that needs its own PPV, it is a useful way of pushing new stars. Or giving John Cena yet another title shot.

  12. Christopher says:

    What about combining KOTR & MITB? Have a tournament with the winner having the same “money in the bank” opportunity (title contract for a year)? Hell, you can even have the final match of the tournament be a MITB ladder match. I also like the idea of fewer PPV’s and TV recap shows.

  13. Tommy B Rude says:

    I personally hate the themed ppv’s. Making Hell in a Cell and TLC yearly things only trivializes match gimmicks that used to be considered legendary. Also the money in the bank match works better as a WM event than a ppv by itself. Or at least it’s one less spot on the card they have to rush to fill at the last moment.
    If they really wanted to trim down the show’s structure they should go back to having 1 world champion and 1 secondary champion.

  14. 80sGuy says:

    Less is more.

    Combine a few of the ppvs into the bridger, make it this monumental event, and give it the name of War Games or Starrcade or something new.

    You could have a MITB match, an Elimination Chamber match, and KOTR tourney all in one. Or keep KOTR a constant on that ppv and shuffle things like the Chamber, HIAC, etc. around to keep it fresh. Put MITB on another PPV like Summerslam.

  15. twilite_rider says:

    Keep the Royal Rumble. Or maybe have a royal rumble sized battle royal at each PPV. The winner of each would face the World Champion at the Wrestlemania PPV. I loves me some battle royals either Diva or Superstar.

leave a comment