Per Dave Meltzer,

"Some on the WWE creative team like having two weeks between pay-per-view events because it forces a week-to-week focus. They are able to set up angles, then write a go-home show and move on, instead of trying to get four weeks worth of TV out of pushing the same matches."

The old adage, "don't knock it til you try it" makes me not want to criticize this move if it happens (especially since I've loved the Elimination Chamber build-up), but there is such a thing as overkill.

So they want 26 fucking PPVs a year?

That was my take.

My thought is... yanno... stop being so god damn lazy.

I have a few issues with this:

1) Surely the PPVs will have to be made cheaper individually, to make up for the extra cost of having more of them per year? One way this could work might be to have tiered PPVs - so Wrestlemania, Survivor Series, Summerslam, Royal Rumble and maybe a few more would be "A" - and the most expensive (probably extra for Wrestlemania), then you'd have the "B" tier, for those lesser PPVs, like Elimination Chamber is kind of being now.

2) Having a PPV every two weeks more than likely means the WWEWHC is on the line every two weeks. That's fine, from a "fighting champion" point of view, but it does mean that everybody who so much as looks at the champion is going to wind up getting a shot. I wouldn't have the title on the line every PPV, which would serve two purposes. A) The WWEWHC is more rarely defended, and therefore becomes more sought after, more of a special attraction and B) It allows WWE to shine a light on other titles, other feuds at some of these PPVs.

3) It potentially hurts the idea of a three hour RAW. At the moment, RAW is the same length as PPVs, which I already think is stupid, but the separation between the two is that you get the majority of title shots on a PPV, and rarely on a RAW. Bring in these additional PPVs, and RAW arguably has to have those title matches taken away to make the lesser PPVs more special, meaning that RAW is the show where guys wrestle and it doesn't matter. Now, if the stars are wrestling on the PPV, you could argue that RAW becomes an opportunity for the lower card to get more of a spotlight as space opens up there, but this is WWE, and you know that RAW has to be plugging Roman Reigns and John Cena and The Authority.

Totally agree with Mink, especially when talking about defending the World Title. For example, I'd be completely fine if there was no Rollins vs. Ambrose title match at Elimination Chamber, the rest of the card looks good enough.

I think by PPVs, they just mean the network. The cost would all come under the $9.99 bracket anyway and I don't think WWE gives a shit what happens in regards to the PPV market now anyway.

Regardless, I agree, this is beyond ludicrous. People talk about wanting to drop the amount of PPVs to make storylines better, not have two a month <_<

two weeks from EC see the return of one of the most classic WWE ppvs one all time



Fully Loaded!


2 weeks later we will have the return of Bad Blood

Then MITB or whatever the next real PPV is

also the return of Tuesday in Texas!

Minkaro wrote:

2) Having a PPV every two weeks more than likely means the WWEWHC is on the line every two weeks. That's fine, from a "fighting champion" point of view, but it does mean that everybody who so much as looks at the champion is going to wind up getting a shot. I wouldn't have the title on the line every PPV, which would serve two purposes. A) The WWEWHC is more rarely defended, and therefore becomes more sought after, more of a special attraction and B) It allows WWE to shine a light on other titles, other feuds at some of these PPVs.

We already had a champion who defended the title on rare occasions, his name was Brock Lesnar and everyone threw a collective bitchfit about it.

^ Not everyone.

I like the idea of the title being defended at the "real" PPVs (as Bull put it), while the second-tier shows are headlined by the U.S., IC or tag titles. Hell, once some of NXT's talent joins the main roster, I think it'd be really cool to see Sasha/Paige or something headlining a second-tier PPV.

That being said, I'd much rather see fewer PPVs a year than more, and that's coming from someone with the network and nothing to lose but time.

People like me threw a bitch fit because the fucker wasn't on tv for four goddamn months. Appear three times after the royal rumble as champion.

Its alright for the title to not be defended every PPV and the champion can miss a week or two. but not four fucking months.

I don't mind him not being around all the time, but damn, don't put the title on him and not have your title belt on TV for over a quarter of the year <_<

Anywho, I don't think this should be done, as PPV form or as mini events. It's overdoing it and it gets too much imo, especially for someone like me who doesn't always get to watch Raw anyway every week and has it on backlog. Adding more shit to that is an off putter <_<

More shows I'm not going to watch

There's too much WWE as it is. WWE isn't even on fire but they keep giving us more shows.