|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Nov 9, 2014 20:37:55 GMT -5
So a wwe ppv in which wwe wrestlers have matches against one another does not appeal to you because we get those matches on raw anyway? What does it take for you to be interested in buying/watching a ppv? TV shows that don't give away the match but spend the time building up the matches on the PPV as something different, more important and more special than we see on TV. Examples: John Cena vs Daniel Bryan at SummerSlam 2013... John Cena vs Brock Lesnar... Team WWE vs Team Nexus... Ryback vs CM Punk at Hell in a Cell 2012... John Cena vs The Rock at WrestleMania 28... Daniel Bryan vs Triple H... The Shield vs The Wyatt Family at Elimination Chamber... The Shield vs Evolution. That might be nice for you, but it's in no way going to draw money unless the match has something important on the line. We saw John Cena face Bray Wyatt in team matches it seemed like dozens of times on TV in the spring... And even if it wasn't dozens of times, it was still a pointless, bland tag match of random guys so once or twice is more than enough. Once again -- in the squash match era, yes, it was a great novelty to see the big-name wrestlers team up. Now, it isn't. 1989... Pointless team match is a PPV main event: 2014... Pointless team match is a Smackdown main event:
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Nov 9, 2014 20:44:53 GMT -5
Okay, but is Great Khali/Sin Cara/Zack Ryder/Justin Gabriel vs. Tyson Kidd/Curtis Axel/Titus O'Neill/Heath Slater going to put butts in the seats? Cause that would be one of your five matches. Just because they have 40-45 active guys doesn't mean all of them are worth a damn. They have like 20 characters that matter, evident by the fact that dudes are constantly pulling double duty on Raw these days. That sort of thinking has absolutely poisoned the WWE's formerly strong midcard. Seems like you're opposed to something that could genuinely make the PPV great. Just think if they saved Cesaro for one of these undercard matches... like substitute him in for Axel here. Have Khali/Cara/Ryder/Gabriel eliminate all of his teammates, and then have Cesaro annihilate them all en route to being the sole survivor.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 16, 2024 21:40:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 20:44:58 GMT -5
I don't think every match has to be a classic elimination tag. I would like to see at least two of them on a card. Just have the theme of elimination throughout the night would be good.
Have it look something like this:
Team Cena vs. Team Authority (Classic SS Tag) John Cena, Dolph Ziggler, Big Show, Ryback, & Sheamus vs. Seth Rollins, Kane, Rusev, Mark Henry, & Triple H
Dean Ambrose vs. Bray Wyatt
Divas Championship AJ Lee vs. Nikki Bella
Elimination Tag Match for the Tag Team Titles Gold/Stardust vs. Usos vs. Matadores vs. Miz/Mizdow
Classic SS Tag Paige, Cameron, Layla, Summer, & Fox vs. Emma, Naomi, Rosa, Natalya, & Brie
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 9, 2014 21:08:31 GMT -5
So a wwe ppv in which wwe wrestlers have matches against one another does not appeal to you because we get those matches on raw anyway? What does it take for you to be interested in buying/watching a ppv? TV shows that don't give away the match but spend the time building up the matches on the PPV as something different, more important and more special than we see on TV. Examples: John Cena vs Daniel Bryan at SummerSlam 2013... John Cena vs Brock Lesnar... Team WWE vs Team Nexus... Ryback vs CM Punk at Hell in a Cell 2012... John Cena vs The Rock at WrestleMania 28... Daniel Bryan vs Triple H... The Shield vs The Wyatt Family at Elimination Chamber... The Shield vs Evolution. That might be nice for you, but it's in no way going to draw money unless the match has something important on the line. We saw John Cena face Bray Wyatt in team matches it seemed like dozens of times on TV in the spring... And even if it wasn't dozens of times, it was still a pointless, bland tag match of random guys so once or twice is more than enough. Once again -- in the squash match era, yes, it was a great novelty to see the big-name wrestlers team up. Now, it isn't. 1989... Pointless team match is a PPV main event: 2014... Pointless team match is a Smackdown main event: See the funny thing is you contradict yourself. On one hand you list Main events you thought were worthy of ppv. And then you tell me people dont want to see matches on ppv that are shown on television for free, yet the examples you listed have been done on television for free MANY times. Brock vs Cena? Really? Back around 2004 we got to see Brock crush Cena in squash matches on Smackdown so it was nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Nov 9, 2014 21:24:04 GMT -5
See the funny thing is you contradict yourself. On one hand you list Main events you thought were worthy of ppv. And then you tell me people dont want to see matches on ppv that are shown on television for free, yet the examples you listed have been done on television for free MANY times. False, and major LOL because you just don't get it. Do you understand the concept of building a show that people are willing to pay money for, and differentiating it from the shows that they get to watch as part of their cable package every week? If you do, you'll understand why random team matches alone don't cut the mustard anymore. Are you aware that the NES isn't the top-selling console this year? Of all the matches I listed, the only two that had ever been done on free TV before they were PPV attractions, the TV matches were over a year prior and in different circumstances: Cena vs Bryan (which was a Raw match before Bryan became a top babyface) and Cena vs Brock (a decade earlier, before Cena's rise to power and before Lesnar became a UFC star).
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Nov 9, 2014 21:24:49 GMT -5
HAH! Imagine if they had the nerve to bring back the Bragging Rights PPV for SD! vs. Raw.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Nov 9, 2014 21:38:33 GMT -5
Oh and BTW, Next Man's Sweater's argument here is a great case for why, especially with absolutely no TV competition, WWE should strongly consider bringing back squash matches to protect the contracted wrestlers and create more mystique for their pay-per-view matches.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Nov 9, 2014 21:45:58 GMT -5
Even though last year's Survivor Series was pretty awful, I think the show should features a mix. I like a show with a Divas SS match, a tag team one and one that features a main event caliber feud with some upper mid card guys in there.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 9, 2014 22:06:18 GMT -5
See the funny thing is you contradict yourself. On one hand you list Main events you thought were worthy of ppv. And then you tell me people dont want to see matches on ppv that are shown on television for free, yet the examples you listed have been done on television for free MANY times. False, and major LOL because you just don't get it. Do you understand the concept of building a show that people are willing to pay money for, and differentiating it from the shows that they get to watch as part of their cable package every week? If you do, you'll understand why random team matches alone don't cut the mustard anymore. Are you aware that the NES isn't the top-selling console this year? Of all the matches I listed, the only two that had ever been done on free TV before they were PPV attractions, the TV matches were over a year prior and in different circumstances: Cena vs Bryan (which was a Raw match before Bryan became a top babyface) and Cena vs Brock (a decade earlier, before Cena's rise to power and before Lesnar became a UFC star). Lesner also wrestled Cena a few years ago when Lesner first came back to wwe. So it was not a new match, it was something wwe had given us plenty of times before. I havnt played a gaming consul for years so Idk which is the top system anymore. I also have not watched wwe for about 10 years. To me the current product seems like garbage. I tend to think more wrestling fans think as I do because wwe has been doing very poorly as far as revenue lately. I think people want to see something different. Reviving the old tag team ppv would be new to the younger viewers who have been raised on the single match concept. It would both be new to younger people and appeal to the nostalgic people such as myself. I guess it's all perception. You seem to love the current track wwe is on. I strongly dislike it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Nov 9, 2014 22:08:52 GMT -5
False, and major LOL because you just don't get it. Do you understand the concept of building a show that people are willing to pay money for, and differentiating it from the shows that they get to watch as part of their cable package every week? If you do, you'll understand why random team matches alone don't cut the mustard anymore. Are you aware that the NES isn't the top-selling console this year? Of all the matches I listed, the only two that had ever been done on free TV before they were PPV attractions, the TV matches were over a year prior and in different circumstances: Cena vs Bryan (which was a Raw match before Bryan became a top babyface) and Cena vs Brock (a decade earlier, before Cena's rise to power and before Lesnar became a UFC star). Lesner also wrestled Cena a few years ago when Lesner first came back to wwe. So it was not a new match, it was something wwe had given us plenty of times before. I havnt played a gaming consul for years so Idk which is the top system anymore. I also have not watched wwe for about 10 years. To me the current product seems like garbage. I tend to think more wrestling fans think as I do because wwe has been doing very poorly as far as revenue lately. I think people want to see something different. Reviving the old tag team ppv would be new to the younger viewers who have been raised on the single match concept. It would both be new to younger people and appeal to the nostalgic people such as myself. I guess it's all perception. You seem to love the current track wwe is on. I strongly dislike it. If you haven't watched WWE in ten years than how do you know that Cena/Lesnar have fought so many times, that Survivor Series doesn't still have all 4x4 matches, and that you strongly dislike the track it is? Something doesn't add up...
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Nov 9, 2014 22:09:17 GMT -5
The roster is too small. You'd have like 3 five-on-five matches, 4 if you switched back to the four-on-four. the rosters not really too small. They just dont put any stock in the lower card guys enough to get fans to care that they are in a Survivor Series match. With booking like they had in the early 90's you could get fans to care about like a Team Tyson Kidd vs a Team Zack Ryder or some crap.
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Nov 9, 2014 22:11:45 GMT -5
The roster is too small. You'd have like 3 five-on-five matches, 4 if you switched back to the four-on-four. the rosters not really too small. They just dont put any stock in the lower card guys enough to get fans to care that they are in a Survivor Series match. With booking like they had in the early 90's you could get fans to care about like a Team Tyson Kidd vs a Team Zack Ryder or some crap. Certainly, they COULD do that. But they don't. And Survivor Series in 3 weeks... I don't think everything is going to change in those next 3 shows (cause let's be honest, there's only one show a week where anything happens) to properly build a show like that. Plus, how many times a week do we get random 3x3 matches as it is? How is a show full of those matches a draw when we get them all the time?
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Nov 9, 2014 22:33:03 GMT -5
I also have not watched wwe for about 10 years. Yes, so randomly plucking "it should be like it was in my childhood" ideas out of thin air probably isn't the smartest thing. Oh and BTW, Next Man's Sweater's argument here is a great case for why, especially with absolutely no TV competition, WWE should strongly consider bringing back squash matches to protect the contracted wrestlers and create more mystique for their pay-per-view matches. In terms of protecting PPV, it'd absolutely help -- twenty-five years ago, pretty much everyone on the roster was a star and had that mystique. And it'd cut down on the same old rematches on TV again and again. But going back to the squash system on a large scale would just be too risky in terms of Raw viewership/tickets and overall interest per match, even with no competition. Although they could still just make sure they had big angles and interviews for all the important quarters. For me personally, I'd much rather watch four squashes than yet another fifteen-minute Ziggler vs Cesaro match (and save Ziggler vs Cesaro for one big PPV midcard match), but I don't know if audiences in general would stick with them now. We're fifteen to twenty years deep in TV matches being competitive, it's what people expect. The genie can't really be put back into the bottle, similar to how the network has flopped hard but they can't go back to $50 PPVs now.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Nov 9, 2014 22:46:20 GMT -5
the rosters not really too small. They just dont put any stock in the lower card guys enough to get fans to care that they are in a Survivor Series match. With booking like they had in the early 90's you could get fans to care about like a Team Tyson Kidd vs a Team Zack Ryder or some crap. Certainly, they COULD do that. But they don't. And Survivor Series in 3 weeks... I don't think everything is going to change in those next 3 shows (cause let's be honest, there's only one show a week where anything happens) to properly build a show like that. Plus, how many times a week do we get random 3x3 matches as it is? How is a show full of those matches a draw when we get them all the time? Well I know that but I was certain the OP was asking it in the general "Why don't we have them anymore" and you said it was because there wasn't enough people on the roster which isn't necessarily true. They have enough people on the roster it's just that they don't use most of them in a way for the crowd to know or care who they are. And your other point kinda loops back on my whole "They don't know how to use people properly". 3 v 3 matches are just lazy story telling devices to further 3 separate feuds typically. Now I'm not advocating for the return of having every match on the Survivor Series PPV be all 5 v 5 because when it was done before it was just a cheap way to get everyone on the show kinda like battle royals at Wrestlemania. I'm more pointing out that they COULD do it if they wanted to. For example they could easily fantasy book one that's like (assuming no one was hurt at the time): Team Lesnar Vs Team Cena Brock Lesnar/Seth Rollins/Bray Wyatt/Mark Henry/Kane Vs John Cena/Daniel Bryan/Roman Reigns/Dean Ambrose/Randy Orton Team Ziggler (all former US Champions) Vs Team Rusev Dolph Ziggler/Sheamus/Big Show/Jack Swagger/Kofi Kingston Vs Rusev/Cesaro/Wade Barrett/Big E(heel turn)/Luke Harper Team Ryback Vs Team Miz Ryback/Rey Mysterio/Sin Cara/R-Truth/Zack Ryder Vs Miz/Damien Mizdow/Curtis Axel/Heath Slater/Titus O'Neil Team Usos Vs Team Dust Bros The Uso's/Los Matadores/Xavier Woods Vs Stardust/Goldust/Jutin Gabriel/Tyson Kidd/Fandango Team AJ Vs Team Paige AJ/Nattie/Emma/Brie/Naomi Vs Paige/Summer Rae/Nikki/Cameron/Tamina NXT Showcase Team Adrian Neville Vs Team Sami Zayn Neville/The Ascension/Tyler Breeze/CJ Parker Vs Sami Zayn/Hideo Itami/Finn Balor/Enzo Amore/Colin Cassidy
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Nov 9, 2014 23:32:12 GMT -5
I also have not watched wwe for about 10 years. Yes, so randomly plucking "it should be like it was in my childhood" ideas out of thin air probably isn't the smartest thing. Oh and BTW, Next Man's Sweater's argument here is a great case for why, especially with absolutely no TV competition, WWE should strongly consider bringing back squash matches to protect the contracted wrestlers and create more mystique for their pay-per-view matches. In terms of protecting PPV, it'd absolutely help -- twenty-five years ago, pretty much everyone on the roster was a star and had that mystique. And it'd cut down on the same old rematches on TV again and again. But going back to the squash system on a large scale would just be too risky in terms of Raw viewership/tickets and overall interest per match, even with no competition. Although they could still just make sure they had big angles and interviews for all the important quarters. I think it would be fine, considering the new model WWE is trying to build with the Network. I think they would be okay with losing 20% of their viewing audience (and I can't imagine, even if they went back to squash matches, they would lose much more than that considering how poorly they promote matches on RAW) if it meant something like a 10-15% spike in PPV/Network buys they'd eventually be seeing by being able to build to big PPV matchups more slowly and organically. I personally loved when RAW was one hour long, and the main event was usually a match between midcarders or upper-midcarders, with occasional big matches and title matches (like how they were doing in 1994-1996 before Nitro became so huge). It would feel like a special event to actually see a meaningful TV match, whereas the current formula is just rematches, more rematches, Cena beating people, and main events that aren't promoted more than a couple of hours ahead of time. My assumption with all of this is that WWE currently sees the Network as their big moneymaker, and not their next TV contract. I don't know how the numbers work but I'd assume that they eventually expect to be making a large majority of their money from Network buys. The fact that the Network is what it is (and it's been both great and underwhelming at the same time) shows that they are making a mistake by hiring TV/marketing people to be in charge of the content of the Network and not wrestling people. But I might be getting a little off-topic here.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 10, 2014 6:04:57 GMT -5
Lesner also wrestled Cena a few years ago when Lesner first came back to wwe. So it was not a new match, it was something wwe had given us plenty of times before. I havnt played a gaming consul for years so Idk which is the top system anymore. I also have not watched wwe for about 10 years. To me the current product seems like garbage. I tend to think more wrestling fans think as I do because wwe has been doing very poorly as far as revenue lately. I think people want to see something different. Reviving the old tag team ppv would be new to the younger viewers who have been raised on the single match concept. It would both be new to younger people and appeal to the nostalgic people such as myself. I guess it's all perception. You seem to love the current track wwe is on. I strongly dislike it. If you haven't watched WWE in ten years than how do you know that Cena/Lesnar have fought so many times, that Survivor Series doesn't still have all 4x4 matches, and that you strongly dislike the track it is? Something doesn't add up... I see clips here and there on youtube. I havnt watched Smackdown or Raw though in about 8 or 9 years.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Nov 10, 2014 6:06:15 GMT -5
I also have not watched wwe for about 10 years. Yes, so randomly plucking "it should be like it was in my childhood" ideas out of thin air probably isn't the smartest thing. Oh and BTW, Next Man's Sweater's argument here is a great case for why, especially with absolutely no TV competition, WWE should strongly consider bringing back squash matches to protect the contracted wrestlers and create more mystique for their pay-per-view matches. In terms of protecting PPV, it'd absolutely help -- twenty-five years ago, pretty much everyone on the roster was a star and had that mystique. And it'd cut down on the same old rematches on TV again and again. But going back to the squash system on a large scale would just be too risky in terms of Raw viewership/tickets and overall interest per match, even with no competition. Although they could still just make sure they had big angles and interviews for all the important quarters. For me personally, I'd much rather watch four squashes than yet another fifteen-minute Ziggler vs Cesaro match (and save Ziggler vs Cesaro for one big PPV midcard match), but I don't know if audiences in general would stick with them now. We're fifteen to twenty years deep in TV matches being competitive, it's what people expect. The genie can't really be put back into the bottle, similar to how the network has flopped hard but they can't go back to $50 PPVs now. IDK, I mean my childhood was the Hogan era AKA WWF's peak. So obviously wwf was doing something right back in those days.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Nov 10, 2014 6:09:45 GMT -5
IDK, I mean my childhood was the Hogan era AKA WWF's peak. So obviously wwf was doing something right back in those days. Exactly, so Nintendo should just rerelease the NES and it would win this generation's console wars. Everything that worked in 1987 still works now. Time never moves on or anything.
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Nov 10, 2014 8:32:16 GMT -5
They don't have the talent for it now. The roster back in the 80'/90's was light years ahead of what they have now. Terry Taylor, Sam Houston and Koko B. Ware were all 100 x's better than Khalil, Ryder, Slater, Young, O'Neill and I wasn't even a fan of Houston or Koko.
But the Roster of the 80's had alot more entertaining talent that you wanted to see on a ppv. Just look at the tag team division...the 80's roster was loaded with true tag teams. Now they have maybe 3 teams. Back then there were so many teams that you could have a few SS matches just using the true tag team as well as 2 matches filled with main event singles talent. They can't do that with today's roster. Also back then there were plenty of managers to help get the guys with no personality over...so you still wanted to see them at the PPV's. Other than Heyman and Zeb they don't really have it. Lana isn't doing anything to make me want to watch Rusov.
I have said this in the past and I will say it again they need a legit full tag team division again. A division that always has at least 10 true teams in it. If they did that then they could have a card of Survivor Series matches.
|
|
👑🇵🇭⭐️
Main Eventer
WF 10 Year Member
King Of The Ring 2007 - Team Undisputed
Joined on: Feb 4, 2013 13:46:47 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by 👑🇵🇭⭐️ on Nov 10, 2014 9:44:27 GMT -5
I love the traditional Survivor Series elimination tag team matches. I miss the original team vs. team concept. I think it could work today. All the WWE would have to do is take the current top 5 feuds and make those SuperStars captains. There are more than enough WWE SuperStars to fill out a roster and if need me, I’m sure there are WWE Hall Of Famer / WWE Legends, or even NXT SuperStars more than willing to fill out the rest of the teams. I think four or five traditional 4-on-4 or 5-on-5 Survivor Series elimination tag team matches would be perfect. It’s free on the Network this year and this would give practically every SuperStar on the roster today time to shine. We could see something like:
Team Cena vs. The Authority (Team Rollins) Team Ziggler vs. Team Cesaro Team Sheamus vs. Team Rusev Team Usos vs. Team Dust Team A. J. vs. Team Paige
After the captains are set, then you sprinkle in the team members, and voila!!
|
|