The W
Views: 98513572
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.8.14 0722
The W - Pro Wrestling - How would you change the WWE?
This thread has 23 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.03
Pages: 1 2 Next
(2628 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (37 total)
The Game
Boudin rouge








Since: 5.5.09

Since last post: 325 days
Last activity: 325 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
In a previous thread I posted (The WWE Then and Now), it was discussed how certain guys are no longer elevated and how there really are no suprises in the WWE (an example are upsets) and other things as well.

However, there are other aspects to look at that the WWE could use or consider to improve their product. I am curious to other people's opinions and thoughts on what they think is missing in the WWE and or what could be done differently to help the rollercoaster ride that is the WWE.

Thoughts and Analysis:

There are a lot of opinions I have to how the WWE "should" change to make itself better; one example is that the WWE "force-feeds" certain wrestlers to the WWE Universe (i.e. John Cena and other wrestlers as well) and it gets pretty annoying pretty quick to some wrestling fans.

Another thing I do not like about the WWE some what is that they are too quick to elevate someone and push them past the mid-card which in my opinion is a good reason why the mid-card belts and division are irrelevant; Bret Hart wasn't automatically pushed right away, and neither were stars such as The Rock, Stone Cold and countless others who went into the mid-card scene only to be gradually worked up into main event status (this may also go into how the WWE does a lot of over-exposure)

There is a lot more to comment on so please share your thoughts and opinions on this topic.

(edited by The Game on 13.7.09 1104)
Promote this thread!
Psycho Penguin
Liverwurst








Since: 24.6.07
From: Greenacres FL

Since last post: 1419 days
Last activity: 1415 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.72
12 PPVs, a main event push for Charlie Haas and Shelton Benjamin, and moving Superstars and ECW to 9/10 PM on Thursday to destroy TNA.



http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/9471.html

IT'S TRUE! IT'S DAMN TRUE!

lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.39
I let those who want to do their own promos and come up with their own storylines if they want to. I would move Christian to Smackdown to take Edge's place and turn heel. I would keep ECW where it is and keep pushing Tommy with young talent maybe add Steamboat to help the youngsters. De-push Orton/HHH/Cena to the mid card and move Swagger/MVP to the main event spot for a few weeks to see if it catches on. I would trade the entire Smackdown and Raw rosters. I just think the best product should go on Monday Nights. I would try to find a way to get Rock and Austin to guest GM and then after a few weeks then make Edge the GM in charge of Raw. I do agree with the 12 PPVS a year and make them brand specific with ECW getting only 2 of those PPVs while Raw and Smackdown splits the other either 6.

(edited by lotjx on 13.7.09 1116)
Broncolanche
Sujuk








Since: 2.6.03
From: Littleton, CO

Since last post: 1109 days
Last activity: 361 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.19
Have an offseason. WWE programming is too diluted.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.11
One brand, four PPVs, 3 belts. Get back to fucking basics.
rv581
Goetta








Since: 2.12.02

Since last post: 1428 days
Last activity: 598 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    One brand, four PPVs, 3 belts. Get back to fucking basics.

I like multiple brands, but the brands should actually be different from each other -- and not just in name & titles, or rotating rosters.

Give each brand a distinct identity: Different writers, different sensibilities, different regions where they tour, etc. Let them try new things that fall within their brand vision. Let them market to slightly different demographics.



"Who ate my sandwich???"
Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 53 min.
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.19
    Originally posted by Broncolanche
    Have an offseason. WWE programming is too diluted.


I would amend this to give wrestlers an offseason by rotating them in and out of the ongoing shows. Nine months on and three months off, scattered around the year. That gives new guys three months of TV time to earn a regular slot. It allows weary guys a chance to rest up. It would also let wrestlers take a week or two off at a time to provide weekly variety to the regular shows.

Also, it would allow the WWE to provide free title matches less often and make them more meaningful.



"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
Hokienautic
Liverwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Blacksburg VA

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.24
    Originally posted by rv581
      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      One brand, four PPVs, 3 belts. Get back to fucking basics.

    I like multiple brands, but the brands should actually be different from each other -- and not just in name & titles, or rotating rosters.

    Give each brand a distinct identity: Different writers, different sensibilities, different regions where they tour, etc. Let them try new things that fall within their brand vision. Let them market to slightly different demographics.


Both of your suggestions are recipes for WWE losing money hand over fist. I'd like to think any suggestions to improve would not result in lost money.

Four PPVs? You'd have to get three times the buyrates in order to afford that. No way that's gonna happen.

Touring in different regions? No way. That's a perfect way to saturate your market even more. You can go to a town more often if it's different people for the most part every other time.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 17 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.01
    Originally posted by Matt Tracker
      Originally posted by Broncolanche
      Have an offseason. WWE programming is too diluted.


    I would amend this to give wrestlers an offseason by rotating them in and out of the ongoing shows. Nine months on and three months off, scattered around the year. That gives new guys three months of TV time to earn a regular slot. It allows weary guys a chance to rest up. It would also let wrestlers take a week or two off at a time to provide weekly variety to the regular shows.

    Also, it would allow the WWE to provide free title matches less often and make them more meaningful.


I really like the idea of wrestlers each getting three months off per year, as a health thing first and foremost. But also as a way to cycle new people into prominent roles.

But how do you avoid the anticlimactic title changes this will inevitably lead to? Where everyone knows a guy is due for a vacation? It will shorten title reigns because nine months is the absolute most it could be, and that assumes a guy wins a belt immediately after coming back from a short break.

You might say it wouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule, so if a guy's nine months is up in September, he could wrestle into December or whatever. But if you make it too flexible, there will be too much incentive for guys to just delay and delay or even refuse the vacation. Longer title reigns or prominence on TV being among those incentives.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 14.7.09 0228)
Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 53 min.
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.19
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I really like the idea of wrestlers each getting three months off per year, as a health thing first and foremost. But also as a way to cycle new people into prominent roles.

    But how do you avoid the anticlimactic title changes this will inevitably lead to? Where everyone knows a guy is due for a vacation? It will shorten title reigns because nine months is the absolute most it could be, and that assumes a guy wins a belt immediately after coming back from a short break.

    I mean, I know it wouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule, so if a guy's nine months is up in September, he could wrestle into December or whatever. But it still just seems to be self-defeating. Also, there will be too much incentive for guys to refuse the vacation. Longer title reigns or prominence on TV being among those incentives.


Change the titles weeks/months before the break. Also, the three months off doesn't have to be in one block of time. The champ can take a vacation or sell an injury.

I mean, I'd rather have John Cena and Big Show take a vacation instead of working a bad angle on RAW. Triple H comes up to challenge Orton, and Cena gets some downtime. The rotations can overlap.

I would make a vacation mandatory. If the WWE wants a wellness policy, a rest period is necessary.

They could also keep a guy of TV for a while but let him work certain house shows. That will encourage people to go to those and see guys not on TV for two months.

I'm not saying it's foolproof, but they can have a constant TV product and push new guys while resting your older horses. Undertaker has done it for years.



"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.33
Read it and weep, fella


    Originally posted by rv581
      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      One brand, four PPVs, 3 belts. Get back to fucking basics.

    I like multiple brands, but the brands should actually be different from each other -- and not just in name & titles, or rotating rosters.

    Give each brand a distinct identity: Different writers, different sensibilities, different regions where they tour, etc. Let them try new things that fall within their brand vision. Let them market to slightly different demographics.
I like rv581's idea. Back when they (re)started the ECW brand, I was hoping they would make that the "workrate" show. You know, load up the roster with all of the "workrate over muscleheads" guys (Angle, Eddie, Benoit, Noble, I dont remember if Jericho was around at the time, Shelton, RVD, etc) and let them loose. The show is/was only an hour, so it'd be easy to fill it up with three or four 10-15 minute matches with fewer backstage/in-ring interview segments and let Raw & SD be the Orton/HHH/Batista/Cena shows. Unfortunately, most of the guys I listed above either left the company or died, along with my hopes for ECW.



CLICK OR DIE
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.24
Get Triple H the fuck out of the world title scene for a change, and script storylines so that they have a definitive beginning, middle, and end. WWE in the past 5 years doesn't know when to END things, they just keep dragging things out as long as possible until feuds are well past their expiration date. Show/Cena should have ended a month sooner, and HHH/Orton is in its seventh month with no end in sight.
Super Shane Spear
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Sector 7 Slums

Since last post: 1536 days
Last activity: 1536 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.75
Ok, most of the replies (Hokie notwithstanding) in here are pretty stupid and would not be responsible business-wise for a public traded company. I think that blanket statement will cover all current replies and whatever people end up posting later. If anybody wants to post their business or marketing degrees, I'll respectfully defer to you. But while I've never spent a day in college, I can tell you that running your two "C" shows (which are on different channels BTW) against your rival's flagship is bad for the business of wrestling. All three of those shows draw about four people. Why eat away at your own business unless you have a vastly superior product? ECW and Superstars are not vastly superior than Impact.

Also, this business of an offseason will NEVER happen. NEVER EVER. I don't know why it gets brought up once a year here. It would never be fiscally responsible for Vince McMahon to cease production for any amount of time. The most basic thing would be that profits would immediately drop 25%. No house show money. No PPVs. No commercial revenue for FOUR TELEVISION SHOWS. Four. Plus, the best case scenrio is that you pop a rating for the premiere and for the finale. An offseason will not improve the ratings for the rest of the year. ANybody who thinks this will "Freshen the Characters" is mistaken as well. Jim and Pam on The Office are only on TV 22-26 times a year, and people are already getting sick of them. Will Kane be any more tolerable if he's only on 39 weeks, as opposed to 52? All you are doing is eating away at yourself, and giving another company be it TNA or whoever free reign for three months to steal your audience away.

Thoughts and Analysis:

The real problem with this thread is that it's a question that nobody that posts on this board is really in any capacity to answer. It's a horrendiously dumb question from a guy who somehow with only about 60 posts and yet has a reputation for terrible topics. He even footnotes his previous terrible thread. Then his "answer" to his topic is that WWE shouldn't "Force-Feed" Cena and needs to take more time slow-burning wrestlers to the top. That is outstandingly original my man.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh. I feel better now.


(edited by Super Shane Spear on 13.7.09 1345)


You should listen to what I listen to
Quezzy
Knackwurst








Since: 6.1.02
From: The Moon

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.54
    Originally posted by The Game

    Another thing I do not like about the WWE some what is that they are too quick to elevate someone and push them past the mid-card which in my opinion is a good reason why the mid-card belts and division are irrelevant; Bret Hart wasn't automatically pushed right away, and neither were stars such as The Rock, Stone Cold and countless others who went into the mid-card scene only to be gradually worked up into main event status (this may also go into how the WWE does a lot of over-exposure)
    (edited by The Game on 13.7.09 1104)


Some of my favorite wrestling memories have come from when a future superstar was still on the IC level. The Hart/Hennig matches, the HBK/Ramon ladder matches, the first Stone Cold/Rock feud when Stone Cold threw the title in the lake, Kurt Angle when he was the EuroContinental champion.

Slowly pushing a wrestler up the card has so many advantages. A guy like Randy Orton won't get pushed too soon and the fans won't be sick of him by the time he is 30. The tag team division and IC/US divisions will be better if there are wrestlers the WWE actually wants to push in those divisions.

Also, I thought the very best thing in the brand split was when it originally happened and the brands were competing with each other. They should go back to that. Since Superstars is a show with all three brands they should have a Raw vs. ECW, Raw vs. Smackdown and Smackdown vs. ECW match as their three matches and keep a running tally of which brand has the most wins. They could even make more storylines out of this on each brand, like Christian gets all kinds of benefits on ECW because he's 4 - 0 against the other brands or something like that. King of the Ring, the Royal Rumble match and a series of Survivor Series matches between the three brands would be another way for them to compete. They could even turn Night of the Champions into a PPV where the champions from each brand wrestle each other.

I like the idea of giving wrestlers time off. BucsFan makes a good point about title reigns only being a 9 month max but that's actually better than the title reigns we get these days. My bigger question would be the money. I really doubt the WWE is going to still pay the wrestlers the same amount per year to work 3/4 as long and the wrestlers probably don't want to work 3/4 of the year if it means a pay cut.

Finally I'd give some low to mid card wrestlers a shot at the World Title on PPV when the two other brands have a big match. Like if Raw has Orton/Cena and ECW has Christian/Dreamer then sell the PPV on that and let CM Punk defend his title against Tyson Kidd. Or if the PPV is Punk/Jeff and Dreamer/Christian then let Orton defend against Evan Bourne. You can still sell your PPV on the big main events you have while saving some of your big matches for another month. The only PPVS i'd have all three champions in big matches are Wrestlemania and SummerSlam.



Lance's Response:

THAT IS AWESOME!
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by Super Shane Spear
    But while I've never spent a day in college, I can tell you that running your two "C" shows (which are on different channels BTW) against your rival's flagship is bad for the business of wrestling. All three of those shows draw about four people. Why eat away at your own business unless you have a vastly superior product? ECW and Superstars are not vastly superior than Impact.



Moreover, why would WWE *want* to put TNA out of business? Have we learned nothing from the Monday Night Wars? It would, in fact, be a huge help to WWE's business if TNA got to be big enough that a top TNA star (Joe, Styles, Daniels) moving the WWE would be a big event, the way it was a big event when Flair showed up in WWF, when Hall and Nash showed up in WCW, when the Radicals jumped to WWE, and so on. Sure, that would mean sometimes losing top guys the other way (and paying those who don't jump more), but the freshness of the matchups and the heightened overall interest in wrestling would more than make up for it.
InVerse
Bierwurst








Since: 26.8.02

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.44
Back in March, Lance Storm reprinted his two part article from Fighting Spirit magazine about why an off season in wrestling wouldn't work. (Part One -- Part Two)

And since I'm pimping Lance Storm already, I'll go ahead and link to his commentary Wrestling Rules which is pretty much him answering the same question posed by this thread.

Personally, I'd shrink the title count. Bring back the undisputed title and merge the women's titles ala the current "Unified Tag Team Championship" and have all 3 of them defended across the brands such as was done in the beginning.

(I think it would even be a pretty simple thing to explain storyline wise. Have someone win the WWE Women's Championship for the first time and then have them show up on Raw, pointing out that nothing was ever said about the rules being changed to where the championship can only be defended on one show, it was simply that the champion at the time (Molly) chose to become exclusive to Raw and everyone else followed suit. But since the rules were never changed, she (whoever that she may be) has decided to resume defending the title across all three brands. Have the Women's champion get into a feud with the Diva's champion and unify the title. (At which point, I'm sure the Diva's Championship would become the sole title since it's more WWEish than the original Women's title.) Seeing this, the top two male champions could decide that they, too, want to be the undisputed champion and follow suit. You'd end up with the Intercontinental and US championships being much more important as the flagship titles of each brand. As for the ECW championship... I suppose it would be treated along the lines of the IC and US titles, or better yet, turn it into an X-Division sort of title that is also defended across the three brands.)

Also, any time the creative team "has nothing for" a particular wrestler, I would release the creative team, not the wrestler. Anybody who fancies themselves a writer should be ashamed of themselves if they can't create an interesting character for someone. Unless that person truly, absolutely sucks, there's no excuse for "having nothing for them." And if they do truly, absolutely suck, then whoever hired that wrestler in the first place should be fired. Hell, on a bet from a friend, I once came up with a logical storyline with which Funaki would become world champion, which a few friends actually accepted as plausible. If I can come up with something like that, anybody who can't think of anything for Colt Cabana to do shouldn't be allowed to think at all.
geemoney
Scrapple








Since: 26.1.03
From: Naples, FL

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.72
I've always been a fan of the brand split in theory, so I'd definitely like to see them keep that and as others have suggested, make the split mean something by really keeping the wrestlers away from other brands and giving each a distinct voice. The best thing about the split is it gives other wrestlers a chance for TV time that they otherwise might not get, and it also prevents the main guys from being even more watered down than they already are.

As Shane mentioned however, some of the more radical ideas to help ease the burden of the wrestlers (off-seasons, more time off) would've been a much better idea if WWE hadn't taken their business public; still, I've got to believe they could spin these things as a positive for the company if they really wanted to. And to go along with my brand split idea, I also would prefer, again, as others have suggested, brand-specific PPVs that would never happen now, because keeping Cena or Triple H off a PPV is possibly losing out on money and in this economy, WWE just isn't going to do that.
odessasteps
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 72 days
Last activity: 39 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03

While a true off-season wouldn't work, I don't see why you couldn't have a model more similar to Japanese tours.

Or something like Two months on, one month off.

It would likely require ending the brand split or having one crew do both TV shows during the month the other brand is off.



Mark Coale
Odessa Steps Magazine
The Affirmation, Baby Blog
hayden
Salami








Since: 11.1.05

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 90 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.00
    Originally posted by Super Shane Spear
    Also, this business of an offseason will NEVER happen. NEVER EVER. I don't know why it gets brought up once a year here. It would never be fiscally responsible for Vince McMahon to cease production for any amount of time. The most basic thing would be that profits would immediately drop 25%. No house show money. No PPVs. No commercial revenue for FOUR TELEVISION SHOWS. Four.



Very true if you just stop all programming simultaneously for three months, but I think Matt Tracker was suggesting that none of the shows themselves ever take a break, but rather the wrestlers on the shows get time off throughout the year, essentially amounting to an off-season for them. I don't claim to know how well it would work in practice, but I don't think the financial hit would be nearly as bad as just shutting everything down for three months. Hell, if you worked it correctly and booked things well, I don't know if business would even suffer at all. Spread out the breaks of your big stars throughout the year, so you're never losing more than a few top guys at once. Elevate capable wrestlers who never really got a big break only because there was no room at the top, and give them a chance to shine. I have a feeling that a large portion of the audience are die-hards who are going to watch regardless, so that can only help you when you have some top guys out.
Psycho Penguin
Liverwurst








Since: 24.6.07
From: Greenacres FL

Since last post: 1419 days
Last activity: 1415 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.72
I knew someone would jump on my joke about the WWE's C-shows destroying TNA. Yeah I seriously thought Kozlov and Hornswoggle main eventing shows was just the ticket.

PS - I like TNA. It was a joke.

Seriously, though, just because ECW and Superstars are not drawing ratings doesn't mean they never would. WWE has a huge roster. Use it. Last weeks Superstars was ridiculously bad. No way they should be running shows like that.



http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/9471.html

IT'S TRUE! IT'S DAMN TRUE!

Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.03
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: The Greatest Tag Teams Ever
Next thread: Kurt Angle love triangle storyline finally given resolution
Previous thread: RAW #842 7/13/09
(2628 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I thought they said that Heyman would be there, but nobody knew why!?
- Tyler Durden, early SMACKDOWN SPOILER (2004)
Related threads: The WWE Then and Now - Edge Hurt - Candice Michelle Released! - More...
The W - Pro Wrestling - How would you change the WWE?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.394 seconds.