Breaking Point was the one PPV name change I liked this year….and they dump it anyway. Ugh.

“On January 26th, 2010, WWE will be releasing a Best of Raw 2009 three DVD set.”

Jesus, three discs? I’m all for archiving but there are maybe only a handful of matches that need to be on DVD.

Yes, I like PPV change too! It’s great!

I’d like to go down the line with these PPVs, if it’s all right:

===
1.31.10 – Royal Rumble
2.21.10 – Elimination Chamber
3.28.10 – WrestleMania XXVI
4.25.10 – Backlash
5.23.10 – Extreme Rules
6.20.10 – The Bash
7.18.10 – TBD
8.15.10 – SummerSlam
9.19.10 – Night of Champions
10.03.10 – Hell In A Cell
10.24.10 – Bragging Rights
11.21.10 – Survivor Series
12.19.10 – TLC: Tables Ladders And Chairs
===

“1.31.10 – Royal Rumble”
(Almost) Always good. Last year’s show was barely passable.

“2.21.10 – Elimination Chamber”
…Really? What was wrong with “No Way Out” again? It was the perfect title for a show centered around the Chamber, and it was a hell of a lot more subtle.

“3.28.10 – WrestleMania XXVI”
…Meh.

That’s right, I said ‘meh’ with an ellipsis before it.

“4.25.10 – Backlash”
……Meh.

“5.23.10 – Extreme Rules”
Well, OK. I mean, ‘Judgment Day’ was generally a good show, even though I always wondered the logic in putting a show called ‘Judgment Day’ in the middle of May while ‘Armageddon’ was at the end of the year, but I digress.

“6.20.10 – The Bash”
I don’t see what the point was of taking ‘Great American’ out of the title. ‘The Bash’ just sounds hokey. Is it the whole ’singling out Americans’ thing? If I recall correctly, there was a little show in July of 1997 called ‘Canadian Stampede’. Not only was I NOT offended by that, it turned out to be one of the greatest cards the WWE ever put out (despite only being four matches long).

‘7.18.10 – TBD’
I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if, after all the ‘Elimination Chambers’ and ‘Hells in a Cell’ and ‘Tables, Ladders, and Chairs’ that the new July PPV will be known as ‘WWE Singles w/ Manager’ or ‘WWE on a Pole’ (call it ‘WWE on a Stick’ and have Jeff Dunham be the guest host; watch how fast people run from the venue). I wouldn’t mind a WarGames match, but I doubt it.

“8.15.10 – SummerSlam”
Year by year becoming one of the worst shows of the year. Next.

“9.19.10 – Night of Champions”
Well…OK. Just wait until they decide to change it again and call it ‘September to Remember’. I hope Paul Heyman has a FUNNY aneurysm.

“10.03.10 – Hell In A Cell”
>_>

“10.24.10 – Bragging Rights”
This is the easiest thing in the world. You don’t have any ideas for a July PPV…you have two October PPVs. You’re thinking of having a WarGames match, one of your October PPVs centers around brand warfare…

Y’see where I’m going with this?

“11.21.10 – Survivor Series”
Pff. Next.

“12.19.10 – TLC: Tables Ladders And Chairs”
NO. NO. A THOUSAND TIMES, NO. This is absolutely unnecessary. Absolutely, positively unnecessary. Change it back to ‘Armageddon’ right now and just have a normal damn show. It’s your last PPV of the year–why not give it a big-time feel? Hell, ‘SummerSlam’ is foundering as the ‘WrestleMania Beta’ every year, anyway. And if you insist on changing it, give it another cool apocalyptical name like ‘End of the Line’ or ‘End of the World’ or ‘Anything but Freaking Tables, Ladders and Chairs’!

I understand the appeal of having “themed” pay-per-views for the secondary events in their calendar.

But basing that theme around a series of stipulations is unwise. Prediction: TLC and Hell in a Cell are going to last all of two years (max) before they completely kill anything “special” about those stipulations.

Despite being incredibly difficult to book, as evidenced by both Breaking Point and its subsequent drop as a PPV theme, basing a theme around a stipulation inures the public to those stipulations. Reference TNA’s annual Cage match PPV.

I think Elimination Chamber dodges this by being a stipulation (roughly) that involves multiple participants in a contest. In effect, it’s like a tournament in a cage. But it’s also a singular event. If they had a Divas Elimination Chamber, a Smackdown Elimination Chamber, a Raw Elimination Chamber and then an ECW Elimination Chamber all on the same card I think we’d see the deprecation of the Elimination Chamber too.

In short, themed events… not a bad idea. Basing the theme off a stipulation… really bad idea.

In effect, they’re taking their best stipulation matches (HitC and TLC) off the table as feud blowoffs. They’re just making them annual events and also saturating the audience with three or more of those matches in one night… where previously the audience might be lucky to see one a year.

The problems with booking those events become apparent when one considers the necessity of placing talent in those matches that have styles antithetical to the stipulations. For example, TLC. We need three TLC matches out of this. Undertaker and Batista couldn’t pull off a TLC match against each other. Meaning we need to move someone else into the title picture to make up for the need for the stipulation.

So we’re booking to the stipulation. Not the talent.

Meaning we need to move Jericho into the title race stat. Get Batista out of the title race stat. Meaning we have to put DX/Jerishow on the backburner. Or maybe never have it at all — leaving money on the floor, if you will.

This is what they’re doing right now. This is what they’re booking to.

And it’s exactly the wrong way to be doing it.

How is Hell in a Cell going to look after two years of BLOODLESS cage matches that previously reflected the WWE’s epitome of brutality? That will be 6 or more watered-down cage matches, where previously we’d had — what — 16?

Really just emphasizing how the WWE will go for a quick ratings pop nowadays with no thought towards the long-term viability of their business.

I guess they figure they can re-educate their fanbase at the drop of a hat. And as long as that 200,000 or so faithful fanboys continue to feed their meter, I guess the WWE’s right.

Re: Jamie Noble

Well, it’s as good a time as any for Noble to get out of the WWE. What with Dragon Gate USA getting some steam and ROH having some real holes to fill in its roster. No doubt he’ll be able to take his experience in the WWE to help elevate either (or both) of those promotions.

But what really galls me, again, is the lack of any sense in WWE’s booking. I generally tend to wait to see how something is going to play out before I comment.

But I think having seen where this is heading, I can speak without missing the mark too far.

First off, let’s talk the MONSTER BUILD. I believe WWE has long ago forgotten how to build talent without a series of squash matches. Pretty much anyone, face or heel, who’s brought on to the roster has to squash the entirety of the roster to be built properly by WWE standards.

And we’ve seen how that, used judiciously, can work. But when used as a matter of course, we’ve seen how it can backfire.

The first problem is that it kills your undercard. One guy is going to get pushed to the moon. And unless that guy takes out ‘Taker, Batista or HHH, he’s going to come up short and join the ranks of Mysterio, Jericho, Big Show, Kane and others in the perennial orbit of the upper-mid-card (maybe). Making it EVEN harder for the undercard to be manipulated into competitive positions and fresh match-ups.

The second problem is that it makes the product predictable. Everyone knows the outcome when the monster-in-development shows up. So much so, that you can almost see the Nielsens change channels when he shows up. It’s not worth watching until the new monster runs up against HHH or his buddies.

Third, given that the monster-in-training is a spike and not a long term build, what do you do with him once HHH or Cena or Undertaker has put him back in his place? Umaga anyone?

Short answer: Nothing. You’ve shot his wad. It’s release-ville.

The next big problem with the Jamie Noble situation is that the WWE built some effective heat with the Noble/Sheamus match. But it’s so obvious they have no idea what to do with it.

That Noble wheezing thing was sick. But the “heat” as it were was not on Sheamus – as the beleagured and confused WWE booking team might have anticipated. It’s on Noble. Naturally, the audience wants to see Noble (or his ally) get revenge. It’s Booking 101.

A beatdown unanswered begs an answer. But there won’t be one. Plain and simple.

If Sheamus completed the power bomb outside the ring that stretchered Noble, then Noble should get a chance at a feud. This is how the great blood feuds — Sammartino/Zybysko, Rich/Sawyer, Funk/Lawler — are made! Releasing Noble is WWE leaving money on the floor because they obviously don’t want it or don’t know it’s there.

But if the point of the match was to build heat for Sheamus, then Sheamus should not have continued the beatdown outside the ring or, if he did, he should have had an altercation with an ally (either known or unknown) of Noble’s. And then a short feud to follow with said ally.

Again, Booking 101. Sheamus sent a message with a quick win. He needs nothing else. Continuing a beatdown after the match only built fans’ anticipation for retribution of some sort — which will not follow.

At this point, Sheamus has icky heat. The darkside of the Goldberg build as it were. It will be interesting to see the fans’ reaction to him. It will be a mix of boos and apathy. Because he has the type of heat on him that fans don’t know what to make of.

The best thing they can do right now is have Bourne go over Sheamus and a feud develop. Mainly, Bourne and Sheamus put on a competitive match. Have Bourne call out Sheamus for what he did to his “friend” Jamie Noble (fans would accept that). And have Bourne go over clean. Obligatory beat down by Sheamus follows but Bourne is not stretchered. He, instead, fights back and the two are allowed to be pulled apart.

This should be a meaningful feud for the undercard and Sheamus should go over in the end. That would build two guys, Sheamus and Bourne. A positive win for both. This would catapult Bourne into a viable US Title contender. And could push Sheamus higher.

Releasing Noble like this only shows how little WWE’s booking staff understands the basics. Or cares.

Moreover, the last anyone saw of Noble (at least in terms of not being a jobber) he was a Heel.

So does that make Sheamus a face now?

On themed PPVs:

The new ones are just lazy. Royal Rumble has a number one contendership match with 30 participants. No Way Out has a 6 person world title match gimmick with the Elimination chamber (it can also be used as a means of determining the number one contender for a different brand). Wrestlemania even has it’s gimmick match now of the Money in the Bank, another multi-man match for the contendership.

Extreme Rules doesn’t force itself into a specific gimmick, or into repeating a given gimmick for multiple people. Breaking Point did have variations on a theme, but still it was three submission matches in a row.

Night of Champions isn’t so much a gimmick as recognition that some of the titles don’t make it to PPV every month, so it has a niche. Bragging Rights is a unique idea … but having it so close to Survivor Series is just a bad idea. It steals the Survivor Series gimmick, and it seems (outside of a Women’s Match this year) there won’t really be any Survivor Series’ matches on the card.

Based on the past succesful gimmicks, they should look to gimmicks that don’t force a pair of superstars or tag teams into a gimmick match that doesn’t flow naturally. Instead, they should put a LOT of superstars into a match or have the “theme” be open enough that it can be better fit to the feuds involved.

The Scramble match could be something that becomes a Bash staple, doing something similar to No Way Out by putting the Title picture up in the air before the main events of Summerslam are set into stone.

Wargames would fit into the Bragging Rights/Survivor Series mold of large team warfare that could be used to further develop feuds and possibly cross them over, to either create new feuds, or at least create new matches to distract from the length of a feud. A return of King of the Ring could be Summerslam’s equivalent of the Royal Rumble, a means of setting up a number one contender for the second biggest show. Even if it was only the final four on the PPV (since more than that would probably be a bad idea), it would still be something different without it being a gimmick that may not fit for the main event feud.

Speaking of which, in many cases, the PPVs gimmick isn’t about the main event feuds at all, the PPV’s gimmick gives importance to the midcarders involvement in the show. The World Title matches often take a backseat to the Rumble itself, and due to it’s size, people outside the main event participate. The Survivor Series matches rarely have World Champions involved. The World Champs weren’t in the 7 man match at Bragging Rights, etc … it gives other people a chance to share the main event spotlight, which is a good thing, considering with 13 PPVs a year, and the main event stagnant, you may want the focus to be on other things than the same main event again. An Elimination Chamber puts in at least a few dark horses into the match, and some relatively fresh combinations of superstars. Those things work. However Breaking Point, Hell in the Cell and presumably TLc just change the gimmick for the main eventers. Instead of “sure it’s Cena vs. Orton again, but there is an interesting side show” it’s “sure it’s Cena and Orton again, but this time they are in a cage”.

Thank you for pointing out the one really important fact that everybody missed while they were predicting doom for WWE after the financials were released:

Year-on-year revenue INCREASED. That’s right, kids, they made more money in 2009 than in the same fiscal period in ‘08. During the worst recession in almost a century. Failing? Spare me.

Thank you for all your comments!

“A return of King of the Ring could be Summerslam’s equivalent of the Royal Rumble, a means of setting up a number one contender for the second biggest show.”

Walter, that is exactly what I was thinking…

@Walter:
You hit the nail on the head with your comments on the way WWE *should* be doing these themed PPVs.

@O’Mahony:
Who is predicting doom for the WWE? I missed that.

The real takeaway from the WWE’s yr-on-yr revenue increasing while their PPV buys are in decline isn’t whether the WWE is failing or not.

It’s that the WWE is performing better with video-games, licensing, overseas fans and TV related revenue than they are with PPVs.

Which inevitably shows us where WWE’s focus is going to be in the coming months. I don’t think that bodes well for increasing bang-for-the-buck in PPVs or the quality of the wrestling overall.

My comments were strictly on my frustration with the WWE’s application of stipulation-match themes to new PPVs (perhaps even better stated by Walter) and also on how I feel WWE’s approach to booking is hurting the product in the long run.

I think all the brands could be a lot stronger if a few simple changes were made to how some wrestlers are built and how the mid-card is treated in general.

I don’t think I’m the only one who feels pushing a guy who doesn’t tap out into a match with a guy who needs to retain a title in order to build a feud into a Submission match is by-the-numbers bad booking. I also don’t think I’m the only guy who’s tired of seeing the monster push where Khali/Umaga/Lashley/Sheamus/Snitsky (weren’t there more?) are pushed to the moon at the expense of everyone else on the roster.

Instead of building matches that people really want to see, it seems to me that the WWE is more concerned about creating “characters” that people want to buy T-shirts of. Fair enough. It’s paying their bills.

But my schtick is wrestling. So that’s what I’m going to be whinging about.

Scott: I’ve no issue with anybody bitching about wrestling – hell, I do 3,000-odd words of it once a week on here – I just get this really irrational surge of anger when folks take perfectly rational business decisions that make sense for the company and start in with the, “OMG…WWE’s so dumb. I’m not buying their PPVs anymore, and neither will anyone else.”

That’s taking your (as in the fan making comments like the above, not Scott) strange and irrational manner of thinking and applying it to ALL fans. If you buy one or two PPVs a year, and a five dollar hike prices you out of the market, then it makes no business sense for the WWE to prioritize you as a customer. Your value is comparatively very low.

Or if you like, think about it this way: On one side, you have a multi-million dollar, multi-national company. On the other, a dude bitching about five bucks. Who do you think has the better business sense?

But that’s just it–it’s not just A dude bitching, it’s a whold damn bunch of dudes bitching.

Also, please take into consideration that WWE is very crafty in its conceit.

WRESTLING FAN: I love your product!
WWE: Well, you ARE our fanbase! Here’s what we’re gonna do next: we’re gonna put a midget on screen a lot, we’re gonna have lots of poop, dick, and gay jokes, and we’re gonna have the same matches ad nauseum for months and months on end!
WRESTLING FAN: …I don’t want that.
WWE: So what? You’re not our fanbase.

Right, I get it. But you’re again missing the fundamental point, which is that WWE is absolutely right. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying WWE is right in any moral sense, or even for the sake of argument (I agree about the product, but somebody REALLY needs to play devil’s advocate here). The view you state above is completely one-dimensional and it’s your perspective as a fan. WWE as a business sees things completely differently, and a year-on-year increase in overall revenue indicates that their view is right and yours is wrong.

Keep in mind, this isn’t the content of the shows we’re talking about here – it’s the 3rd quarter financials. In that sense, what they’re actually putting on their shows is completely irrelevant so long as they’re turning a profit. And they are. Which is where this particular argument ends. What you’re saying is something different.

I understand that they’re a company, and I understand that they don’t care whose intelligence they’re insulting as long as they make a profit, and I understand that they are pandering HAPPILY to the imbeciles who are buying into the excrement they’re packing in every week.

I do understand. But that doesn’t mean I’m completely wrong. One day, this IS going to bite them in the ass, and I don’t know if they’ll see it coming this time.

@O’Mahony:
Thanks for clarifying that it wasn’t necessarily me that was being singled out. With all the “you”s being thrown around it’s often easy to get mixed up.

Larry Matysik and others have pointed out exactly what you say. At the end of the day, the WWE looks to see if they’ve turned a profit. If they have, they win. If not, something might be wrong.

Fundamentally, it is a business.

I think the sticking point is that I watch WWE for wrestling. But that’s not their focus. Let’s be clear about that. Their focus is, as has been pointed out, profit.

I think Matt’s spot on with his “You’re not our fanbase” comment. Basically, the WWE Universe is tightly defined as anyone who drives them towards a profit.

We can’t expect anything to change as long as the company remains in the black with existing quality as it is.

Which saddens me a bit. Because, like I said, I want to watch wrestling.

I also think Matt has a point with his last comment. Currently, the WWE business model is to milk their hardcore fanbase and attempt to replenish those leaving the fanbase with children and overseas fans. If anything, their business focus is to create CHARACTERS that drive LICENSING and MERCH.

It’s not on wrestling. Not really.

I do think this will eventually hurt them. I do think this strategy shrinks their fanbase over time. It’s essentially the same strategy they had in the mid-80s. Just tarted up and turned global.

But without a doubt, the WWE will change direction when it the pain does come home.

I seriously doubt that direction will include anything approximating “wrestling” as we might wish to define it.

Let’s face it. Wrestling isn’t paying their bills.

Whether or not that’s a self-fulfilling problem is a column all it’s own. I mean, if the WWE de-emphasizes the “sport” aspect of sports entertainment, then turns a profit. And uses that to justify further de-emphasizing the wrestling content. Are they wrong?

Sadly. I can’t say they are.

The only reason I could see any of this biting them in the ass is if somebody else were to present a credible alternative. The really scary thing is that we’re in a wasteland now as far as that’s concerned. There is no competition. Sure there are feds that you and I think are better (I’ll pay for Dragon Gate PPVs and merchandise, no problem), but they are absolutely worlds away from mainstream sports entertainment, which is the product WWE is pushing and the product that – for better or worse – is always going to make the most money. Vince has a monopoly there, and you have to be Russo-dumb to fuck up a monopoly. Like it or not, the folks who run WWE just aren’t that stupid.

I wrote a huge reply to that, but IP ate it.

Anyway, my point was essentially that I don’t see any of this coming back to bite them in the ass unless somebody presents a credible alternative. Nobody is.

There was a lot more to it than that, but I’m not typing it all again. Bah.

I agree and disagree.

The credible alternative is already out there. And it’s winning.

It’s called MMA.

I think it’s already biting the WWE in the backside. I think they feel that they can’t compete. And they’re adjusting their long-term business strategy based on that arguably false assumption.

I don’t think the change to PG rating was just because of Benoit. Ultimately, their business has experienced a non-effect profit-wise as a result of what essentially is a major change in programming content.

Meaning, I guess, it was the right move for them. I see it as them drawing a big box around their fanbase and hunkering down until the MMA thing passes into boxing levels of popularity. Meaning, short spikes of interest followed by long, low-level grinds.

As far as biting them in the ass…

It may or may not. WWE has proven in the past that they can take a promising mid-carder and make him a star at a moment’s notice. And that will get them out of most any doldrum.

Whether or not they’re grooming the right people for that. Or whether or not there’s anyone on the underbelly of their roster who can step up into that sort of role are the questions that will define whether or not this bites them in the ass.

I mean, from Vince’s perspective, I believe the WWE feels pretty much like they “made” The Rock. But The Rock would not have been anything like he was without Dwayne Johnson. Not everyone could just pull that kind of charisma out of their wahoo. Same with Stone Cold.

Now those two guys (along with a fairly strong supporting cast), helped the WWE win the Monday Night Wars. The question is whether or not the WWE has people of that caliber in place should the need for them arise.

But you’re correct now, as before, that the end result in the short term is more of the same. It’s making money. And that’s their business.

And they will keep doing it.