Getting rid of Hell In A Cell, Money In The Bank and TLC Events

[CrazyBobBacklund]

Over the past decade WWE has started to soil these special match types for money in the bank, hell in cell and tlc by having shows with a number of each match type in each ppv, especially tlc which has grasped at straws coming up with such matches as ‘stairs’ and ‘chairs’ matches-seriously has anyone been excited by any of these??!
I think to bring excitement and prestige to these iconic match types again WWE needs to scrap these ppvs. Bring back the money in the bank match at mania for both males and females which could utilise a lot of stars without meaningful storylines, have a tlc match about twice a year, then make HIAC once every year or every other year to settle a long term feud.
Are there any other ppv types you’d scrap? Or maybe some of you disagree?

 

[Aquaman6686]

I'd get rid of all the "gimmick" B PPVs except for Elimination Chamber, and bring back the classic PPVs like Vengeance, Judgment Day, No Mercy, etc. The only gimmick PPV I'd bring back is Night of Champions.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Personally, i don't mind gimmick PPV mostly because they feel different from the normal PPV. The only one i would take out would be extreme rules mostly because they don't really want to go full on extreme anymore so what'S the point of having it.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

From a TV perspective ditching the gimmick PPVs makes total sense. However, my guess is that gimmick B-PPVs average a better gate (especially with pre-orders) than non-gimmick B-PPVs at the same time of year.

 

[CrazyBobBacklund]

I'd get rid of all the "gimmick" B PPVs except for Elimination Chamber, and bring back the classic PPVs like Vengeance, Judgment Day, No Mercy, etc. The only gimmick PPV I'd bring back is Night of Champions.

I 100% agree with this. Elimination chamber should however crown the no.1 contender to the second main title match at mania though rather than involve the champ.

 

[CrazyBobBacklund]

Personally, i don't mind gimmick PPV mostly because they feel different from the normal PPV. The only one i would take out would be extreme rules mostly because they don't really want to go full on extreme anymore so what'S the point of having it.

Extreme rules is a mockery of its name. Especially with all the concussion lawsuits meaning it’s only ever body blows. Do hell in a cell matches feel special to you still though? I couldn’t even remember the matches from last years one :s

 

[CrazyBobBacklund]

From a TV perspective ditching the gimmick PPVs makes total sense. However, my guess is that gimmick B-PPVs average a better gate (especially with pre-orders) than non-gimmick B-PPVs at the same time of year.

I suppose there some logic there with the buy rates

 

[CrazyBobBacklund]

I'd get rid of all the "gimmick" B PPVs except for Elimination Chamber, and bring back the classic PPVs like Vengeance, Judgment Day, No Mercy, etc. The only gimmick PPV I'd bring back is Night of Champions.

Another gimmick one I wouldn’t mind a return of is king of the ring as long as they didn’t keep rehashing the “I’m a king” gimmick that only Harley race, Jerry lawler and Booker t (oh and Jimmy King ) mastered.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Extreme rules is a mockery of its name. Especially with all the concussion lawsuits meaning it’s only ever body blows. Do hell in a cell matches feel special to you still though? I couldn’t even remember the matches from last years one :s

Sometimes when the matches are build to end a current feud last year wasn't great with strowman and reigns but the hardy/orton one was awesome. The year before they had 2 awesome matches. So it depends how the ppv is booked.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Personally, i don't mind gimmick PPV mostly because they feel different from the normal PPV. The only one i would take out would be extreme rules mostly because they don't really want to go full on extreme anymore so what'S the point of having it.

Some would argue is that gimmick PPV's are used to hide the WWE's inability to have compelling feuds and stories.

So yes I think gimmick PPV's need to go for all the reasons specified earlier.

I mean we still need the traditional Royal Rumble and Survivor Series PPV's since that's part of the WWE tradition but I don't think people are saying the same about Elimination Chamber or MITB.

I'd also like to go one step further and say we need to get rid of MITB and these gimmick PPV's. I have many reasons but I'm too tired to explain in detail.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I disagree with getting rid of the gimmick brand pay per views. Say what you will about how having a show devoted to a given match type "sucks" but what is worse to me is in the old format. What exactly was the difference between Unforgiven and No Mercy, for example? Literally the exact same show but with a different name. The gimmick shows give the lower tier events something to set them apart. Money In The Bank should stay. It's the 5th biggest show of the year. Night Of Champions should come back now that we have so many titles it is perfect for a show that's a bigger deal in today's WWE. TLC needs to stay. Unlike the other gimmick brands it is centered around up to 4 different match types. Heck, you can make it 5 if you bring back the Stairs match we got a few years back. Tables match, ladders match, chairs match, TLC match, all in one show. TLC has got to stay. Now if we're talking about removing useless brands, let's get rid of Fastlane and Battleground. Completely pointless shows. There's a lot of older brands that could be brought back to replace them whether it be classics like King Of The Ring or even Over The Limit. Gimmicky low tier shows are better than having a bunch of shows that are identical other than their name.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I think it would be funny if WWE just named a PPV something like WWE 1,278 (or whatever number they are on) as a parody of UFC. Like oh, UFC just had UFC 300, hold my beer.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Some would argue is that gimmick PPV's are used to hide the WWE's inability to have compelling feuds and stories.

So yes I think gimmick PPV's need to go for all the reasons specified earlier.

I mean we still need the traditional Royal Rumble and Survivor Series PPV's since that's part of the WWE tradition but I don't think people are saying the same about Elimination Chamber or MITB.

I'd also like to go one step further and say we need to get rid of MITB and these gimmick PPV's. I have many reasons but I'm too tired to explain in detail.

Personally, the only reason i want them to keep the gimmick ppv is that since they actually want to have a ppv every months, they make the show stand out from every thing else the wwe produce. They tried having just normal ppv and while the feuds were interested, the shows felt like watching a episode of raw with the execution.

The thing is that with all the product they are producing right now, it's really hard to comes up with great feuds especially when you see them wrestled each other on raw every week. At less that way, we get something special. The system isn't perfect i rather they would go back to the 5 ppv format they had in the early 90's then what they have now because it was easier to build feud and interesting stories when they had 2 or 3 months between ppv instead of 3 weeks but that won't happen so that way at less, we don't have to fill like we are watching a sunday night raw every months and some of them like MITB is being threated like a big event and not just a holdover like fastlane or backlash are.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

Hell in a Cell has become diluted, it should be *the* major feud ender for the most personal feuds. Some HIAC matches recently have made sense (Charlotte v Sasha, for example); others happen for no reason at all (CM Punk v Ryback) other than that’s the next ppv.

I prefer my Raws 2 hours long and my standard ppv fare to be 8 normal shows plus the big 4. I have no problems with ppv shows appearing ‘samey’, as long as they are booked well and more important logically. However I do like the Money in the Bank match, and that ppv has never disappointed. I prefer the current (and original) model where Raw and Smackdown wrestlers compete in the same match though.

I’m surprised at the love for Night of Champions. To me, that makes little sense, especially as some years we have had several ppvs where all (or all but one) match have been title matches, so to hear Michael Cole spout that “it’s the one night of the year all titles are defended” is utter nonsense (same as his mythical line that Survivor Series is the “one night of the year Raw and Smackdown compete against each other” - y’know, except the Royal Rumble match TWO MONTHS later...

Another change I would advocate is going back to the original Survivor Series system of multiple elimination matches, they managed it well in the early days and those first two shows, both very good, were only two hours long! The roster today is huge, and they scramble to get as many on Wrestlemania each year so why not Survivor Series too? But stop with the Raw v Smackdown aspect, no one buys that the two shows are rivals.

 

[CrazyBobBacklund]

Hell in a Cell has become diluted, it should be *the* major feud ender for the most personal feuds. Some HIAC matches recently have made sense (Charlotte v Sasha, for example); others happen for no reason at all (CM Punk v Ryback) other than that’s the next ppv.

I prefer my Raws 2 hours long and my standard ppv fare to be 8 normal shows plus the big 4. I have no problems with ppv shows appearing ‘samey’, as long as they are booked well and more important logically. However I do like the Money in the Bank match, and that ppv has never disappointed. I prefer the current (and original) model where Raw and Smackdown wrestlers compete in the same match though.

I’m surprised at the love for Night of Champions. To me, that makes little sense, especially as some years we have had several ppvs where all (or all but one) match have been title matches, so to hear Michael Cole spout that “it’s the one night of the year all titles are defended” is utter nonsense (same as his mythical line that Survivor Series is the “one night of the year Raw and Smackdown compete against each other” - y’know, except the Royal Rumble match TWO MONTHS later...

Another change I would advocate is going back to the original Survivor Series system of multiple elimination matches, they managed it well in the early days and those first two shows, both very good, were only two hours long! The roster today is huge, and they scramble to get as many on Wrestlemania each year so why not Survivor Series too? But stop with the Raw v Smackdown aspect, no one buys that the two shows are rivals.

I 110% agree with this with maybe the addition of King Of The Ring to boot

 

[sMark]

Hell in a Cell - should be a major feud ender that happens rarely and only when writing goes there, not a PPV.
Survivor Series - for me this concept is outdated, WWE did everything they could with these matches, it's time to drop it and move on.
King of the Ring should be Queen of the Ring - winner gets a titleshot at Summerslam.
MitB should stay - throws in a little dose of chaos.
December PPV should be a total fan service - like Cyber Sunday tried to be.
TLC - same as hell in a cell, otherwise these 2 match types don't feel special

 

[SwanSong]

I disagree with dropping Money in the Bank. That should be a yearly event. It isnt something that you can argue should be tied to a fued like Hell in a Cell or TLC. Money in the Bank is very much the modern King of the Ring.

Speaking of KOTR I disagree with bringing it back. I know we all look back at it with nostalgia glasses but the tournament format didn't work as a one night event (the last few years it was one of the worst selling ppvs of the year).

I love tournaments and WWE has cracked how to do them now with the Mae Young Classic, UK Championship Tournament, Cruiserweight Classic, and Mixed Match Challenge. Tournaments def seem to work better as a multi day limited tv series.

 

[Ceen]

Having 6 big PPV is good, and have 6 one-branded PPV, 3 for RAW and 3 for Smackdown
It makes more sense, have champions to have 1 or 2 months title defenses, and create a longer storylines.
I would make it:
JAN Royal Rumble
FEB PPV
MAR PPV
APR Wrestlemania
MAY Kings of the Ring
JUN PPV
JUL Summerslam
AUG PPV
SEP Money in the Bank
OCT PPV
NOV Survivor Series
DEC PPV

Post season WM without champions involved, until KOTR
Kings of the Ring winner gets his brand champion to face at Summerslam, having a Men and Women tournament and having tag and singles.

 

[TDFG]

With the Brand Split KoTR/QoTR could probably work, Brand Finals + Overall Final with the Winners going to GAB or SummerSlam.

I don't mind gimmick PPV's, but Extreme Rules needs to go.

January - Royal Rumble
February - Elimination Chamber
March - ???
April - WrestleMania
May - MITB
June - KoTR/QoTR
July - GAB
August - SummerSlam
September - TLC
October - ???
November - Survivor Series
December - HIAC

 

[Radical]

Most of the gimmick PPVs in WWE these days are dumb. They are just there as a gimmick for the sake of having the gimmick. In the past, the gimmick matches were used when a particular feud got to such a point that having a cage match, hell in a cell, ladder match, hardcore match, etc. made sense.

Now, you just go "oh, it's time for a TLC match because that's what the next PPV is." Now, if that is how you get excited for a PPV just because it's going to have tables ladders and chairs then I think you should be watching more B action movies because they have random crap and destruction just for the sake of it.

As always, there are a few exceptions, they are exceptions because the gimmick match has a greater purpose overall than just 'having the match'. The exception is Money in the Bank. It is a pretty unique and interesting concept, although it's 'power' has been diminished over time. But, it can stay, because it's basically like the new "King of the Ring" PPV. So, instead of bringing back the King of the Ring, they can just keep Money in the Bank.

As for Extreme Rules, Hell in a Cell, TLC and Elimination Chamber - you don't have to name the PPVs that. If your product is interesting enough, and people are following it enough, if you have a PPV like Armaggeddon and you set up through storyline that it makes sense to have an Elimination Chamber match, then you have that match then, not just because it's February and that's when we have Elimination Chamber matches.

Same goes for all the other gimmicks. I'd much rather a match become a Hardcore match because the two talents in the feud are so heated that they are going to go all out at each other.

But, of course, I am worried if Vince goes away from gimmick-named PPVs we are going to get more PPVs with names that are unbelievably stupid like ...

GREAT BALLS OF FIRE!

 

[Hosea Williams jr]

They justed cancelled wwe backlash this year!

 

[Spencesc11]

My PPV Schedule Would be this.....

1) January - Royal Rumble
2) February - King & Queen of the Ring (Semi-Finals & Finals for both Men & Women on the PPV, allows WWE to highlight mid-carders early in the year). Maybe non-title cross branded champions vs. champions matches to.
3) March - Elimination Chamber (should be the PPV before Mania, can crown a Number 1 contender for then non Rumble World Championship match)
4) April - Wrestlemania (add the money in the bank match back to mania as it well help get more top stars a meaningful match on the big show - 8 superstars w/4 from each brand in men's and women's match). Maybe have one of the tag belts for the men defended in the Andre Battle Royal to??? 20 guys = 10 teams. Would make that match way more meaningful in my opinion.
5) May - Backlash - (great PPV name for the show following Mania)
6) June - Bash at the Beach (great summer PPV name)
7) July - TLC
8) August - Summerslam
9) September - Clash of Champions (all belts defended)
10) October - Hell in a Cell (all matches in a cage)
11) November - Survivor Series (stop the Raw vs. Smackdown matches and go back to brand faction feuded matches). Have 2 singles matches (1 men's world title and 1 women's and the rest of the matches traditional 5 vs. 5 matches).
12) December - Starrcade (I know it wasn't Vince's baby but this should close out the year)

 

[d_henderson1810]

Extreme rules is a mockery of its name. Especially with all the concussion lawsuits meaning it’s only ever body blows. Do hell in a cell matches feel special to you still though? I couldn’t even remember the matches from last years one :s

So you don't remember Randy Orton sticking a screwdriver through Jeff Hardy's ear in a Hell-In-A-Cell Match, or the ghastly "red" Hell-In-The-Cell structure?

 

[CrazyBobBacklund]

So you don't remember Randy Orton sticking a screwdriver through Jeff Hardy's ear in a Hell-In-A-Cell Match, or the ghastly "red" Hell-In-The-Cell structure?

I forgot about both. I think I may have blocked the memory of the red cell away. The screwdriver spot was good though!

 

[savoie46]

Over the past decade WWE has started to soil these special match types for money in the bank, hell in cell and tlc by having shows with a number of each match type in each ppv, especially tlc which has grasped at straws coming up with such matches as ‘stairs’ and ‘chairs’ matches-seriously has anyone been excited by any of these??!
I think to bring excitement and prestige to these iconic match types again WWE needs to scrap these ppvs. Bring back the money in the bank match at mania for both males and females which could utilise a lot of stars without meaningful storylines, have a tlc match about twice a year, then make HIAC once every year or every other year to settle a long term feud.
Are there any other ppv types you’d scrap? Or maybe some of you disagree?

I agree, on all counts. Having the MITB matches at Mania would help eliminate having 18 matches just to get most of the roster on the card and could also cut down the time of the show.