Booking Challenge: Eliminate the Rumble WM Title Match Stip

[HMARK Center]

Given all the talk about crowd mutinies at the Rumble (either last year's or the potential for one this year), I found myself thinking that maybe WWE could avoid all this sturm und drang if they simply got rid of the "Winner of the Rumble gets a Title Shot at WM!" stipulation. That way, it wouldn't feel like one person "had" to win, or risk having a major push derailed or what have you.

But then I also tried to think of what would have to be done to maintain interest in the Rumble if that stipulation wasn't there, and I realized that might be a tough nut to crack.

So what do you guys say? If you were given the chance, would you change what a wrestler received for winning the Rumble? Would you change anything major about the way WWE books the whole "Road to Wrestlemania" season?

Possible Pros:
-It'd vary who could win; if a title shot at the biggest show of the year is at stake, you're basically stuck realizing "Ok, only a guy who we know is a main eventer, or just about to be one, is going to win this." Dropping that opens the door to maybe a midcarder who's in line for a solid push getting the win.

-Besides, Rumbles are supposed to be chaotic, so having more random winners makes the match more realistic; a midcarder who draws #28 should probably stand a better chance than a near main eventer who draws #6. Doesn't mean they have to win or anything, but it feels silly when you get down to the last five and can tick off on a couple fingers who's obviously getting eliminated next.

-It could freshen up the way feuds are built going into 'Mania. Maybe instead of a title shot, the winner receives a genie wish, so to speak; yes, they could receive a title shot, but maybe they want a guaranteed feud blowoff cage match against a hated rival at 'Mania, instead. Again, it'd just freshen things up, open up more booking options, and let the prize selected reflect the traits of the character choosing the reward.

-This one is more a personal quibble of mine, but I also just dislike the use of a Rumble format match to determine not only a #1 contender, but the top contender on your biggest show of the year! Again, the point of a Rumble is that it's chaotic: so (pretending it was real for a second), what would they have done if El Torito had won last year? You wouldn't risk a WM buyrate on that. Also, how many draw a number in the 20s and win, and then do the stupid "survived 29 other men!" line even though they were only in for 10 minutes? C'mon, your top contender for the biggest show of the year ought to be somebody who's already near the top, not somebody who, again, in the kayfabe universe, often wins by chance.

Possible Cons:
-Let's face it, we're all used to the title match stip (been there since 1993 and Yokozuna); it's a solid piece of the Rumble's allure, so you'd have to make sure you have a REALLY good replacement in mind if you got rid of it.

-Today's day and age simply isn't the same as the old days. Sure, it was ok for Hacksaw Jim Duggan and Big John Studd to win the first two Rumbles; fans weren't being told to expect a major title match for either of them, the match was still young enough that people were just getting used to it, and fans were more easily entertained by just the visual of so many big name wrestlers being in the ring at the same time. In an era without jobber squashes and with "supercards" every week on Raw, that's harder to pull off.

I guess if this were a debate, I'd put this down as the proposition for everybody to respond "yea" or "nay" to: "The Royal Rumble is a major event that suffers from being too predictable, due to the Wrestlemania title match stipulation. Thus, the stipulation should be changed."

Yea? Nay? Why or why not?

[Deleted]

The only way to do this is was when Taker had his streak.

[Nickybojelais]

How about starting the show with a Royal Rumble match, the winner receiving a World title shot in the main event later that night? It would allow for more "random" winners of the rumble.

I think the event would still ultimately retain its prestige, despite losing the Wrestlemania stipulation, because the Rumble Match will always be a draw to the fans.

[Jeff Mangum PI]

Either make it for a title shot or for a title itself. The Royal Rumble is pointless if it isn't for either of those.

[BorneAgain]

Rumble Winner gets the title shot for the February PPV, while from January to February you do a single elimination or round robin tournament culminating with the finals at the February PPV deciding the WM challenger.

You build up the challenger with some victories, give the February PPV an actual point, and make it so getting to Mania involves actually winning and not just the luck of the draw.

[Reflecto]

The problem is that the Rumble WM Title Match stipulation is a catch-22: The match itself is prestigious enough so it doesn't NEED the WM Title Match stipulation- but it IS prestigious because it HAS the WM Title Match stipulation attached to it. Take away the title match stipulation, and it's no different than King of the Ring- a nice feather in a cap for a superstar, but nothing.

It also has the same problem that, if you claim that the Wrestlemania Title Match stipulation is the one thing keeping WWE from giving a midcarder the rub of winning the Rumble, that's also unlikely as well. People remember how Hacksaw Jim Duggan and Big John Studd won the first two Royal Rumbles as really the only big honor of their WWE careers- but they always forget to mention that, once the Royal Rumble was solidified as a match, the 1990 and 1991 Rumbles were both won by Hulk Hogan (and if there was no title stipulation for 1992-on, Hogan probably would have won each year.) By contrast, the "Winner of the Rumble immediately gets a WM Title shot" stipulation guarantees that if a young talent wins [and they win a lot, more often than not], that Rumble winner has INSTANTLY been elevated to be a main event-caliber wrestler. Just the very CHANCE to win the Rumble by the end can make some stars (witness the 2011 Rumble where the entire WWE Universe hyperventilated from the "Oh crap oh crap SANTINO could main event Wrestlemania?" and people LOVED it.)

[LuciCypher]

Jan 19, 2015 19:33:15 GMT -5 @conviction said:

The only way to do this is was when Taker had his streak.

Yeah that would have been awesome and the best way for a scenario like this. I'm mean sure you can win the rumble to face WWE Champion Miz take it for him and lose it in six months to John Cena or whatever. Or you could have the chance to face The UnderTaker at Wrestlemania if you beat him man on man but if you don't you got to have a match with The UnderTaker at Wrestlemania. I feel a title shot at other then mania kinda stinks as a prize since they seem to hand those out like hotcakes. So the prize would have to be something grand like you get to be GM for a year or whatever.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Just make it the Money in the Bank. Winner gets a contract to face the champ at any point before the next Rumble. Since the Rumble winner hasn't been in doubt for about, oh, 20 years now, this at least gives you the chance to bail on the winner if it's not working before Mania, Hey Batista, how's it going? Then, at least you got a year to build the guy.

Even that's stupid, since the Rumble winner, MITB and the rematch clause are all just lazy, lazy, lazy booking designed to shoehorn whomever into a ready made storyline that doesn't even need to make sense because, hey, he won the Rumble!

[HMARK Center]

Jan 19, 2015 19:35:27 GMT -5 Jeff Mangum PI said:

Either make it for a title shot or for a title itself. The Royal Rumble is pointless if it isn't for either of those.

The first four Rumbles had no such stipulations; again, I'm not saying you can 100% go back to that, either, since the sheer spectacle of the match doesn't draw people in as much anymore, but the whole challenge here is to think of something that allows the match to have a point in lieu of the WM main event reward.

I do agree that things like the current Rumble format and the MitB often wind up being little more than lazy booking; I don't mind wrestling bookers taking a shortcut here or there when they know it'll be effective, but yeah, those things just make certain events way too predictable.

I'm also of the mind that I'd redo the whole WM season; 'Mania should be a show that guys have to "earn" their way on (in a kayfabe sense). If it's WWE's version of the Superbowl, why not make it so only the best of the best get to compete on it? Then the Rumble could wind up being a way to earn points, or however you want to format it, to guarantee a guy a highly featured spot on the 'Mania card.

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

I want a WWE G-1 Climax, damn it.

[HMARK Center]

Jan 19, 2015 23:26:36 GMT -5 Magic knows Black Lives Matter said:

I want a WWE G-1 Climax, damn it.

That'd work a hell of a lot better for me. Maybe the winner of the Rumble would get an automatic entry into the tournament, or, if they're considered highly ranked enough going in, they receive some kind of top seed consideration (byes or whatever).

[Deleted]

Have it be won by somebody with the Mania title shot condition in effect, but then they are injured by the champion or someone else in February and can't make Mania, leading it to be said they can have a title shot at any PPV over the coming year instead and make that the Rumble's condition. Basically from there make it assumed that the match will lead to a title shot at Mania, but if someone has reasons why they might not want to do that, they can opt to use it elsewhere.

[PsychoGoatee]

As a thing to help a less likely midcarder on the rise, bringing back a King of the Ring tournament makes sense. And Daniel Bryan just mentioned in an interview how he'd like to see that happen, on Smackdown.

For the Rumble, I think they have enough room to book that they could do it in a less obvious expected way if they want. They always have the option to change the title match to a triple threat or fatal fourway etc later on. They should let more unexpected people like say Ziggler win it, but letting them get that title shot really does elevate it.

But speaking of tournaments, would love to see a tournament for the WWE title on a pay-per-view again sometime, maybe at Survivor Series or Summerslam. Like Savage at WrestleMania IV. Daniel Bryan doing two matches in one night and winning the belt is great, but three or four matches is extra epic.

[DZ: WF Legacy]

MITB is a random title match at any given time (Cena and RVD being the exception to this). Royal Rumble can be a contract signed title match known in advance. It'd still make the most sense to put yourself in the WM main event, but at the very least, Cena wouldn't have to be champion or win the Royal Rumble a bunch more times to get the WM main event spot he'll surely be positioned with in the future. I guess the only way to really write out the RR winner from always going with the WM main event is by creating a blood feud "more important" than the main event.

[JCBaggee]

Jan 20, 2015 17:14:14 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Jan 19, 2015 23:26:36 GMT -5 Magic knows Black Lives Matter said:

I want a WWE G-1 Climax, damn it.

That'd work a hell of a lot better for me. Maybe the winner of the Rumble would get an automatic entry into the tournament, or, if they're considered highly ranked enough going in, they receive some kind of top seed consideration (byes or whatever).

Winner of the Rumble is automatically in the finals of March's King of the Ring tournament.