Would this "offseason" idea ever work?

[edgehead]

I've read in the past how some believe WWE should have some sort of an offseason. Some agree and some do not. While wrestling has at times shown pride in not having an offseason, what if there was an offseason for house shows? Let's say, September - December. They could still run weekly shows and PPVs, but the wrestlers get those 4 months to rest up rather than do non-televised live events.

The negatives would be a loss of money from live events, but the benefit would be a well rested roster + healing time before the most important stretch of the year, Royal Rumble through Wrestlemania. And with recent injuries dramatically affecting Wrestlemania, possibly time off beforehand would cut down on that. Also, this may cut down on travel hazards for winter months.

Again, I personally do not see this ever happening, but I do wonder if this would be a nice compromise.

[Deleted]

People would probably lose interest quicker.

[Captain Stud Muffin (BLM)]

Nah. With the brand split it seems like they are intent on giving guys "days" off. Corbin wrestled last week but this week he was only in a segment. If they could follow a formula of keeping guys involved but not wrestling so much than it could work as far as giving guys an extra breather. Obviously they would still have house shows to do and travel but no way in hell they go black on anything for a few months timespan.

[01010010 01101001 01100011]

To big a hit to stop it completely. You could rotate guys in and out of the house show lineup from say May until July and Sept. until Dec. while keeping the shows going and have all hands on deck for the pre and post WM and Summerslam tours. However right now they don't have strong enough touring lineups to do that because of the brand split.

[edgehead]

Very good points. I suppose another negative would be less time to "test the waters" of potential feuds and have guys who do not appear on weekly television to perform.

[Secret Clown]

They should rotate the roster giving a couple of people time off at the same time. Hopefully WWE Creative could come up with ways to write them off tv and book their returns.

[Chiral]

My ideal off season would be a brand split one, May-August is Raw season, September - December is Smackdown, January - April is both brands with Wrestlemania season. I'm sure there are a ton of reasons it wouldn't work out but I would personally love:
-A more wild summer with crazy twists and turns
-Classic style Smackdown
-The two brands meet up at the Royal Rumble, making it feel like a bigger deal
-Crazy interbrand feuds leading to Wrestlemania
-Last event is the draft, as sort of an epilogue/transition to the new seasons.

[AFN: Judge Shred]

Keep Raw and Smackdown's time off so they aren't at the same time. The air a CWC Tourny or the Dusty Classic in place of the show on break. Just take like a month, maybe twice a year.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

No. They would lose too much money. We got plenty of guys to call up from NXT if someone breaks their neck, it's all about the dollahhhhhhh*





*WWE's attitude not mine**




**Which is fair enough because they are a business and are accountable to board members and sponsors

[alred1982]

Here's the main problem USA have paid for raw and smackdown 52 times a year and most probably got clauses certain people have to be there or pressure for them to be there

[RIHT]

Honestly, maybe just do a month break after Summerslam, but continue to hype the feuds and product with videos and the Internet.

[Final Countdown Jones]

I'd like it if guys were maybe given a month off here and here, sort of rotate the cast out and let people have time off to recover, but the brand split seems like it's already a good step in the right direction; house show matches tend to be much, much easier and lighter than television matches, and a lot of guys were working two of those a week by wrestling on both Raw and Smackdown--three a week if there was a PPV. The pressure of consistently bringing it in TV matches was wearing guys down a whole f*** of a lot faster. Cutting the rosters down helps, as does having guys not work matches every episode. Promos and backstage segments keep storylines afloat just fine and mean that they don't always have to worry about the hardest match of their week.

[Macho Pichu]

Aug 11, 2016 0:39:28 GMT -5 01010010 01101001 01100011 said:

To big a hit to stop it completely. You could rotate guys in and out of the house show lineup from say May until July and Sept. until Dec. while keeping the shows going and have all hands on deck for the pre and post WM and Summerslam tours. However right now they don't have strong enough touring lineups to do that because of the brand split.

You could even have top guys work as many house shows as they currently do, but only be used in the "send the crowd home happy" role instead of being used in proper matches. That way, the only thing they ever need to do is hit their finisher once. No bumps needed. 

[Reflecto]

Aug 11, 2016 0:39:28 GMT -5 01010010 01101001 01100011 said:

To big a hit to stop it completely. You could rotate guys in and out of the house show lineup from say May until July and Sept. until Dec. while keeping the shows going and have all hands on deck for the pre and post WM and Summerslam tours. However right now they don't have strong enough touring lineups to do that because of the brand split.

This is true- but it does give a modified, non-"offseason" way to get the same benefits for the brand split and have an interchangeable house show schedule:

For the A-house show, it splits week by week: Raw gets the house shows one week, Smackdown gets the house shows the second week.
NXT is given the B-house show tour in full each week, since NXT would give multiple benefits to having that spot (they have one set taping, so they have a small enough TV schedule to compensate for a more permanent house show tour, and the NXT house shows have been outselling main roster house show tours, so a regular NXT tour would be more of a draw to fans.)

It's still got the same basic hit for the house show lineup, but in the process there's a few bigger options: The main roster gets a week off of house show touring every other week with just a TV event to work with (which gives the workers enough regular time off to not need an "offseason" as much while still keeping a year-round roster), while you're giving the house shows far less of a hit in money by replacing them with what might be WWE's biggest drawing house show "brand"...and in the process, giving NXT workers more time outside of the Full Sail echo chamber to learn how to translate their gimmicks on a larger scale.

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

Nah. I think it'd be worth a try but there's too much short-term money to be lost for WWE to consider it.

[IMPRESSIVE knightwing1047]

The only off-season I would do would be individual wrestlers. They'd all get a month or two off every 8 months to keep things fresh.

Another option would be to cut house shows for a couple of months and just film tv.

[Mozenrath]

Wrestlers themselves would be an issue, too. In addition to them not wanting (obviously) to lose the arena revenue on the faint hope of "maybe it'll be bigger when we get back?" without the promise of that being the case, it also would make them paranoid of losing their spots. Plus, as Lance Storm conjectured when asked about it, it might make guys actually take more risks while wrestling, reasoning they could just rest it off. It could be very dangerous.

[TWERKIN' MAGGLE]

Time for the bi-monthly "Offseason" thread.

We're almost due for an "End the brand split" thread!

[Powerline]

If they were a smaller company sure. Some time to reload the storylines, give people a break from certain wrestlers therefore keeping them from being "shoved down their throat", giving wrestlers rest, and having solid "season finale" events where major shit is guaranteed to go down sounds all well and good.

WWE's just too big a company to pull it off. They'd lose too much money to make up for those benefits they'd get from downtime.