Should WWE go back to doing less PPV's a year?

[blackielawless]

Anyone else besides me miss the good ole classic days of WWF where there were less PPV's a year, thus the matches would seem much bigger and have a much MUCH bigger build up as well?

These days it seems like the PPV's have lost there "greatness", with the exception of Wrestlemania of course.

Its almost like as soon as one PPV is over, boom, here comes the next one, giving no time for new feuds to build up to colossal proportions like back in the day.

What do you all think?

[Rocky Van Heineken]

Nah, they make too much money.

[J is Justice]

Yes

[Hiroshi Hase]

Yes I think they should, but as it's making them lots of money, it's doubtful that it will ever go back to the old format.

[bigHEADinc]

Every month or so somebody makes this same exact thread, talking about wanting to put the worker's health before everything else and all that jazz, but it's entirely impossible for the WWE, without some major money loss, to go back to a 4-6 PPVs-a-Year schedule... Just sayin...

[britishbulldog]

I think that by going back to 5 PPV a year they may actually make more money. However to do this you have to change how the TV shows work and that won't happen. If you didn't have PPV quality matches on TV and just used the TV shows to push a fued for 3 months I think that buy rates would sky rocked. However you would loose some of your TV ratings. I wish this is how it would work; but what do I know>?

[blackielawless]

Bigheadinc: How does reducing the amount of yearly PPV's affect the wrestlers health?

[bigHEADinc]

blackielawless said:

Bigheadinc: How does reducing the amount of yearly PPV's affect the wrestlers health?

I was mocking other arguments, but if I'm not mistaken the argument is that with less PPVs per year that would mean that the wrestlers wouldn't have to work as many dates or do as many high profile matches that would take a bigger toll on their bodies as opposed to a Raw or Smackdown match...

[Beantown33]

what about say one a month instead of one every two weeks in this stretch before the holidays

[Tapout]

If the company cut back on house shows and PPVs, I would be happy, even though this won't happen because of the huge money loss this would mean.

It's scary how the company grinds its people into dust with that road schedule, easy to see why people get burned out after a while.

If the company had a lighter, TNA-like sched, I would think guys like Booker and Angle would still be around.

[Sephiroth]

I actually would prefer to see WWE do PPV's on a bi-monthly basis. The thing I have come to dislike in the last couple of years, mainly, is that they tend to put on a lot of the same matches twice. Cena is the most obvious example of this-he would meet one opponent at one PPV, then have a rematch with him at the next. It just gets old really quickly.

However, I don't see this happening anytime soon. They are simply too big a source of revenue. There are only two circumstances under which I see the number of PPV's and of TV shows, for that matter, being reduced. Either one, when Vince goes off to the squared circle in the sky, whoever takes over after him decides to dramatically restructure everything. Or two, the company suffers monumental losses, and has to cut back dramatically in their budget. But only if one of those things happens. Nothing else will change it.

[Voldemar H. "Brak" Guerta]

They should, because I'd be more interested in each one, but they won't, because they make a large chunk of their overall profit from PPV's.

[erik316wttn]

wcwmark said:

what about say one a month instead of one every two weeks in this stretch before the holidays

It seems like they're doing one a month again now since they made the PPV's tri-branded.

[Deleted]

Would I like to see less? Yes.

Is is a wise decision for WWE? No. They make far too much money off PPV, why stop?

[blackielawless]

Seems like were all on the same page here. And I agree with sephiroth (I love FFVII btw), one of the major complaints me and my friends make is that you will see the same match, with different stipulations, 3 or even 4 times in a row. And then on top of that you will usually see the same exact match from the previous nights PPV on RAW.

[cpbuff22]

How about saving BIG Title matches and Title changes for the larger PPVs. Have six man tags, #1 Contender Matches, & maybe even Champion vs Champion matches on the other PPVs.

[blackielawless]

Yeah, like here is a good example of what WWE does that just irks me. Chris Jericho finally returns to RAW, he's had maybe 30 minutes of air time since he debuted, and yet he is already in the main event against Orton this Sunday.

Where's the freaking build up!?

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Yes, they should. Also, WrestleMania lives off it's name, not necessarily anything else.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Right now, the WWE has a 12-PPV schedule for next year.

I think the most reasonable format that would allow them to build up the most hype possible for each show without a serious money loss would be no less than 10 a year.

The market's changed way too much for the old days of four PPVs a year.

[chunkylover53]

How about they just merge ECW and Smackdown(which their pretty much doing now) and go back to the seperate brand-PPVs. That way, aside of the major PPVs, they give fueds two months to build up.