Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 21:44:20 GMT -5
Anyone else kind of wish this would become the standard? Other than the New Nexus intermission and them weirdly setting up a gang warfare thing between the New Nexus and Corre at the start only to never actually do anything with it in the match itself or later on, I really enjoyed the 2011 one. I thought the increase in people sort of made it feel like a nice change of pace, though it may have dragged a bit.
Granted, I realize unless you put some NXT guys and legends in there (plus Hornswoggle and El Torito) or like the entire card outside of the champions pulls double duty there's no way they're stretching the roster to 40 people at this point in time, but still.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 11,003
|
Post by Sparkybob on Nov 23, 2013 21:47:19 GMT -5
Call me a traditionalist but I really like it at 30.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Nov 23, 2013 21:48:13 GMT -5
I don't think 40 should be the standard per se, but if the roster warrants it, then by all means, dust it off every few years.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 23, 2013 21:50:29 GMT -5
I think the Rumble should be a 30 man match
However, I also think the Royal Rumble PPV in general should be an "all hands on deck" affair where they try to get as many talents on the roster as possible onto the show. For a lot of guys on the roster, the Rumble is their only chance at a PPV payday. And if WWE feels they HAVE to do a legends appearance, then it should be limited to ONE a year.
Additionally, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE should be pulling double duty on the show, unless EVERYONE on the roster (who isn't injured or away on hiatus) has already been booked and there are still spots that need to be filled. For example, If the Intercontinental/United States/Tag Team Champions are booked to defend their titles, then they and their challengers are out of the Rumble unless they still need to fill a spot after every active wrestler has been booked on the show.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Nov 23, 2013 21:52:07 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind if they had a one year change to a larger format with 3 Rings ala World War III.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 11,003
|
Post by Sparkybob on Nov 23, 2013 21:52:56 GMT -5
I think the Rumble should be a 30 man match However, I also think the Royal Rumble PPV in general should be an "all hands on deck" affair where they try to get as many talents on the roster as possible onto the show. For a lot of guys on the roster, the Rumble is their only chance at a PPV payday. And if WWE feels they HAVE to do a legends appearance, then it should be limited to ONE a year. Additionally, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE should be pulling double duty on the show, unless EVERYONE on the roster (who isn't injured or away on hiatus) has already been booked and there are still spots that need to be filled. For example, If the Intercontinental/United States/Tag Team Champions are booked to defend their titles, then they and their challengers are out of the Rumble unless they still need to fill a spot after every active wrestler has been booked on the show. I be pissed in kayfabe if I was a mid card champ. Why should I get punished when I've had a successful year and not get an opportunity to headline Mania but a jobber whose done nothing in the year gets that chance. That doesn't seem fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Nov 23, 2013 21:53:23 GMT -5
It should really depend on how stacked the roster is at that given time. If they're able to book their top names and the lesser knowns of the company alongside a couple of Legends/surprise entries within 30, then that should be the standard. If not, go ahead and add ten more slots that year.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 23, 2013 21:54:11 GMT -5
30 is enough
If they were going to have a 40 man match, they shouldn't have wasted it on Alberto Del Rio
|
|
|
Post by ben:friendship frog on Nov 23, 2013 21:55:48 GMT -5
I like the idea of 40. Makes more room for surprises and NXT guys. Everyone coming back or debuting trying to make a name for themselves and get a title shot at Wrestlemania. The one night of the year that practically anyone can show up to reclaim former glory or get their foot in the door, etc.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 23, 2013 21:56:07 GMT -5
I think the Rumble should be a 30 man match However, I also think the Royal Rumble PPV in general should be an "all hands on deck" affair where they try to get as many talents on the roster as possible onto the show. For a lot of guys on the roster, the Rumble is their only chance at a PPV payday. And if WWE feels they HAVE to do a legends appearance, then it should be limited to ONE a year. Additionally, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE should be pulling double duty on the show, unless EVERYONE on the roster (who isn't injured or away on hiatus) has already been booked and there are still spots that need to be filled. For example, If the Intercontinental/United States/Tag Team Champions are booked to defend their titles, then they and their challengers are out of the Rumble unless they still need to fill a spot after every active wrestler has been booked on the show. I be pissed in kayfabe if I was a mid card champ. Why should I get punished when I've had a successful year and not get an opportunity to headline Mania but a jobber who's done nothing in the year gets that chance. That doesn't seem fair to me. If WWE wants their champions in the Rumble, they should try to avoid booking title matches for the PPV. Let the title feud be blown off on the go-home show or save the title match for the Elimination Chamber, so that the undercard or even the pre-show could be given to someone else. Why should a jobber who's done nothing continue to be a jobber who's done nothing? That doesn't seem fair either. I didn't explicitly say that a midcard champ shouldn't be in the rumble. I'm just saying that absolutely no one should be in the Rumble match AND have a match in the undercard.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 23, 2013 22:00:07 GMT -5
If they want a dramatic Rumble they should tell the WWE champion that he must defend the title during the match. He must enter at #1 and win the event to retain it. If he is eliminated at any time, the title becomes vacant. Whoever wins the Rumble, also wins the title.
They could also have a Rumble where they tell a guy that he's fighting for his career. If he's eliminated, he's fired.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Nov 23, 2013 22:02:35 GMT -5
I think the Rumble should be a 30 man match However, I also think the Royal Rumble PPV in general should be an "all hands on deck" affair where they try to get as many talents on the roster as possible onto the show. For a lot of guys on the roster, the Rumble is their only chance at a PPV payday. And if WWE feels they HAVE to do a legends appearance, then it should be limited to ONE a year. Additionally, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE should be pulling double duty on the show, unless EVERYONE on the roster (who isn't injured or away on hiatus) has already been booked and there are still spots that need to be filled. For example, If the Intercontinental/United States/Tag Team Champions are booked to defend their titles, then they and their challengers are out of the Rumble unless they still need to fill a spot after every active wrestler has been booked on the show. I be pissed in kayfabe if I was a mid card champ. Why should I get punished when I've had a successful year and not get an opportunity to headline Mania but a jobber whose done nothing in the year gets that chance. That doesn't seem fair to me. www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1E-ATBxj8Y
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 22:14:17 GMT -5
The more the better imo.
Just means more room for fun eliminations. Also allows for more of those midcard storylines.
The same guy's gonna win whether there's 30 or 40 people in, regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Nov 23, 2013 22:30:48 GMT -5
I can't imagine WWE doing 40 men without them digging at the absolute bottom of the barrel on the roster and everyone doing double duty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2013 1:57:05 GMT -5
I'm still laughing at Alberto winning "the biggest Rumble in history!!!!" 30 is perfect IMO.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Nov 24, 2013 2:17:41 GMT -5
I can't imagine WWE doing 40 men without them digging at the absolute bottom of the barrel on the roster and everyone doing double duty. Well, let's see who'd be in one at this point in time. Take out Orton and Cena as the current major champions, Undertaker and Lesnar as inactive special attractions and Triple H and maybe Kane as corporate guys. That leaves us with... - Bryan
- Punk
- Big Show
- Del Rio
- Rhodes
- Goldust
- Big E
- Mysterio
- Ambrose
- Rollins
- Reigns
- Wyatt
- Harper
- Rowan
- Cesaro
- Swagger
- Jimmy Uso
- Jey Uso
- Ryback
- Axel
- Sandow
- Ziggler
- Kofi
- Miz
- R-Truth
- Woods
- Kidd
- Fandango
- O'Neil
- Young
- Santino
- Khali
- Ryder
- Gabriel
- Diego
- Fernando
- Slater
- McIntyre
- Mahal
- Hunico
Maybe trim the fat a bit more from the bottom for some legends and take out a challenger for the title matches and things should be OK. Not to mention that there are guys like Sheamus, Jericho, RVD, Henry, Barrett and Christian that could return in this match.
|
|
JCBaggee
Hank Scorpio
Writer, streamer. I used to write for CBR but then they fired everyone who cared about their writers
Posts: 6,791
|
Post by JCBaggee on Nov 24, 2013 3:52:33 GMT -5
30 is fine. The 40 man match only existed because they wanted Nexus and Corre to participate, and they'd have eaten up nearly half the entries. Wouldn't mind seeing a 40 man once in a while, especially if they could get a slew of legends and surprise run-ins. but not as a standard.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 24, 2013 8:37:22 GMT -5
I preferred the 40 man Rumble . The more the merrier for me.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Nov 24, 2013 8:39:17 GMT -5
I'd rather they went back to two minute intervals instead of going back to 40 entrants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2013 9:47:08 GMT -5
I can't imagine WWE doing 40 men without them digging at the absolute bottom of the barrel on the roster and everyone doing double duty. There are 66 superstars on the roster (active and inactive) right now who are able to be in a Rumble match. (I counted guys like Booker T and Ricardo in there too, as well as Trips, Brock and Taker). Even taking a few top-tier guys out for non-Rumble matches, and replacing them with a few surprise entrants, and you probably have more than enough to be able to "scrape that low-carder crap" off the Rumble's shoe. .....besides, the "bottom of the barrel of the roster" wouldn't be considered so low and scummy if everyone on the roster got fair play, good usage & were treated with some sort of respect by Creative. But that's a whole other giant problem in and of itself.
|
|