40 Man Royal Rumble

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

Nov 24, 2013 9:47:08 GMT -5 @knapp said:

Nov 23, 2013 22:30:48 GMT -5 Oh Cry Me a Screwball said:

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.

In any case, you can pick the winner of the Rumble from a group of six or seven guys, so what does it matter if an extra ten guys with no hope of winning are added? As long as entry times are consistent and the ring is allowed to fill up it all adds to the flavour.

[4real]

I liked the 40 man Rumble a lot so I would definitely like to see one again. You could even introduce a few of the NXT guys like Neville, English, Rusev, Zayn etc get the casual fans familiar with them. Obviously with Shield, Wyatt's & 3MB that's nearly a fourth of your entrants there. Maybe stick El Torito in as well. I reckon it could be a lot of fun if booked right.

But don't book Bryan to win from number 1. Having him winning is fine but all the way from 1 in a 40 man Rumble is a bit of overkill really.

[Deleted]

Nov 24, 2013 8:37:22 GMT -5 Mighty Attack Tribble said:

I preferred the 40 man Rumble . The more the merrier for me.

This.

[Giul T.]

Nov 24, 2013 11:11:28 GMT -5 Mighty Attack Tribble said:

In any case, you can pick the winner of the Rumble from a group of six or seven guys, so what does it matter if an extra ten guys with no hope of winning are added? As long as entry times are consistent and the ring is allowed to fill up it all adds to the flavour.

There is one problem I do see. Crowd might get burned out from a long match. My memory isn't the greatest but I remember the crowd dying down after they remembered that #30 wasn't last. Especially if you add in 10 guys who have no shot of winning, the crowd won't want to see them, but rather the people that are likely to win.

I personally believe 30 is the right length, I don't mind double duty if it's done right(Piper winning the IC belt, then having a shot to be WWE Champion the same night) rather than wrong(losers of WWE/WHC get in the rumble). Personally if they tried to fan those "Unification" theories , have the world champions try to enter the rumble and get both belts.

40 can be done, but you'd have to really pump up the roster to avoid the crowd dying during it, in my opinion.