WWE is good at the moment.

[clifford]

So, judging from the responses from most of the posters, think the WWE should have an offseason? I think they should. I know they won't cause it will cost them a lot of money, but it would certainly keep it fresher.
If there was an offseason, i think it should be from Wrestlemania to the start of June i.e April and May off. It'd kind of make WRestlemania even more important.

[Deleted]

Outside of the main event scene, ECW is the best wrestling on TV. RAW is the most entertaining show (however the wrestling lacks at times) and Smackdown! is what's best of both mixed together (although I am sick of Teddy Long and his funky bunch).

[Avalanche Alvarez]

clifford said:

So, judging from the responses from most of the posters, think the WWE should have an offseason? I think they should. I know they won't cause it will cost them a lot of money, but it would certainly keep it fresher.
If there was an offseason, i think it should be from Wrestlemania to the start of June i.e April and May off. It'd kind of make WRestlemania even more important.

As many fans of series like "Lost", "24", or any of the more popular TV shows crowd around their TV's for the "season premiere", an off season would benefit the Double Double E greatly.

The wrestl...superstars get a rest, they look for new writers, and you could even toss in a "cliffhanger" so people will be on the edge of their seats till the season debuts.

Every major sport has an off season, as do TV shows.
If this is sports entertainment, a mix between the two, why not do it?

[Deleted]

clifford said:

So, judging from the responses from most of the posters, think the WWE should have an offseason? I think they should. I know they won't cause it will cost them a lot of money, but it would certainly keep it fresher.
If there was an offseason, i think it should be from Wrestlemania to the start of June i.e April and May off. It'd kind of make WRestlemania even more important.

If you want time off, I'd say make it in December. Have Survivor Series be the last PPV, film the Holiday for the Troops show, then take 2 weeks off before Royal Rumble (Christmas time). You can air best of RAW, ECW, Smackdown!, PPVs for those 2 weeks then start up again with Royal Rumble building to Wrestlemania.

You can't take too much time off or the audience will drift elsewhere and you lose the momentum you've built up. Plus, WWE would lose a good chunk of change.

[4real]

I'm still not digging RAW at the moment. I just don't care about the guys on the show as much as SD!

The fact that SD! still ruled this week without Taker, Benoit, Kennedy & MVP speaks volumes for how good it is.

[royboy8]

Raw turn it up a notch=check
Smackdown turn it up a notch=check
Ecw turn it up a notch= based on last week's awesome show, semi-check

[royboy8]

jinxed said:

clifford said:

So, judging from the responses from most of the posters, think the WWE should have an offseason? I think they should. I know they won't cause it will cost them a lot of money, but it would certainly keep it fresher.
If there was an offseason, i think it should be from Wrestlemania to the start of June i.e April and May off. It'd kind of make WRestlemania even more important.

If you want time off, I'd say make it in December. Have Survivor Series be the last PPV, film the Holiday for the Troops show, then take 2 weeks off before Royal Rumble (Christmas time). You can air best of RAW, ECW, Smackdown!, PPVs for those 2 weeks then start up again with Royal Rumble building to Wrestlemania.

You can't take too much time off or the audience will drift elsewhere and you lose the momentum you've built up. Plus, WWE would lose a good chunk of change.

If the E would ever have an offseason, what you said makes sense