Raw/SD/NXT/PPV Spoilers - Part 3

[Megahab]

True but I just see it as easy booking. I don't see any good reason why it shouldn't be booked just like the Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, or Money in the Bank are booked. If you build it into the match that it's going to mean something for the person next then you build in the incentive for the producers to plan it out and give the spot to the appropriate person.

As for the trophy, you can try all you want to make the trophy the prize but that's hokey and not something that's going to ever get over with the fans anymore. Fans are not ever going to get emotionally invested into a battle royal because of a trophy. There's no way in 2018 to condition the fans to do that. You don't have to put the talent over to give them a title but if you like someone like Corbin and he wins the battle royal and gets to headline the next PPV with your champion and it's someone like AJ Styles, Styles can go over Corbin while shining him up real nice.

The problem with WWE these days is that they only have a select few things that people win outside of the title that matter and the ability to get a title shot is one of them. That's why Money in the Bank matters. That's why Royal Rumble matters now. Does anyone honestly think that if WWE didn't award a title shot to the Rumble winner and offered literally nothing that it would still be what it is today? I sincerely doubt it.

Hard to say since it's been about 25 years since they've been making it for a title shot or for the actual title. But it did mean something before. Matches can be important to win even if it doesn't lead to a title or title shot. It just might be too late because they've done nothing with the Andre winners and have not given it much focus. So it doesn't have any value. But I would say the first Andre battle royal had some hype around and fans were invested into seeing who would win.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Hard to say since it's been about 25 years since they've been making it for a title shot or for the actual title. But it did mean something before. Matches can be important to win even if it doesn't lead to a title or title shot. It just might be too late because they've done nothing with the Andre winners and have not given it much focus. So it doesn't have any value. But I would say the first Andre battle royal had some hype around and fans were invested into seeing who would win.

It was then but I think the audience has evolved to a point where that is no longer feasible. The only times that non-title matches are important is when the personal feud is good. I think it's passé to have these kinds of multi-man matches with no stakes. I think the first time it came around a lot of fans had assumed it would have such a thing attached to it and when they realized it didn't and they didn't build upon it that it was just a throwaway. That's what King of the Ring turned into. You can make these things mean something so long as you build in a reason for making it important and in this context the only thing that actually gets today's fans interested to any degree is whether it means they get a title shot. Now it doesn't have to be the main title but that it means you're not going to afford it any main event caliber prestige by doing that.

It's impossible to make something devoted to the midcard important today. You either have to make it a main event level thing or you just have to accept that it's a throwaway.

 

[Emperoreddy]

So cageside is saying that “some people(I assume they mean Meltzer)” say that Cena saying “Wrestlemania can bring legends back from the dead” is a direct reference to Taker and proof that match is happening.

That seems like a real stretch to me, and I really hope it is because god I don’t want that match.

That promo was also so incredibly silly. Do they actually expect us to believe Cena would be left off the Mania card?

 

[Big Poppa Puck]

Does giving anyone a title shot at any point devalue the Rumble some? The answer is no. It all depends on how big you actually want to make this Battle Royal. If you want to make it a huge deal, making it a midcard title is counterproductive to that. If you want it to only have midcard level prestige which is basically none then yeah you can do that and that would be fine. It's a matter of what you want out of it. You can't make it a legitimate big deal by having the prize be just a trophy and/or a midcard title shot.

I say that because a Battle Royal and the Royal Rumble are essentially the same match, it's not like just having a fatal 4 way #1 contenders match. Or even having a #1 contender BR on a random Raw. Having a big prestigious BR at Mania, of all things, is basically a second Royal Rumble.

 

[GKJ]

So cageside is saying that “some people(I assume they mean Meltzer)” say that Cena saying “Wrestlemania can bring legends back from the dead” is a direct reference to Taker and proof that match is happening.

That seems like a real stretch to me, and I really hope it is because god I don’t want that match.

That promo was also so incredibly silly. Do they actually expect us to believe Cena would be left off the Mania card?

I don’t know why it’s a stretch, it’s been the plan since they took the title off Jinder.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I say that because a Battle Royal and the Royal Rumble are essentially the same match, it's not like just having a fatal 4 way #1 contenders match. Or even having a #1 contender BR on a random Raw. Having a big prestigious BR at Mania, of all things, is basically a second Royal Rumble.

I disagree that they're essentially the same match just because the Rumble is designed to go an hour and that's a big part of what makes it different. Just because eliminations are both going over the top doesn't mean they're the same match. Battle Royals are meant to be huge clusterf***s that end in a fraction of the time. However, if you believe that they're essentially the same match, they already have both happening and I don't see the Rumble being devalued because of it. I don't think adding a title shot stipulation would change that.

 

[Deen]

They do the battle royal so that talent can get on the Wrestlemania card and get a Wrestlemania payday. Simple as that.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

They do the battle royal so that talent can get on the Wrestlemania card and get a Wrestlemania payday. Simple as that.

This is probably closer to the truth than anything but they can't do that and also elevate someone by winning a meaningless Battle Royal. If they want to elevate someone using this event, they need to make the event meaningful.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

PPV now dual brand. If I was WWE, I would decrease number of PPV to 8 per year, and have 4 2 hour network specials. 2 each per brand. Not counting NXT which already does Takeover. Essentially format sorta like Beast in the East, live televised house show essentially. But put important matches on it.

Would make WWE network subscription more appealing,

 

[Kimi]

The entire point of combined PPVs is to reduce the time between them. Reducing the already reduced number of PPVs works directly against that.

 

[GKJ]

By the way, the idea that so much time between branded PPV's holds up storylines and booking is really something I vehemently disagree with. Most of their biggest stuff that they build to is just given away on TV anyways. They genuinely try to shock you on PPV's, but almost anything that you know that you can get excited for is just given away on free TV. There's specific examples that go each way, but how many women's title changes have we had on Raw or Smackdown since the brand split? Jinder dropping the title to AJ? Women's Money in the Bank? Even before that? They gave away Roman Reigns' big WWE championship win by getting over on Vince McMahon on Raw. Literally one night after a PPV, where he was fighting for the WWE Championship - a big moment (one of the many) that was designed to get him over as the #1 face of the company. Did that even make the 'top 25 moments in Raw history?' And then anytime there's any kind of payoff on a PPV, they often book back the other direction the next night (see: Finn Balor going over AJ and then getting squashed by Kane).

There's nothing wrong with trying to build up to a specific episode of Raw or Smackdown that isn't some kind of anniversary. But the reason why PPV's aren't a big draw or don't have appeal is because they've marginalized them under the own volition, and that was going on before they added more of them.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

It felt like Smackdown post-split had a stacked episode every month. They should do that for both brands.

 

[Kimi]

By the way, the idea that so much time between branded PPV's holds up storylines and booking is really something I vehemently disagree with. Most of their biggest stuff that they build to is just given away on TV anyways. They genuinely try to shock you on PPV's, but almost anything that you know that you can get excited for is just given away on free TV. There's specific examples that go each way, but how many women's title changes have we had on Raw or Smackdown since the brand split? Jinder dropping the title to AJ? Women's Money in the Bank? Even before that? They gave away Roman Reigns' big WWE championship win by getting over on Vince McMahon on Raw. Literally one night after a PPV, where he was fighting for the WWE Championship - a big moment (one of the many) that was designed to get him over as the #1 face of the company. Did that even make the 'top 25 moments in Raw history?' And then anytime there's any kind of payoff on a PPV, they often book back the other direction the next night (see: Finn Balor going over AJ and then getting squashed by Kane).

There's nothing wrong with trying to build up to a specific episode of Raw or Smackdown that isn't some kind of anniversary. But the reason why PPV's aren't a big draw or don't have appeal is because they've marginalized them under the own volition, and that was going on before they added more of them.

It depends on your booking philosophy.

I think it's very reasonable to build toward a special episode of Smackdown/Raw. But at the same time I think it 's very reasonable to hold the opinion that the big matches should always be on PPV. Both are valid stances to take. And so is a blend of them. And probably the best stance is to be flexible with the booking and adjust to what the schedule throws at you.


But it will always fall back to the lack of forward planning that WWE booking has. Until that changes, it's probably better for them to go back to regular monthly PPVs again. As at least then they'll only have to look four weeks forward at most.

 

[Emperoreddy]

This company doesn’t do long term booking unless it involves Roman Reigns.

Vince randomly decides to push title changes early and derail the booking all the time. He screwed Sasha and Bayley up with that nonsense.

 

[Kimi]

They've been trying out a new stable on the recent NXT Florida house shows:

 

[GKJ]

I'd be up for it.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Sunday and Monday pretty much determine if I am going to pay attention to RAW at all into Mania.

If the big RAW feuds are Roman/Brock and Cena/Taker and Asuka leaves for Smackdown leaving us with Jax/Bliss I am checking out. Want nothing to do with that.

Sucks that Seth seemingly has nothing to do, Braun is either going to be wasted with Miz or the mixed tag, Finn is going to be wasted with Miz or have nothing to do.

God AJ/Nakamura is the only thing I care about if the Mania rumors hold up.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

I said the odds were good I wouldn’t follow the RTWM or even watch WM from last year after their shit show last year, and considering Seth is likely to do nothing of note I see no reason why I should follow.

If they swerve us and end up doing Lesnar/Rollins or even a triple-threat if Reigns has to be in there, THEN I’m paying attention.

It’s amazing how Cena seemingly has nothing to do, and honestly I have no interest in ever seeing Undertaker again unless it’s for a HOF speech.

 

[Cor]

I said the odds were good I wouldn’t follow the RTWM or even watch WM from last year after their **** show last year, and considering Seth is likely to do nothing of note I see no reason why I should follow.

If they swerve us and end up doing Lesnar/Rollins or even a triple-threat if Reigns has to be in there, THEN I’m paying attention.

It’s amazing how Cena seemingly has nothing to do, and honestly I have no interest in ever seeing Undertaker again unless it’s for a HOF speech.

It won't be Taker.

Cena is putting over Elias or Balor.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

It won't be Taker.

Cena is putting over Elias or Balor.

I feel like Balor is going to be working with Miz.

While I like Elias, Cena/Elias isn't all that appealing to me, and because Elias already pinned Cena, I don't think Cena would be putting him over at Wrestlemania.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Dave continues to say DB is not cleared to wrestle

 

[Emperoreddy]

Sasha throwing a little IG shade at Asuka. I would still be really down for that feud at Mania.

 

[Paris in Flames]

It has already been reported that Seth Rollins is likely to be the first challenger for soon-to-be-crowned Universal Champ Roman Reigns post-WrestleMania 34. Now, the Wrestling Observer are claiming that Rollins will take a spot originally intended for Dean Ambrose. Before Ambrose went down with a serious triceps injury in December 2017, he was supposed to be the Shield member who ruined a happy reunion to gun for the title. As Dean will be benched until the late-Summer, it's Seth who looks set to turn heel once again and go after Reigns. This doesn't make much sense when considering the heroic response Rollins received for his efforts in the recent Gauntlet match on Raw, or the fact fans refuse to accept Reigns as a babyface.

Yes. They're turning Seth. That makes sense.

 

[dahrougem2]

Lol Vince gon' Vince

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Yes. They're turning Seth. That makes sense.

I am done for good with this company if they turn Rollins heel again. Holy f***.

and how the f*** is Ambrose out until late-Summer? It was a damn partial tear. Batista recovered from a fully torn triceps in 6 months. There's no way that 9 month timeline is legit. I still don't buy that. I've accepted he's out through Wrestlemania, but night after Wrestlemania return? May return? I can't believe late-summer for a partial tear.