The Wrestling Doctor 09.02.08: The WWE Pay-Per-View Schedule

Posted by W.S. Thomason on 09.02.2008

The Wrestling Doctor looks at the WWE PPV schedule while checking to see if his malpractice insurance covers HTML.

THE WRESTLING DOCTOR: THE PRESCRIPTION FOR WHAT AILS

THE SECOND OPINION

In response to last week's column: Do not get me wrong on the WWE Scrambles – I think that it is great the WWE is trying out a new concept. However, I have a problem with the way in which the Scrambles are being delivered. The effort seems half-hearted at best. One Scramble match at Unforgiven, for either the WWE or World Titles, would make the concept unique. With all three brands presenting Scrambles, the gimmick loses a lot of its exclusivity before the PPV even goes live. The WWE needs to shake things up, but they should do so with caution.

The WWE's two most successful gimmick matches – the Royal Rumble and Hell in a Cell – have lasted for over twenty and ten years respectively because they are used sparingly. The Rumble occurs only once a year, and the Cell only appears once or twice a year. Two Hell in a Cell matches have never been held on one show.

The last major gimmick match that the WWE introduced, the Elimination Chamber, was debuted in high-profile fashion, headlining the 2002 Survivor Series with a stellar line-up and featuring a World Title change. The first match set a tone for the Chamber as a significant WWE concept. Later contests have varied in quality and weight, but the concept is seen as special enough to headline a PPV. The WWE only ran two of the Chambers on the same PPV this past February – over five years after the matched debuted.

The ECW match was not announced before I completed last week's column, so I did not analyze it. This match will probably be the first Scramble to run, and will likely open the show. The first Scramble of the night will set the live audience tone for the others, so it needs to be carefully booked. The match will be good, but the ECW pool is not deep enough to put the outcome in doubt. Mark Henry cannot go 20 minutes, but with the Scramble format he will not have to. He likely will enter last, and will briefly compete before sneaking out final decision. The Miz has gotten better over the last year, but he is not a credible title threat. Chavo Guerrero is only somewhat over because of his association with La Familia, but his ECW Title days decisively ended in nine seconds at Wrestlemania. Finlay will be the ring general during the match, calling and controlling most of the action, but no one believes that he will walk out with the gold. The only viable contender in the bout is Matt Hardy, the heir apparent to the ECW throne.

The WWE is weakening their new match concept for the purpose of extending the Henry-Henry feud. Several ECW alternatives could have been booked for Unforgiven: a Henry-Hardy one-on-one return match; a Hardy-Henry/Atlas handicap match; or some type of tag match involving top ECW names all could have represented the brand instead of a third Scramble match taking a chunk out of the concept in its debut event.

Running three Scrambles on the same night strips the match of its uniqueness right out of the gate. The match does not get an opportunity to develop into another WWE franchise concept. In the short term, the three Scramble matches on the Unforgiven card do not even get an opportunity to shine outside of the others. The bouts will naturally be seen in comparison, weakening the chance that the concept might have of creating some type of legacy.

The Scramble has fantastic potential. It could become another major concept match that the WWE pulls out once a year or so to keep a top title scene lively. It could be used to properly build up a title picture with several potential challengers (not unlike like the current Raw situation) or fill a vacant or held-up championship. The Scramble could be very useful, but I am getting the impression that the idea is being rushed as a response to sagging ratings. The WWE may be panicking a little behind the scenes. The idea is coming off as a work-in-progress that was presented too early because the company wanted to drive up ratings under the pressure of building up to another pay-per-view less than a month after Summerslam.

That last idea dovetails nicely into this week's patient…

THIS WEEK'S PATIENT: THE WWE PAY-PER-VIEW SCHEDULE
The recent injuries to John Cena and Shawn Michaels once again raise the problem of the WWE schedule and the wear and tear on the company's talent. Since June, Cena, Randy Orton, Umaga, Mr. Kennedy, and now Michaels have all gone down hurt. Last year Triple H, Michaels, Edge, and The Undertaker were top names all taken out by injury. I have previously looked at ways of reducing the WWE's house show and television schedules, so this week I am considering the merits of reducing the number of pay-per-view events offered by the number one promotion.

It is highly unlikely that the WWE would significantly cut its pay-per-view schedule unless it stood to lose a large amount of revenue. However, PPV events are not as critical to the WWE's survival as they are to TNA. Pay-per-view is the life-blood of TNA; the company would die within months if it lost its PPV spots.

The WWE, however, could stand to reduce the number of events that it offers. They have already done so over the last year by cutting New Year's Revolution and December to Dismember. They could cut more, and such a move would benefit the fans by allowing for more build in between events, A schedule reduction might even produce more annual overall purchases, as more build is likely to generate more interest, which transforms into more buys. More time for the writers to build a show would also provide for higher-quality shows. No one who has purchased all 14 to 15 WWE PPV's over the last few years can honestly say that they have been satisfied with all of the events. In a sagging economy, a lackluster pay-per-view like Unforgiven is likely to be at the top of a lot of people's expense trimming list.

The WWE workers take their greatest risks at pay-per-view events. Triple H, Cena, Orton, and Undertaker all suffered their aforementioned injuries on PPV. Fewer events would reduce the chances of performers suffering serious, immediate injuries and would reduce the long-term body wear that often leads to lingering problems.

The most likely reduction the WWE would make would be to twelve events a year. However, I also think that the company should consider ten or even seven annual pay shows. I have constructed hypothetical models around twelve, ten, and seven pay-per-view events a year. I used the 2008 calendar to assemble the example. I have shifted some dates where necessary, taking into account holidays and major events such as the Super Bowl; however, I did not consider non-wrestling events such as UFC PPVs. In some cases I have put a WWE PPV on a date held by TNA. I do not see that move as a conflict, as cable companies would side with the WWE in any such situation. I have also interchanged a few names of events in some instances.

A warning: My HTML skills may require that you scroll down a bit to see the chart. If any adroit readers out there know how to close the giant gap in between text and an HTML table with 2" dimensions, please shoot me an email.

12 PPVs	10 PPVs	7 PPVs
Royal Rumble - Jan. 27	Royal Rumble - Jan. 27	Royal Rumble - Jan. 27
No Way Out - Feb. 17	Wrestlemania - Mar. 30	Wrestlemania - Mar. 30
Wrestlemania - Mar. 30	Backlash - April 27	Backlash - May 18
Backlash - April 27	Judgment Day - June 01	Great American Bash - June 29
Judgment Day - May 18	Great American Bash - July 13	Summerslam - Aug. 17
Night of Champions - June 29	Summerslam - Aug. 17	No Mercy - Oct. 05
Great American Bash - July 20	Cyber Sunday - Sept. 21	Survivor Series - Nov. 23
Summerslam - Aug. 17	No Mercy - Oct. 19
Cyber Sunday - Sept. 21	Survivor Series - Nov. 23
No Mercy - Oct. 19	Unforgiven - Dec. 21
Survivor Series - Nov. 23
Unforgiven - Dec. 21

NOTES
The elimination of No Mercy and the gap between the Survivor Series, the Royal Rumble, and March 30 would allow more build towards Wrestlemania, which should be the focus of each year's calendar. No Way Out more often than not seems to interfere with the creation of the Mania card. No PPV in February may give fans an opportunity to save up a little for the big event, considering the higher price that the WWE has assigned to Wrestlemania (particularly the HD version).

Again, do not forget that the WWE has put on many lackluster pay-per-views over the last few years. The WWE may actually end up losing business in the long-term if they continue to charge nearly $50 for what are essentially extended Raws. Fewer shows per year would allow the company to put more energy into each offering, which would hopefully result in an improvement in quality. Better shows will keep fans coming back, which could help the WWE build a bigger fan base that is loyal for a decade or more as opposed to a year or two.

But I won't hold my breath. We should all be grateful that they at least cut December to Dismember.