WWE 2012 Pay-Per-View Schedule: Changes I Would Make

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse more stories
WWE 2012 Pay-Per-View Schedule: Changes I Would Make

WWE has released their 2012 pay-per-view schedule. Oafs in the IWC often complain about WWE having too many PPV's. Shockingly, the IWC has a valid line of thinking as the PPV market is saturated with too many events.

This sheer quantity makes each PPV have less significance than a $40+ event should have. Hereafter I will analyze the schedule, with changes I would hypothetically make to ensure a better overall product.

 

Actual WWE Schedule:

Jan. 29: Royal Rumble
Feb. 19: Elimination Chamber
April 1: WrestleMania XXVIII
April 29: Extreme Rules
May 20: Over the Limit
June 17: Bragging Rights
July 15: Money In The Bank
Aug. 19: SummerSlam
Sept. 23: Night of Champions
Oct. 28: Hell in A Cell
Nov. 18: Survivor Series
Dec. 16: TLC

The first thing that sticks out is that there are 12 scheduled shows as compared to 13 in 2011. Vengeance and Capital Punishment have been removed and replaced with Bragging Rights.

Many in the IWC would prefer to see a schedule of six or fewer PPV's. I would like to see an eight per year schedule. I still believe in the "Big 4"; the Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series. They have a history and nostalgia that makes them valuable.

Having an event between each one of them to hold the fort so to speak, would provide consistent content while allowing for ample time to build-up the next event.

My Hypothetical Schedule:

Jan. 29: Royal Rumble
March 4: Over The Limit
April 29: WrestleMania XXVIII
June 17: Night of Champions
Aug. 19: SummerSlam
Sept. 30: Extreme Rules
Nov. 18: Survivor Series
Dec. 16: Money In The Bank

The first thing you may notice is that I cut Elimination Chamber, Hell in a Cell, and Tables, Ladders, and Chairs. One thing that always perturbed me about the aforementioned events is how only a few matches on the card were of the variety of their namesake.

I expect a TLC PPV to be filled with TLC matches, not two or three of that ilk. I am a reasonable man, however, and know that expecting this is expecting a bit too much. It is impractical and monotonous to have six Elimination Chamber or Hell in a Cell matches on one card.

I would never want to abandon either concept as they have both provided, especially Elimination Chamber, excellent quality matches in the past. I would simply include TLC, EC, and HiaC on the Extreme Rules PPV.

All of them are essentially extreme rules variants. On an eight-match PPV, why not have 2 HiaC matches, 2 Elimination Chamber matches, 2 TLC matches, and 2 no-DQ/kendo stick/falls count anywhere type matches.

That quells the need for extremity, doesn't saturate the market, and provides a loaded show that people would be eager to buy.

I chose to cut Bragging Rights completely. Brand division is all but dead, so I see no reason to continue a PPV that was never great to begin with, and has little legitimacy left. Bragging Rights is essentially cheap filler, cheap in terms of content, not cheap in terms of how much it costs to order.

Over the Limit is similar to Bragging Rights, with exception to Brand Division, in that it is a generic event that isn't revered as being a top PPV.

I think this plays to it's advantage however, as it is a nice hold-over event between the two giants; Royal Rumble and WrestleMania. There are no special or extreme rule stipulations, and it's low key, so it wouldn't interfere with the big two.

Night of Champions is an event many would consider dispensable as it hasn't provided much attraction in recent years. I like it simply because all of the Championships must be defended.

I realize that this is the case for most PPV's, however having a PPV specifically for Championship matches helps to legitimize the belts. Plus, if the dream of reinstating the Hardcore Championship and/or Cruiserweight Championship ever came to fruition, NoC could be a loaded event.

Many believe Money in the Bank should be relegated to a bout on the WrestleMania card, however I think it is important enough to have it's own pay-per-view. MitB was arguably the top PPV of 2011, and was an above average event in 2010, hence it has a sound track record, albeit a short one.

The main reason I chose MitB to stand by itself was because I changed the hypothetical date from the Summer to Winter. By doing this it allows a MitB winner to cash in at WrestleMania in a believable manner (See Daniel Bryan).

Having a wrestler hold the briefcase for nearly nine months is not really fathomable in the current WWE. Holding the briefcase for four months is much more reasonable and likely to occur.

I am not trying to sound as if I know more than the WWE. I don't. Neither do you. My logic here is that if you take away a few PPV's people would be more likely to buy them, as the expense goes down.

When you take a few shows away, there is more time to build the next event and create anticipation. So even though there are fewer total shows, it is feasible to think that overall PPV buys would go up.

For more wrestling content check out www.wrestlingnerds.com

Load More Stories
WWE

Subscribe Now

We will never share your email address

Thanks for signing up.