The beginning of an empire
There is no escaping the fact that Survivor Series does not have the lustre it once had. Whilst it remains one of the traditional "big four," it cannot hold a candle to the likes of Royal Rumble, SummerSlam and WrestleMania.
This time of year has become a consistent quality dip for the WWE product, which never helps, and the amount of PPVs in quick succession almost waters down the quality of entertainment. When PPVs are consistently happening three weeks after the last one, it really doesn't make an event feel particularly special.
Last year, I wrote that WWE should try bringing Survivor Series to the UK to give it an air of individuality and add some spice to the event.
This year, my idea for strengthening Survivor Series sees us going back to the future.
In an idea that would see gimmick PPVs like Hell in a Cell and TLC scrapped and Battleground moved to December, I would bring back King of The Ring.
WWE's second oldest PPV Survivor Series could tie perfectly in with the tournament that kicked off in 1985.
Now, the company may doubt the drawing power of a tournament format, but when you're willing to cheapen exciting matches like Hell in a Cell and TLC by fitting them in an allotted slot every year, then you should be willing to go retro for ratings.
Should WWE bring back King of the Ring?
Wrestling is no stranger to branding itself by its history. There is nothing the WWE likes to do more than remind us of its glorious past.
King of the Ring does all that. And, it is an event still held dear by many wrestling fans. Generic names like Battleground, Payback and Extreme Rules could very well be in any promotion in the world; King of the Ring is WWE.
But, it isn't just nostalgia that brings King of the Ring to mind.
The format makes for a great way to bring about new stories, build up new stars and stop Survivor Series playing host to dead-end feuds.
In my revamped King of the Ring, the winner would receive a title shot at Survivor Series. This would negate WWE bringing in their filler feuds where the likes of Big Show or Mark Henry are fed to the current champion just to fill a match on a PPV.
In this format, the WWE can push a star by going back to the crazy days of wrestlers looking strong by winning matches. Unlike Royal Rumble, where there are months to wait for a WrestleMania feud, and unlike Money in the Bank, where the time limit is a year and the cash in can be instantaneous, Survivor Series would have a month long build and provide a fresh feud.
If the WWE still wanted it to be a minor feud, then they could push a midcard guy into the main event and showcase him to the audience on a bigger stage. But whereas before when they have done this and it is rushed and mismanaged (hello Ryback), this way would give meaning to the feud and this new star would be strengthened by winning multiple matches.
A sudden push for a Dolph Ziggler or a flavor of the month like Big E Langston would add new impetus to the product and could even be an easy route to giving a new man a title run.
This idea could not only add a new dimension to an old PPV in Survivor Series, but it gets rid of the generic clutter on the PPV schedule; frees up Hell in a Cell and TLC matches to be used when feuds need them rather than when the calendar tells them to use them; and brings back an old favorite, too.