Choosing Money Over Quality Is the Problem with WWE

Justin MorganCorrespondent IJuly 30, 2009

GREEN BAY, WI - JUNE 22:   Vince McMahon attends a press conference about the WWE at the Austin Straubel International Airport on June 22, 2009 in Green Bay, Wisconsin.  (Photo by Mark A. Wallenfang/Getty Images)

Let me first start off by saying that I am no longer a HUGE fan of the WWE, or any other promotion for that matter. In recent years, it has become more boring each week.

If I do feel like watching Raw or Smackdown (I never became interested in ECW), I watch the three key points in the show, the first segment, the end of the first hour, the beginning of the second hour, and the last 10-20 minutes of the show.

These three segments occasionally provide the most entertainment for me.

The first segment is usually a verbal and or physical altercation between two or four wrestlers or a big announcement. This is the time when the more charismatic characters get mic time, which is pretty entertaining.

The end of the first hour/the beginning of the second hour usually showcases the second biggest match of the night. Depending on my interest in the storyline I may or may not watch this part of the show.

The last 10-20 minutes of the show is as everyone knows, the main event. This is usually a highlight of the biggest current storyline. The problem with this is that it is usually predictable. 

If there is only like 10 minutes left in the show the match usually ends in a disqualification.

If there is more than 10 minutes the match may go to pinfall or submission. But if there are no pay-per-view implications, does the outcome really matter?

Now that I have shared my current feelings on the main shows that the WWE currently shows, let me get into my point of this article.

I have read a lot of complaints on B/R lately about the product that the WWE is putting out these days. These displeasures range from too many titles changing hands too often, poor story lines, not enough variety, etc.

Where is the argument that there are one too many shows?

Having three main shows a week may seem great to all of you hardcore wrestling fans. But if you think about it, it may be part of your problem.

Three shows= more wrestlers! With more wrestlers comes thinner story lines with multiple participants. How many times must we watch three wrestlers battling for one belt. Where are the one-on-one wars like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant?

Things were fine when there were two shows, but three shows brings more money to the company, so that is how it looks to stay.

Why hasn't anyone realized that 14 pay-per-view events a year is too many?

Everytime I turn around there is another pay-per-view coming up. Whether it is a single-brand event or it includes all three, there are too many.

Of course the title is going to change hands every few months when the belt is on the line every month. If a wrestler won defended the title nine straight pay-per-views people would get bored.

However, having more pay-per-view events, like weekly shows, generates more money for the company.

I would suggest keeping the four biggest shows, Wrestlemania, The Royal Rumble, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series, along with each brand getting a pay-per-view for themselves. This cuts the pay-per-view events in half.

The WWE would not make as much money, but the quality would probably be a lot better. Having fewer events and fewer superstars would create deeper and more interesting storylines.

There are more ways I feel the WWE could better its product, but we'll work on these for now.