WWE Royal Rumble: Isn't 40 Superstars a Little Desperate?

So for the first time in the history of the Royal Rumble, the WWE has pulled all punches and dished us a 40-man Royal Rumble. Adding 10 more men means more eliminations, the odds have significantly changed and there are more rumble moments given to fans.

When I heard the news, I actually jumped on it. I mean sure, 10 more men means more fun and the rumble will be a lot more longer. This rumble may beat the longest 30 men rumble match back at 2002. 

My only question is, why?

The first thing that struck me is tradition. Since 1989, 30 men have tried and brawled at the rumble, and it never disappoints. Even when the participants are forgettable and super main eventers occupy the final five, it's still a nice rumble.

Back in 2004, there were significantly more mid-cards than super main eventers and the match still delivered. Even when the rumble only lasts 30 minutes, it's still a decent match.

I'm not saying that the 40-man rumble will suck, but throughout the history of the rumble, they could've switched the 30 to 40 anytime. They could've done it at The Attitude Era or the Post AE era, but they didn't. So why? Why now?

My guess is the product is getting stale. When the Royal Rumble doesn't deliver in terms of entertainment, then they let the title matches headline the pay-per-view. And I think that's the problem. Let's face it, PG is affecting the product so badly that creative has limited resources to work with. 

When a rumble sucks, then a main event between Triple H and Mick Foley would headline the PPV or a technical classic between Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit. That's the problem.

There are no more Chris Benoits or Mick Foleys in the company. There are hopefuls, but as much as I love Dolph Ziggler, I feel that his title shot is nothing more than filler, and it'll be a forgettable bout between him and Edge.

Randy Orton and The Miz's storyline is in it, but didn't Randy also headline the main event last year? He jobbed to Sheamus and let's face it, this match is the same.

It's funny, Triple H versus Kurt Angle happened not that long ago and a few years later, creative is struggling to create a decent title match.

It doesn't even need to be the World Heavyweight or WWE title, it can be the secondary titles and, with 40 men in the rumble, the secondary titles are not even fillers.

The WWE already destroyed the Survivor Series pay-per-view by having Bragging Rights, a seven-on-seven elimination match, appear before it. Now they're trying to tweak the Royal Rumble? Shame on them.

Thats my only problem with a 40-man rumble. Is the WWE that desperate? I mean this is not the only thing the changed during the PG era. The PPV names changed into themed PPVs, the Money in the Bank match turned into a PPV, retiring the Women's belt, retiring the Tag belts and having seven title changes in a year.

Desperate.

I plead my case. I just wanted it out there. Of course, I'll be still watching the Royal Rumble, because it's the only PPV I watch. If SuperCena wins the rumble, then screw the WWE. 

Staleness is not a problem. The WWE should shape up, because if they think that they are doing well then, damn. Damn it all.

Anyways, thanks for reading.

Share your thoughts, comment below.