QUESTION: Do you like these Tri Branded Pay Per Views?

[exC.On]

I do dislike the Tri-PPVs. I think it makes the big 4 ppvs a less credible. It also makes it harder to give some mid card people pushes. I also think it gave time for storylines or feuds to grow when it was 2 monthes time till a ppv, than every ppv being 1 month when itd prob be almost the same matches over

 

[Hardcastle]

I do dislike the Tri-PPVs. I think it makes the big 4 ppvs a less credible

I agree with that, but remember when Smackdown had exclusive ppvs, that was really, really bad. and the buyrates were very very low, they had no choice IMO

 

[btman]

If the PPV's were separate I guarentee you, we would be seeing way more tag teams and way more tag title matches. That's all I have to say.

I agree. Also maybe a 5 second ECW title defence by Mark Henry wouldn't happen.

 

[MR.BIG]

sure they have three main events but I don't like it . I liked it when it was ECW ppv's Smackdown PPV"s and Raw Pay per views...even if it is once every month and a half it gives more of a build up to the matrches adn makes it more intersting than just three shows.

Also it gives others on the brand a go at a ppv than just the main event players because its 2 - 3 matches per brand. which is mainly used up by Cena / Kane / Tista/ JBL or HHH / Edge / Taker if you know what I mean.
For example all of 2007 main events for smackdown are involving Batista.

but thats my thoughts.

 

[Charismatic Edge]

I hate them with an intense passion. Not only does it make the former Big 4 (WM, RR, SummerSlam, Survivor Series) less special since every brand is on every PPV anyway. Although it doesn't affect WM and RR too bad.

Also, I heard a great line from Jr at NOC 'The tag team championships being defended on PPV?'. The IC, US, Womens and Tag Titles have suffered hugely from Tri-Branded PPVs. Not to mention a Mid-Card is almost non-existent right now

But I'm sure it makes huge money for WWE, as they have all their big draws on one show

WWPEE has nullified all mid-card titles. It's really just a small consolation prize for wrestlers they like but don't think enough of them to push. Only superstars are granted that courtesy.

I also don't like tri-branded ppvs. Something had to be done after DTD 2 years ago but this is a knee jerk reaction. It's all crowded and feels silly having 3 "championship" matches and 3 main events every ppv. Only the WWE matters.

 

[Airfixx]

^^^ When you say "only WWE matters", do you mean WWE > Raw/SD/ECW from a WWE perspective? (Not sure thats all....)

If so yeah, such a shame couldn't have held onto the idea of the brands (Kayfaybe) actually being in competition. (3 way inter-brand SSeries matches anyone? LOL)


I agree with the general sentiment regarding the negative effects they have had on the mid-card and tag divisions, but it was clear even during the earlier days of the brand split that the individual rosters (well SD's at least) weren't really strong enough to support brand exclusive PPVs... Ironically, I think they are now tho' (save for the glaringly obvious lack of tag teams - Which could easily be addressed given the amount of guys sitting around doing nothing from week to week).

 

[Charismatic Edge]

^^^ When you say "only WWE matters", do you mean WWE > Raw/SD/ECW from a WWE perspective? (Not sure thats all....)

My mistake, I meant only the WWHHH title matters. It's the only one that should matter. The WHC was created from nothing and should've followed the old WCW lineage.

 

[Airfixx]

^^^Sorry, I'm left with more questions! LOL

I get the part where you concede that WWE should have the WWE title as their main/soul priority, but...

"The WHC was created from nothing and should've followed the old WCW lineage."

Ya lost me here...


For what it's worth, IMO what has become of the IC title is an absolute tragedy... That belt meant everything on a wrestling level during the 80's/v.early 90's while Hogan was off entertaining the kids and drawing the mainstream audience towards WWF.

 

[Charismatic Edge]

^^The IC title mattered in the 80's and 90's. Christian, Edge and Orton gave back some credibility but that lasted all of 1 year. Actually I'll throw in Shelton Benjamin for good measure. Ric Flair: IC champ...ugh.

Now for the WHC. If they wanted to insist on using that generic name, at least they could've used the lineage going back to the early 90's WCW. Ric Flair, Sting, Hogan, Hart, Goldberg, et. al. They all had it and would've made it an important title. Again, it's a really nice consolation prize.

 

[Lashleyâ„¢]

At first I did, but ever since they've did this - WWE PPV's have went down in quality, so now? No.

Plus on single branded PPV's it would allow midcarders to be pushed more, etc.

 

[Shaw13]

No I don't. One single branded PPV's we get to see some of the lower mid-carders wo have more talent than some of the Main eventers e.g. Paul London > The Great Khali & Jamie Noble > Batista.

 

[NinoBrown]

Single brand PPVs were filled with too many filler matches that usually had no purpose. With the Tri Brand PPVs, all the main feuds are showcased, although some feuds go unnoticed that's the only con.