Jump to content

Statto

Members
  • Content Count

    3,760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

352 Excellent

About Statto

  • Rank
    Roll Tide
  • Birthday 10/07/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Norwich

Recent Profile Visitors

5,474 profile views
  1. I posted that in the off-topic version of this thread early Tuesday morning so I'm claiming credit if it was on Twitter yesterday.
  2. I love shit like this and can't believe I haven't noticed this thread before! Come April, there will have been as many WWE Wrestlemanias as there were WWF ones.
  3. I wasn't picturing splits quite as large as that, but that's the general idea, yeah! I was picturing more along the lines of each brand getting 7 'guaranteed' spots with the Survivor Series winner getting 4 bonus ones, runner-up getting 2 and the last place getting just 1 - leaving 2 'wildcard' spots for your legends/unexpected AJ Styles debuts etc. I pondered this throughout my lunchtime walk today and realised that: a) there's actually 60 Rumble spots to play with these days so you wouldn't have to do even splits in each Rumble which wouldn't tie the hands so much with booking decisions, and could come in handy - IIRC the women's rumble last year was quite NXT-heavy cos they didn't use anywhere near as many returning 'legends' as the first one? b) you could use terms like "guaranteed entries" to give yourself the oft-seen WWE get-out - Raw could end up with 9 "guaranteed entries" in one Rumble but as long as you didn't give out 30 of those, you could put more than 9 Raw wrestlers in without technically failing to stick to your word. You could always go the "attacked backstage/on the way to the ring" route, of course... c) you wouldn't necessarily need to set the numbers up for grabs at Survivor Series in stone in advance - once that event was finished you could announce that "WWE management" had reviewed the performance and chosen to allocate x "guaranteed entries" to Smackdown, y to Raw & z to NXT. Hell, I'd go the whole hog and have a fictional "Royal Rumble Selection Committee" (chaired by Royal Rumble inventor Pat Patterson) who decided how many slots each brand ended up with, and indeed who got those slots - either by setting up qualifying matches (4-way ladder match at TLC for a spot, anyone?) or awarding slots on past performance. Of course, that committee would have it in their remit to spring a few surprises on the night... If only there were a market for wrestling with "real sports" presentation...
  4. It’s always surprised me that they make the actual Survivors matches count as 1 in this. Surely you should at least get a point for each survivor (ok, it often comes down to a sole survivor hunt you don’t have to book it that way...), if not gain a point for each elimination (which now it’s a 3-way thing is a different proposition altogether). That way you could go into a main event Survivors match with any team conceivably capable of winning depending on how they do in that match, which opens up a whole other realm of storytelling (e.g, Raw can still win the whole thing but they need 4 out of 5 to survive to do so, or need to get 7 eliminations whilst NXT get no more than 3 etc.) I don’t know why they don’t tie Survivor Series performance to each brand’s number of slots in the Rumble either (that obviously being subsequently linked to main eventing Wrestlemania) to provide some motivation beyond “ I just really love Smackdown, man”. That all said, my prevailing thought when I finally got round to watching this the last 2 nights was “I wonder if they made enough R/SD/X armbands for everyone to have one each, or if people were forced to switch increasingly sweaty strips of cloth in Gorilla just before heading out?”
  5. WWE did away with tag ropes for most of the 2000s, IIRC? Might explain why you fellas didn't twig how vital they are!
×
×
  • Create New...