Should WWE take a post-Wrestlemania break?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Snowman, Feb 22, 2013.

  1. Do you think WWE should take a few months off after Wrestlemania? Take 3 months off, then come back in time for MITB? It'll let Creative just rest instead of phoning it in, give the fans a chance to miss the product and get really excited about it again, and more importantly give the wrestlers some much needed time off.

    It's obviously not happening but should be fun to discuss.
     
  2. Yeah, it would be great without a doubt, or make programs to make other wrestlers grow and the main ones have a rest and then have an spectacular return in MITB
     
  3. I think the problem is that there is so much wwe programming and characters get stale from overkill. Also i think fans can expect too much at times and are setting themselves up to be disappointed imo.
     
  4. Post Mania was as good as WWe was in 2012. I say hell no.
     
  5. Man, post 'Mania was some shit in 2012, remember Over the Limit and whatever the PPV was after that, don't even remember.

    If it wasn't for the Johnny Ace character, you would have hated it even more every week.
     
  6. The Raw the night after mania was hands down the best Raw of 2012. And ER was easily the best PPV, with the MOTY for WWE IMO
     
  7. I don't think Lesnar/Cena was MOTY though, I understand that it was great seeing Cena getting the ass whopping of a lifetime but Taker/HHH & Punk/Cena at NOC were both better IMO.

    It's a matter of opinion though.
     
  8. Taker/HHH was the most overrated match of 2012. I can see the appeal, but it wasn't for me. And no Punk match will ever be MOTY in my book.
     
  9. Totally forgot about Punk/Bryan at OTL.
    You can't argue about Punk/Cena being the best in 2011 though :pity:
     
  10. I can't?
     
  11. I don't really think so. I mean, it'd be quite weird and feuds and creative direction from before wouldn't transition well into the returning programming I think.
     
  12. Is there one that was better?
     
  13. Frank The Jock vs Hardcore Steve- OH HELL NO '11
     
  14. John Cena vs Brock Lesnar was MOTY 2012. Triple H vs Brock Lesnar wasn't nothing, but a waste of opportunity as you could have had him compete with someone else and use the Triple H vs Brock Lesnar for WM.
     
  15. What in the blue Hell was that? :rock:
    I don't watch anything but WWE. LOL
     
  16. People have been speculating about WWE benefiting from having an "off-season" for years, but I think there's more negatives than positives to it.

    If they took a three month break, they would lose a lot of revenue (house shows, TV shows, ads, PPV gate and buy rate) in that time. I'm sure WWE wouldn't be willing to give that up. The positive is that the writers would have some time to cool off and prepare a more elaborate plan for how things happen the next nine months of shows when the guys return from 'off-season.' But even then, it happening after Wrestlemania? That seems about the worst time for a 'cool off period.' What about when Austin won his first WWF Title? Or turned heel? Or when Cena and Batista won their first belts? Or if Undertaker ever lost the streak? Or a number of other events.

    I've also read that they would lose a lot of regular TV viewers because viewers are typically 'creatures of habit.' Not sure if this is the most persuasive reasoning, though. There have been other TV shows that have been put in a different time slot where ratings have taken a slight hit, but there's also shows that haven't. People also said that when Smackdown moved to the shitty Friday night time slot (supposed to be the worst night for all TV shows) in September 2005, that it was gonna be the death knell for their ratings, but as I recall, the ratings remained mostly the same. Nobody has even brought it up since then that it would be wise to move back to Thursday. (I have personally said it should move to Tuesday, but only because I want it to be live, and it never will on a regular basis unless it's on Tuesday, the day it's taped.)

    I think at best, maybe they could limit their number of house shows week to week, or at least every now and then. In the 80's, there was a time when guys used to work nine shows a week (two house shows on Saturday and Sunday), where they would work a show in the afternoon and then fly to another town and work it that night. People eventually complained about being physically and mentally burned out and they reworked the schedule accordingly. Otherwise, I think it'll just have to be put down to being a tough business.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. I say no because if they wanted to do that, don't you think they would have started that a long time ago?
     
  18. In two words: hell no.

    Think about it for one second. You want WWE to take off may, June, and July. Aka, three months of the year where they don't have to compete with football. They dont have to compete with fall tv shows. The country is starved for original programming in the summer.

    This is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while.
     
  19. Yea if they were going to go on break it should be from like October until the beginning of January
     
  20. Long story short, they shouldn't. Why? Because they'd lose money. And money is everything.