Should the WWE implement some sort of ranking system?

[DrA]

I'm sure this thread has been done before. I'm talking more so for championships here. Have an official list of the top five contenders for each belt, and you keep score of who's where in the title scene. It wouldn't have to be obstinate: there could still have feuds and defend the title against people who aren't technically the number one contender. It could be a way to loosely connect separate matches or feuds, where you have scenarios like...Dolph Ziggler becomes the become one contender if he wins at Unforgiven and Kane and CM Punk both lose.

Has this ever been done before? The title scenes in wrestling have always been a bit desultory, especially with the lower belts, and it could be a way to validate why a wrestler is suddenly going for the Intercontinental Championship.

[Aguakate]

They have a Power 25 or something on WWE.COM, I believe.

[DrA]

Yeah but isn't anything official. I'm talking about a loosely based BCS type of system with some stipulation where the champion has to defend his championship against whoever is deemed the number one contender once every ninety days or something. Other people could challenge as well given the proper circumstances.

[Mr. Pierre]

Win/Loss records should really mean a lot more. The fact that they're not shows how WWE never relies on long-term booking. Instead it's wrestler A pinning a champion in a random non-title match, and then bam, they get a title match at the PPV.

The booking and build to a title match based on a ranking system would benefit just about everything. It just sucks how there is never any long-term booking when it comes to that stuff.

[Lock Jaw]

It was a terrible idea when TNA did it, so no.

[DrA]

Be more specific.

[jerichoholicninja]

I've had the idea of a BCS ranking system where the rankings are determined by a fictional veterans committee. Guys like Steve Austin, Bret Hart, Jim Duggan, Dusty Rhodes, etc. would be members of this "committee" and mentioned on TV so there's a reason to bring them back every now and then.

It would make more sense for their to be a ranking system instead of random guy attacks champion and gets title match or two random non-champion guys are arguing and GM declares they have a #1 contenders match.

[FourFifty]

I'm going to say not only no, but hell no. Too many people will bitch about it.

[BigCrippyZ]

WWE actually used to have something like this, albeit unofficial, from 96-2000, where the announcers, etc., would sometimes mention or talk about the rankings or standings. To me, it always brought a sense of realism and competition to the show, and even though I knew it was all scripted, I was able to suspend my disbelief partly because of this.

To me, they should go back to having or mentioning the rankings, but I don't think it should be official or listed anywhere necessarily, giving some wiggle room to change up the title and main event scenes if needed. Having a official published ranking list to me would be cheesy, over the top and come across as trying too hard to seem legit. I think a sense of realism and competition would be great, but they also shouldn't go overboard and take themselves too seriously. They would definitely have to strike the right balance, and we all know how great WWE is with that in recent years.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Yeah but they were just talking figuratively about the rankings. There was no rankings not even kayfabe rankings.

WCW used to always have a Top Ten in the early 90s similar to top ten TNA tried earlier this year.

[Next Big Thing]

It would be too manipulated to bring about anything good. WWE would have to change its entire booking style for something like that to work. If you look at the title changes from May to now, there are 3 names (not counting Mysterio's token win): Cena, Punk, Del Rio. Before that there was a stretch where it was Orton and Cena trading the belt.

So if they had a rankings system, it's likely that the guy chasing the title or coming off a title loss will always be ranked #2 whether it's because the committee liked his effort or because he beats the guys in front of him on Raw or something.

[erickman]

It was a terrible idea when TNA did it, so no.

that was more of a 9 other wrestlers kurt angle would beat.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Replace Cena with Angle and that's what it would be.

[Kane Knight]

They have a Power 25 or something on WWE.COM, I believe.

I thought they killed that (and my internet is sucking today so it'd take me like a day and a half to check).

Anyway, a ranking system in a fake sport seems kind of pointless. Not only is it staged itself, WWE doesn't seem to like to put a terrible amount of thought into this sort of thing, so it would look pretty bad in a few weeks, I think.

Plus, while it adds structure, I'm not sure we really need structure. The next guy fighting up the list once or twice would be cool, but doing it over and over again would be boring.

Unless, of course, the champion can still defend outside the ranks, and then it seems kind pointless to have them.

So I'm not seeing any way this would work out practically. I know, I know, if the WWE utterly and completely cleaned up their act and plotted things out to the thirtieth decimal place, this could be a workable idea. But the WWE team are modern wrestling bookers, not TSR-era Dungeon Masters.

[DrA]

Yeah I don't think it's that great of an idea anymore. It sounded good fifteen hours ago, or at least as good as something like the RAW/Smackdown split, but it would probably become tedious pretty quickly.

[Gertner]

Wait a minute. You mean the TNA Championship Commitee that Mike Tenay talks about all the time isn't real? I've been fooled again by this sport!

[SEXUAL VANILLA]

I think this idea sounds great and would make midcard titles way more interesting. Keep like a win/loss record. Maybe even have some kind of tournament. PLAYOFFS LOL

[Kane Knight]

Wait a minute. You mean the TNA Championship Commitee that Mike Tenay talks about all the time isn't real? I've been fooled again by this sport!

They shout totally shoot on that.

Nothing in wrestling is good unless it breaks the fourth wall and constantly reminds us it's fake!

[Jimmy Cones]

I like the unpredictably. I'd rather not be told beforehand that these 5 people are the only ones that are in the hunt.

[Theo Dious]

it would probably become tedious pretty quickly.

Leave me out of this.

[Dante69]

i remember years ago when Intercontinental Champions was considered #1 contender, Wtf happened about that huh?.............LOL

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

That was almost never implemented. So, it was pretty much wasn't a thing. It was more of a thing in WCW with the United States Championship, but still very rarely implemented.

[XL]

Maybe a one-off or annual "league" where you put say 6 guys in, they wrestle twice in matches with a 15 minute time limit. Loss = 0 points, Draw = 1 point, Win = 3. Winner of the "league" gets a World Title shot or something.

Basically, it's King of the Ring but as a Round Robin league rather than a Elimination Tournament.

[Tom Guycott]

Win/Loss records should really mean a lot more. The fact that they're not shows how WWE never relies on long-term booking. Instead it's wrestler A pinning a champion in a random non-title match, and then bam, they get a title match at the PPV.

The booking and build to a title match based on a ranking system would benefit just about everything. It just sucks how there is never any long-term booking when it comes to that stuff.

Don't agree with that second part, because actually keeping stringent stats in 100% is a bad thing in the world of "we know it's a work, but we don't care." Especially all the comparisons to BCS scream "bad idea."

I do agree, however, that more emphasis should be placed on wins and losses. [dead whore beating] Daniel Bryan could very well cash that case in and WIN at 'Mania, swerving the IWC as Vince is so keen on doing. Problem is, he'll be seen as a weak ass champion and they'll scratch their heads on "how come he isn't over?!?!?". When you job the guy out for 4 months straight and have Cole bash him on commentary weekly, people will have the idea in their minds that he sucks ass, like so many people do on this site.[/dead whore beaten] Same token, no matter how entertaining he is especially lately, you think Ziggler would be in the position he's in now if creative kept having him slip on banana peels like he were still in the Spirit Squad? Yeah, he loses, but it isn't on a weekly basis. He gets some wins over credible guys... and it doesn't matter how. It makes his workrate look that more legit when they let him get a win over someone who means anything fairly often as opposed to never.

Unless it's building a particular angle of win or loss streaks (like MVP when "one more win" would have earned him a "contractual bonus", and then he loses, and keeps losing, and as a result, he lost "big money", his tunnel, and his pyro consecutive weeks, or obviously 'Taker's WrestleMania win streak.) they shouldn't beat people over the head with unneccessary stats week in and week out. Just put the guy over in the booth when he's winning or point out he's been on the losing end of things as of late without Cole levels of "overheeling".



With all that said, it would be kind of interesting if there were someone that actually kept track of W/L/DQ. Not in a prominent place where it matters, but just somewhere like "by the way, Jericho's career record is x/y" even counting his indy stuff, ECW, WCW and every emergence in the 'E. Be a good place for people who actually care for that kind of stuff, kayfabe or not.

[Blakeamus]

I'm going to say not only no, but hell no. Too many people will bitch about it.

Yeah just look at the bitching you get with the NCAAF BCS. :|

[Lock Jaw]

PCS ranking system run by Kevin Nash

[Kane Knight]

i remember years ago when Intercontinental Champions was considered #1 contender, Wtf happened about that huh?.............LOL

WWE didn't remember.

That was almost never implemented.

And half the time, it was like "The IC title is the gateway to the WWF championship....Now here's someone who doesn't hold the IC title going for the belt because....Well, because we really didn't put any thought into it."

[whiteyford]

Win/Loss records should really mean a lot more.

Didn't they start doing this again at the start of the year,I'm sure JR brought it up in one of his Q & A's about emphasising the winners purse and putting over that winning equals more money as well as building momentum. I know it didn't last long but i remember it being brought up alot in the 90s,probably more WCW than WWF, but it seems like a such an easy way to implement feuds if a guys getting cheated out of wins he's getting cheated out of money etc.

A ranking system i think in theory is a great idea, a top 10 would allow you to invest in guys chasing the title and would add meaning to some random matches. The problem is creative sticking to it and finding a way to keep it fresh, maybe having the top 3 skip qualifiers for MITB/Rumble/Chamber matches or something.

[Emperor Smeat]

Probably would work out well for the lower tier belts or wrestler than making something cover a whole brand or the WWE itself.

It wouldn't work on the two heavyweight divisions considering the vast amount of times the WWE suddenly changes their plans at the smallest signs of trouble (ex. injury, poor results, poor reactions) instead of continuing with their long term plans.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think that the WWE should keep a track of win-loss records. It adds a sense of realism, and all that would need to change is that maybe the WWE would be more conscious about how many matches a top guy officially loses. It's not like you have to make everything about wins and losses.

It could also help out lower-card guys. For example, since he's a plucky babyface that really only faces jobbers -- I imagine Yoshi Tatsu would have a very good win-loss record. Something like that could be used to get him more over, which could lead to him eventually being elevated.

[dingdongyo]

I imagine Yoshi Tatsu would have a very good win-loss record. Something like that could be used to get him more over, which could lead to him eventually being elevated.

he could be the new goldberg.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Yoshi should have a big losing streak and then go "fuck you Yoshi action figure" I do it myself.

[Jordan]

I'd run a "Top Contenders" tournament. Periodically through the year, each Title has at four person/team best of five. In the final series if wrestler A beats B in 3 straight falls he gets an automatic title shot on TV or PPV. If the series isn't one sided the winner must beat the champ in a non-title match.

This could put talented work horses over easy and creates a much missed sports drama element on the show.

[Jordan]

Maybe even advertise some matches on bigger house shows to add a special element of storylines being worked at live events.

[RiX1024]

Ranking system would be good for like....a few weeks then creative will mess it up.