QUESTION - Should the WWE employ a "Best of 7 series" format? (as we see in the Pros)

[Heyman]

QUESTION - Should the WWE employ a "Best of 7 series" format (as we see in the Pros)

I made a thread like this a long time ago (as some of you will probably remember), but I can't find the link to it. It was on the old UBB boards. But anyways - here is what I had in mind.


-Both Raw and Smackdown would have an almost year-long Tournament, in which wrestlers would face one another in a "best-of 7" series (with the winners progressing..........just as we see in the NBA and NHL playoffs).

At Wrestlemania, the winner of the Raw tournament, faces the winner of the Smackdown tournament (in a one match showdown). The winner of the match, gets to be called "The Undisputed World Heavyweight Champion" (and receives a trophy and a 'fake' $1,000,000 dollar check).


The Day after Wrestlemania.........until whenever the tourney starts:

-At this time, GM's from shows can make trades with one another, free-agent signings, etc. This allows both shows to 'mix up the rosters' a bit.....and present the fans with some potentially new match-ups.

-The WWE can also use this time, to introduce new characters...and new OVW talent to help them 'get over' (before the actual tournament starts).


When the Tournament starts:

So every Raw and every Smackdown, we see match-ups.....best of 7. On television, House Shows, and PPV's, wrestlers feud with one another in this 'best of 7' series. Speciality matches (such as cage matches, Hell In A cell matches, ladder matches, etc.) are reserved for PPV events only (otherwise - why else would people order PPV's if they get to see these matches on TV?).

If some series' ends early (i.e. a sweep), that wrestler (who has the next 3 weeks off I guess) can still cut promos, interfere in other matches, etc. (and hence - continue to get TV time). If two guys (who swept their respective opponents in the previous rounds and are slated to face one another) are "free" for a few weeks, they can hype up their up-coming feud.

Some advantages to this idea:

House Show attendance could go up: Since some of these "Best of 7" series matches would take place at House Shows.

Fans would be guaranteed atleast 1, 2, or even 3 quality matches each week: So each week, fans would go in 'knowing what to expect' (in terms of what matches they will be seeing that night).

The WWE can 'vary' as to what will be the best 'match of the night.

For example - let's say that Christian is fighting Edge, while Benjamin is fighting Jericho. One week - the WWE can book the Christian/Edge match to be longer and more exciting (giving that feud the limelight), while giving Benjamin/Jericho 'more time' the next week. In the end - all of the feuds will have looked impressive.


More rivalries: I think this is one thing that the WWE has really lacked in the last few years. We don't really see many rivalries. Other than HBK/Triple H, have we REALLY seen a worthwhile rivalry for the last little while? (Cena/Big Show, Angle/Lesnar, Orton/Foley, is all I can really think of). Back in the WWE's PRIME - they REALLY worked on rivalries.

With a best of 7 seven series format, we can REALLY see some bitter rivalries come into effect. These 'rivalries' can help the fans get even more into the show (especially if a series has gone to game 7!)


The "Sports" part of the Sports-Entertainment is really emphasized:

At a time when the WWE are trying to focus more on the SPORTS part of "Sports Entertainment", this could also fit the bill. Seeing a best of 7 type format (especially during a time when NBA and NHL playoffs start heating up), we may even see new fans start tuning in (many of these fans could be die-hard sports fans....who can relate to the 'Best of 7' format).


Great way to get guys over:

Think about this. If a guy like Triple H fought Rhyno, pehaps Triple H could win in 5 matches (4-1). However - perhaps that ONE hard fought victory on Rhyno's part, can help him get 'over' more.

What if a guy like Renee Dupree took Eddie Guerrero to the limit? (7 matches.......4-3). Yes Guerrero wins and advances, but Dupree gains MEGA credibility.

What if we saw an upset? Big Show defeating Undertaker in 6? Something like that could DEFINITELY re-establish Big Show as a monster heel.


The winner of the "Feed-in Consolation" can become IC or US Champion (Final matches to be held at Wrestlemania).

So basically - whoever loses in the 'main' tournament, gets put into the feed-in consolation on their respective shows. The winner of the feed-in Consolation (on Raw and Smackdown), gets to become the IC or US champ respectively.

All Matches would have meaning:

Since all matches would 'count for something' (and wouldn't just be meaningless).

The "best of 7 thing" can also be applied to other matches.

For example. Let's say the following wrestlers are currently feuding with one another in the "Best of 7" series.

-Shawn Michaels vs. Randy Orton
-Chris Benoit vs. Kane.
-Triple H vs. Shelton Benjamin


Let's say we see a 6 man tag match (HHH/Orton/Kane vs. HBK/Benoit/Benjamin). The team that wins the 6 man tag match, gets '1' victory each (in their respective individual best of 7 series).

Fatal 4 ways/Elimination Chamber matches/Triple threats - HBK vs. Benot vs. Orton vs. Kane --> Whoever gets the victory, gets a victory in their individual series (i.e. if HBK pins someone like KAne during the fatal four way, he'd still get a recorded 'victory' over Orton
in their 'best of 7' series. This same principle can be applied to Elimination Chamber matches, and triple threat matches.


Potential Disadvantages:


What would be the Purpose of the Royal Rumble? Since the 'tournament' Best-of-7 series format would be in effect, the winner of the Royal Rumble couldn't "automatically" become the #1 contender for the World title.


Same matches could get boring: Especially for the first few months of the tournament (when we'd be seeing a LOT more tournament matches), the fans might get tired of seeing the same matches week-in week-out.

On the other hand - watching a Raw or SD might be like watching a PPV (i.e. almost non-stop wrestling, and much less skits/promos, etc.).



What do you think? Could something like this work in the future?

[Sensei Of Mattitude]

I didn't read what you had to say because I didn't care

But

Booker T vs Chris Benoit; Best of 7 in WCW during 1998 was incredible. So I would say yes to Best of 7s.

[Innovator]

I would prefer if they had a "Superbowl" type deal, like Wrestlemania is for the #1 contender.

[Favre4Ever]

Interesting.........props to Heyman. Great ideas, but unfortunatly, most of the time the WWE quickens things in order to cater to the average wrestling fans attention span. I wish they would do something like this. Another good, shorter idea could be to have the "best of 7" series over a couple of months, with the winner getting a HUGE shot at the WWE champion. All this time, the champ would be running in on matches, trying to make the people he wouldnt want to face lose. This could even be a replacement for the now gone King of the Ring Tournament.

[.44 Magdalene]

Short attention spans.

Same matches.

Bad combination.

It'd get boring real fast. I guess it's better than anything WWE's running now, though, so it'd be worth a shot once. I'd probably have to see it actually go through to get an idea of how it could work, but it sounds to me like it'd get really repetitious really fast.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by The Critic Short attention spans. Same matches.

I see what you're saying, but the matches wouldn't all be the same (in terms of length).

I'm thinking that one week, a certain feud could "steal the show" so to speak.

Another week --> another feud's match is booked to steal the show.

Most other matches would be shorter however.

[PureHatred]

Not in favor of best of seven; but I do like the idea of stealing some mainstream sports ideas. Maybe keep a league style point system based off wins and losses (I believe some Japanese feds use this idea) on Smackdown.

It would definitely distinguish the brands and add some excitement to matches between "no-names." Hell, even the matches on Velocity would have meaning.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by PureHatred Not in favor of best of seven; but I do like the idea of stealing some mainstream sports ideas.

IT'S HALF-TIME WITH JIM ROSS!



Sorry - I'm a bit drunk right now.

[Avenger]

OH MY GOD NO!

This is wrestling and always has been. NOT FOOTBALL.

Tournaments etc. do NOT work in wrestling.

THAT IS WHY KOTR SUCKED!

[Stickman]

I remember the Booker T vs Chris Beniot series. I also believe The Hardy's and E&C had a best of seven. The concept was great at the beginning but by match three I stopped caring.

[Londoner]

No way. The tournament will become to predicteble to early knowing WWE, so it wouldn't be worth watching, especially since it's scripted so that takes the excitement out of it, IMO. And plus im not american so i don't like american sports that much, so basically, no.

[Iceman90]

My answer is NO! Best of seven wouldn't work the way you say it would.

1. If I can't attend a house show (I am in Calgary, and say, it is in Detriot), then how is it fair that a 'series' could possibly be won or whatever when I can't see it?

2. It would make for boring stuff week after week (what if 2 guys don't click)?

3. What if someone gets injured?


If you are going to do it that way, make it a 'season mode' type thing, where everyone fights everyone else, then at WrestleMania it is like the play-offs (all the top winners fight in a KOTR style tourney)

[Heyman]

Triple threat matches, Fatal Four-ways, Six-man tags, etc.

One thing I realized - if this "Best of 7" thing ever took place, it would get pretty boring seeing constant one-on-one matches. Therefore - the "best of 7 thing" can also be applied to other matches.

For example. Let's say the following wrestlers are currently feuding with one another in the "Best of 7" series.

-Shawn Michaels vs. Randy Orton
-Chris Benoit vs. Kane.
-Triple H vs. Shelton Benjamin


Let's say we see a 6 man tag match (HHH/Orton/Kane vs. HBK/Benoit/Benjamin). The team that wins the 6 man tag match, gets '1' victory each (in their respective individual best of 7 series).

Fatal 4 ways/Elimination Chamber matches/Triple threats - HBK vs. Benot vs. Orton vs. Kane --> Whoever gets the victory, gets a victory in their individual series (i.e. if HBK pins someone like KAne during the fatal four way, he'd still get a recorded 'victory' over Orton
in their 'best of 7' series. This same principle can be applied to Elimination Chamber matches, and triple threat matches.

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by Innovator I would prefer if they had a "Superbowl" type deal, like Wrestlemania is for the #1 contender.

so basically king of the ring

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by PureHatred Hell, even the matches on Velocity would have meaning.

Exactly. Which is why that even a show like Velocity could bring an extra rating or two.

House Shows can be marketed better as well. FAns watching House Shows can actually feel a need to be excited due to the fact that matches would actually 'mean' something.

[Joe Kerr]

If people worry about dragging it out a simpilar way would be a 2 out of 3 falls match up out of 2 out 0f 3 matchs.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by the avenger Tournaments etc. do NOT work in wrestling. THAT IS WHY KOTR SUCKED!

Uhhhh.............KOTR has been one of the most 'over' concepts/PPV's in the history of the WWE.

Survivor Series 98' also drew a lot of fan interest due to the fact that the World title was up for grabs (if you recall, this is the tournament where The Rock defeated Mankind with Vince' help).

In fact - this Survivor Series tournament is what spawned The Rock/Mankind rivalry.

The KOTR tournament helped guys like Austin, Triple H, and Brock Lesnar reach that 'next level'.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Joey Radd If people worry about dragging it out a simpilar way would be a 2 out of 3 falls match up out of 2 out 0f 3 matchs.

This is an excellent idea.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Stickman I remember the Booker T vs Chris Beniot series. I also believe The Hardy's and E&C had a best of seven. The concept was great at the beginning but by match three I stopped caring.

Variations can be made to make the series more interesting (i.e. different matches, etc.).

As far as the Hardy's/E&C go, their best of FIVE series helped spawn one of the greatest tag team rivalries in the history of the WWE. All 4 of these guys became 'more over' because of it.

YOU personally may have stopped caring, but I think it's safe to say that an overwhelming majority of the fans loved it.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by ThugLife No way. The tournament will become to predicteble to early knowing WWE

In the early stages - most series' would be predictable. For example - it would be obvious that Triple H would defeat Chuck Pulumbo if the two men faced each other in the 1st round.

HOWEVER - what if Pulumbo won ONE match CLEANLY over Triple H? (so Triple H won the series 4-1). Just that one victory alone may get Pulumbo a bit more 'over' with the fans.

WHAT IF - Triple H and Shawn Michaels were in the same half of the draw? (and so people could anticipate a potential future showdown between the two men. Their "anticipated" feud could be built up well in advance.


WHAT IF - We saw an upset? On Smackdown - What if Billy Kidman defeated Rob Van Dam in 7 matches? (4-3). Certainly - no one would see that coming. Kidman would go over as result.

[Jonster]

I like the sound of the idea, but what would be done with the current champions, if you're giving the winner of the tournament the belt?
It would make the past few months seem a bit pointless, so there'd need to be some storyline going into it.
Also instead of best of 7, best of 5 would work better with ppv's generally being 4 weeks apart (1 match every week on raw, the decider on ppv)

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Yes, though I didn't read your post. But yes nonetheless.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by jonster I like the sound of the idea, but what would be done with the current champions, if you're giving the winner of the tournament the belt?

I'm thinking that this idea could go into effect after one of the Wrestlemania's (either after next Wrestlemania, or the one after that). If this were to happen, all of the titles would become 'vacated'.

I'm thinking that things such as "The World title" or "IC title", etc. would become kind of like the Stanley Cup, World Series ring, etc. (in that you compete for it all year long.....as opposed to carrying "it" the entire year and having it change hands so much).

So for example - it could read like something like this:

World Champion 2005/06: Triple H
Intercontinental Champion 2005/06: Randy Orton
United States Champion 2005/06: John Cena

Also instead of best of 7, best of 5 would work better with ppv's generally being 4 weeks apart (1 match every week on raw, the decider on ppv)

The best of 5 idea is also workable. I like the reasoning that you gave.

My premise for having a 'Best of 7' however, was that the fans could really experience and actual INTENSE feud. Best of 5's are great, but they can be a bit too short. With a best of 7, the WWE can really create long and lasting rivalries.......of which the fans can talk about for a long time (i.e. Angle/Lesnar, The Rock/HHH, etc.).

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Crash Bang Newstead Yes, though I didn't read your post. But yes nonetheless.

Read it.

Pussy.

[Jonster]

Originally Posted by Heyman The best of 5 idea is also workable. I like the reasoning that you gave. My premise for having a 'Best of 7' however, was that the fans could really experience and actual INTENSE feud. Best of 5's are great, but they can be a bit too short. With a best of 7, the WWE can really create long and lasting rivalries.......of which the fans can talk about for a long time (i.e. Angle/Lesnar, The Rock/HHH, etc.).

That was the only thing about the best of 5 I didn't like, it being short, but they would be more intense. Can wrestler X come back from 2-nil down to win 3-2? It's more likely to happen than winning 4 in a row, but still in a 7 series that would majorly put someone over.
What I just typed had no real point.

They could do a slight variation if say the series was drawn. 3-3 last match - double count-out.
They could either go with a rematch or carrying on the match.
Or the next round could confusingly be a triple threat best of 7, and it would be whoever won the most goes through. Although if that kept continuing (ie a triple threat finishing 3-3-1), it would be confusing.

[Heyman]

A quick "bump" to this thread (although I've got a bit more to add to this thought).

Since the WWE are trying to focus more on the "wrestling" aspect of their show in recent memory (as opposed to sports-entertainment), then perhaps this would be a good idea?


I also like the idea of the first few months after Wrestlemania, being devoted to introducing new gimmicks and characters (and establishing storylines). That way - when more matches take place (during the season), the fans will be more interested (since the character development and storylines will have been solidily developed far ahead of time...........if that makes sense).