'Battleground' has come and gone, and what a major disappointment it was, no one will remember this pay-per-view in a years time, it will struggle to last three week's in the memory.
It felt like an episode of RAW. An episode that cost the viewer £15.
Unfortunately this isn't the first time that a PPV has fell flat on it's face, and left the paying viewers feeling cheated.
The WWE are currently putting on 12 PPVs a year, and only half of them are worth paying for, so why not cut the schedule in half?
Battleground has come only three weeks after 'Money in the Bank', and that only came four weeks after 'Payback', that's £75 in not even two months. When did it become so expensive to be a wrestling fan?
The benefits of reducing the number of PPVs a year to six will have benefits for everyone.
With a gap of six to eight weeks between these shows it give's time for a storyline to invest the viewer, we see so many feuds rushed these days, as a result we get RAW quality matches on PPV. No one cares if 'Wrestler A' beats 'Wrestler B' because they have two backstage segments together.
But with time to build rivalries between PPVs the fan can get into what is happening, if we see the wrestlers go at it for a number of weeks, the crowd might react when they finally meet in the ring on a Sunday night.
The WWE can then bump up the price of a PPV, as the quality will justify it, and fan's know they won't have to shell out £15 in just another three weeks time.
The wrestler's themselves will appreciate the rest between these PPVs, with a longer period of time between the special events, they will have more time to re-cooperate and plan a match that is worthy of a PPV.
'Battleground' had too many matches, and too many of these matches felt like they belonged on RAW, it just wasn't good enough to justify buying the PPV.
The same can be said for nearly every PPV this year, it seem's Vince and Triple H just want to cram as many superstars on the show as they can, we don't need to see The Great Khali or Zack Ryder on a PPV.
What should stay?
The WWE needs to keep the obvious big four: WrestleMania, SummerSlam, The Royal Rumble and Survivor Series. Each has it's own legacy, and each can draw a viewer just because of it's name, they are always worth watching.
So what other two can remain? Well Money in the Bank is gaining popularity as a PPV, and it's arguable that the marquee match is becoming everything that the 'Rumble' used to be, again it always draws a high number of views.
Then it's a case of keeping either Elimination Chamber or Extreme Rules. They each benefit from the WrestleMania hype machine, and both seem to deliver every year, but Extreme Rules will appease the old ECW band of fans. It should stay within the WWE calender.
An elimination chamber match can make an appearance on RAW sometime over the summer months, if it is given the right build and hype it can draw in the casual viewer after the WrestleMania dip, everyone likes seeing a brutal gimmick match.
Adjusting the calender
Six PPVs would work well in the calender, if I was allowed to schedule the year it would run something like this:
January - The Royal Rumble
March - WrestleMania
May - Money in the Bank
June/July - Elimination Chamber match on RAW
August - SummerSlam
Late September - Extreme Rules
Late November - Survivor Series
This way every PPV will feel more special and unique, the matches won't feel recycled, there should be more prestige around the events. The WWE are putting out a lot of content at the moment, but not enough of it is good enough, it's time Vince and Co make some big decisions.
So what do you think the WWE should do? Should some PPVs be scrapped? Do you agree with my proposed WWE calender?