Royal Rumble Goes Over The Hill
Yeah apparently there will be 40 participants now instead of the normal 30. I’m not incredibly wild on this as it allows for an extra 10 guys to waste our time. Also this match is going to go close to an hour and a half now which is WAY too long. I’m not liking this idea at all really but it could work I think.
Thoughts?
I like the idea of a 40 man Royal Rumble. It gives more guys air-time and builds the Royal Rumble as the odds looking harder than ever. Also, I like a longer Royal Rumble. I always felt like the 30 man Royal Rumbles were kinda short. If WWE can work this out great, then it will turn out great.
It has the potential to be great, but at the same time I’m very skeptical about it.
Well I don’t know KB im just throwing out ideas here. Thats all Im doing.
So am I. I jst seem to be the only skeptical person about this which tends to be the case a lot of the time.
I think adding 10 more to it should be interesting and they can still do alot with it by advancing alot of the Feuds. It also leaves open for a few guys to Return like HHH,Undertaker,Christian,Evan Bourne,Great Khali,Chris Jericho (maybe),and maybe a surprise or two.
Leaving what returns for later? Also if you return that many people at once you water down each return. Not liking this still.
1. not necessarily. Just because there are 10 people, that doesn’t mean there will be 15 people now in the ring when #40 comes out. There could still be 7, 5, or even 1 more left. As I said, all it GUARANTEES is 15 more minutes.
2. Do you NEED him? No, but putting him (or any other of those types of guys) in there can possibly help them get over. Take a guy like Zack Ryder (sadly a 30 rumble borderline guy). With 40 people, the top guys can toss out the super-jobbers, and let the lower-card guys get some PPV ring time. Let Zack Ryder stay in the ring for 8 minutes, maybe even eliminate a guy. The talk goes from “oh, well Zack Ryder is gone, no shock there” to “oh, hey look, Zack Ryder did pretty well for himself there, there’s something to build off of here, maybe he can do something.
3. But it is similar. They made something that worked larger. And is there really a bigger difference between 30->40 and 20->30? I’d say no.
4. What I was saying is that there is less of a chance of snubbing guys that should be there. More entrants means they can do all that, and still have 30 (plus) current superstars.
also, in the past, they have gone with 60 second intervals. If they do that again, then it would guarantee only 10 minutes of more time.
1. Which is an extra 25% added to the match. The match is the longest of the year already. There’s a thing known as too much. This is it.
2. No, he doesn’t need to be in. He’s a jobber. We don’t need jobbers in there for 8 minutes. Barreta, Ryder etc don’t need to be in there because they’re taking up a spot for the sake of taking up a spot. There are at most 8 people that have a chance to win the Rumble and everyone knows it. Why kid yourselves by adding in ten more jobbers?
3. There was a total of one show to go on. In this situation there are 21 years. Not the same.
4. Tell me who is snubbed with thirty guys in there. I’m looking forward to this.
And that Rumble with 60 second intervals was horrid beyond words. Everything was rushed, nothing could get going, and it bombed.
I don’t think it’s as bad as you are making it out to be.
1. It is only guaranteed to add 15 minutes to match time. 10 more superstars at 90 seconds (that’s how long it was in 09, 08, and 07, and probably 2010 too). In that time, they’d only be able to have 1 more match. Now they can add 10 more people to the card.
2. You yourself said in your Ask a question thread about Trent Baretta: “I like him. He’s a new guy for all intents and purposes and they’re giving him a shot. Like you said he’s not going to go anywhere but it’s nice to see someone being given a chance. It’s what they did in the late 90s: throw everything out there and maybe you’ll find something that works. Nothing wrong with a quick try.” 10 more people means they are throwing 10 more things out there. If one of them works, it’s worth it.
3. They changed it after 1988, adding 10 people. I’d say that change worked.
4. It gives them a better chance to not only showcase a ton of their guys, but also put in a legend or 2, or surprise entrants. With 30 and those people, you will be snubbing some of your own guys. Every year there are complaints about why so-and-so wasn’t in it. Now those chances are less and less.
1. And more people in meaning more people to go out meaning longer at the ending.
2. Yeah, but do we need him in the Rumble? I wouldn’t think so. He’s had two singles matches and all of a sudden he belongs in the Royal Rumble?
3. Hardly the same thing.
4. You mean like they already do?
Last year might have been the best Rumble ever so now we’re going to change it. This is a case of if it ain’t broke don’t mess with it at the risk of screwing it up by overdoing it.
I really think this is in the same vein as the lumberjack/jill matches at WrestleMania: Get as many people as possible on the big shows. Granted, this is already the show that showcases the most guys but they probably have ideas of 10 more guys they want in, and that is why they did it.
Yeah but still the guys are going to be like Barreta and Hawkins and Slater: guys that are there to fill in spots and just sit around until we get some big star to come in there and throw them out with ease.
Oh, yeah I’m not saying they will be useful or anything, just get that few moments of exposure. The only other reason for this is to keep the other matches shorter for whatever reason. Which, if it is Miz vs. Orton, I’m okay with.
Eh kind of but still it isn’t working for me for the most part. It’s worked for years and it sounds like they’re saying “this worked, so more of it will work even better!” That has rarely worked in any form of entertainment at all.