5 pay-per-views WWE should kill

WWE's pay-per-view schedule has undergone many changes over the years. Mercifully, the latest was that WWE reduced its pay-per-views from 16 in 2017 to 13 in 2018. That still only feels like small potatoes, though, when the company could be much bolder.

The biggest recent news for the company is the seemingly imminent new TV deal with NBC Universal over Raw, which is even more favorable than the current deal, and the potential to make more money still off of SmackDown on the open market. The deal is so favorable, in fact, that Dave Meltzer remarked that Raw would soon be more lucrative than pay-per-views.

The new TV deal thus opens an opportunity. The TV shows could be bigger instead of often feeling like weekly fillers for a lackluster build to often-backwater pay-per-views. If more such shows were cut in light of this recent development, perhaps the focus on longer-term storytelling would be greater.

In truth, the company could do very well with a schedule built around the big four shows (Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series), and a few pay-per-views to mark the midway point between them.

Which should be on the chopping block, then?

---

1. Fastlane

Roadblock by any other name.

Widely reviled, with numerous infamous showings under its short chronology, Fastlane has often only served to act as an actual roadblock on the Road to WrestleMania, with many fans ridiculing its name as a result.

This was particularly glaring this year, when the terrible build to the pay-per-view on SmackDown felt like going through the motions for no real reason, stalling the build to AJ Styles vs. Shinsuke Nakamura, Asuka vs. Charlotte, and by extension, the Raw Women's Championship match, as well as other feuds.

No one would shed any tears if Fastlane was cut and the entire month of March could be used to build the numerous WrestleMania programs.

2. Backlash

Another event with dubious history.

Backlash is another pay-per-view infamous for its poor quality over the years. Obviously, the less said about this year's event, the better, but last year's wasn't great, either. In fact, the only truly great event under the Backlash chronology that comes to mind is the 2000 edition when the company was at its creative height.

Backlash has essentially functioned as just a way to extend WrestleMania feuds needlessly, wheel-spinning and winding them down with rematches that are often worse than the first editions. It begs the question - why even bother going through such motions when you could be using the now more profitable TV shows to slowly build toward Money in the Bank and SummerSlam instead?

3. Extreme Rules

ECW was mercifully killed off. Why is this event still ongoing?

The legacy of the old ECW One Night Stand shows, the event has fallen far short of the quality seen in the mid-2000s. Extreme Rules has often served as a Backlash equivalent over the years, winding down WrestleMania feuds that don't need extending.

This year's edition is in the Battleground role, acting as a block on the road to SummerSlam by occupying a month of build that could be spent making the Biggest Party of the Summer truly fit that title.

4. Hell in a Cell (and all of its equivalents)

The gimmick's been effectively killed because of this event.

Hell in a Cell matches used to be an organic storytelling device to end the bitterest of feuds. While that still is occasionally the case, more often these days, the match comes at a certain time of the year during the eponymous event. The mystique of the match has thus been tremendously reduced.

The post-SummerSlam schedule is usually a difficult time for WWE because of the return of the NFL, so gimmick pay-per-views have often filled the schedule in the fall. However, this just feels like laziness, and regardless of the NFL, the new TV deal is paying WWE so much that now would be a good time to drop events like Hell in a Cell and TLC.

It would be better to use an event like No Mercy in early October to serve up some content at the midpoint between SummerSlam and Survivor Series.

5. Clash of Champions

Last year's clash felt more like a clink.

December is a notoriously filler-laden month on the WWE calendar, and the December pay-per-view, Clash of Champions, isn't an exception. All too often, filler feuds are built and then dismissed at Clash of Champions, leaving the impression of having wasted time.

Instead, it would just be better to start slowly building up the real important event that fans have in mind, the Royal Rumble. Perhaps lower-card talent could get TV time in Royal Rumble qualifying matches instead of the current practice of people simply declaring their entry. Perhaps we could see open challenges to set up the Rumble feuds. Who knows?

But watching in December is a chore and getting rid of Clash of Champions as a crutch might incentivize the company to try something different.