5 ways WWE could make gimmick pay-per-views interesting again 

WWE has added a number of gimmick pay-per-views to their calendar over the past decade, but rather than these events adding to the hype surrounding their biggest feuds, these pay-per-views have become repetitive and stale.

The women in WWE have been able to make a lot of history in recent months because the focus has been solely put on them, but with the Universal Champion currently busy in UFC the build-up to Extreme Rules this weekend has been lackluster, to say the least.

Much of WWE's build up over the past few weeks has seen the company going through the motions ahead of the show, which could be why the ratings for both SmackDown and Raw have been much lower than WWE expect ahead of a pay-per-view which triggers the start of SummerSlam season.

Much like the time that Bob Backlund stepped in to make Darren Young great again, here are five ways that WWE could make gimmick pay-per-views great again.

Sportskeeda is the one-stop destination for latest WWE rumors and wrestling news..

---

#5. Bring back the 24/7 rule

The 24/7 rule was a fantastic idea

The 24/7 Hardcore Championship rule was one of the greatest ideas that WWE ever had, the WWE Universe never knew who or when they were going to strike since the title could change a number of times throughout matches, backstage, in the parking lot or even in the foyer of hotels.

The added benefit of gimmick matches could be that these matches for the title could then include other superstars attempting to climb inside Hell in a Cell or The Elimination Chamber despite a match taking place and the Extreme Rules matches would then allow other stars to take advantage of the no disqualification rule.

This would also allow WWE to use a lot of the talent that is currently backstage watching the show on a monitor and plant seeds for new feuds after the shows.

#4. Every title must be defended

That includes you, Brock

Ever since the early 2000s there has been a rule in WWE about defending a title inside 30 days, this means that every title must be defended at every pay-per-view now that they are only once a month. The Raw Tag Team Champions didn't defend their titles at Money in the Bank and Brock Lesnar hasn't defended his title since April.

The company should bring back the rule that if a Champion can't defend their title every 30 days after winning it then they should have it stripped from them and then it will be defended in a multi-man match under the rules of whatever the next pay-per-view dictates.

#3. The alternate rule

WWE needs to learn to include everyone on their roster

WWE has more superstars on their roster than ever before, which means that there are a lot of stars who are missing shows and events just because creative has nothing for them. This could easily be fixed by adding in an "Alternate Rule" this rule would mean that every superstar that wasn't on the previous month's show has to be on the next one.

This would also mean that all stars that were missing from Money in the Bank, would have to be added into Extreme Rules. Whether this is as challengers for Championships or just in singles matches under the pay-per-view's rules, it would mean that all stars on the roster were included and it would force the creative team to come up with much more intriguing storylines.

#2. No set calendar

Violence isn't something that should have to work on a time frame

Everyone knows that in October there will be a Hell in a Cell pay-per-view, this used to be a stipulation that the company would only bring out when a feud had reached the point of no return and would then signal the end. Having an annual pay-per-view has definitely made the structure much less frightening, but maybe if WWE didn't have a set calendar then things could be different.

Rather than having Extreme Rules following Money in the Bank or Elimination Chamber always at the same time in February, it would be interesting to see WWE move these events around every year and slot them into their calendar when the feuds are going in that direction.

It would be refreshing to see WWE book the feud based on the superstars involved rather than the pay-per-view that it needs to be prepared for.

#1. Gimmick pay-per-views mean gimmick matches

Every match should be contested under the gimmick pay-per-view's rules

Extreme Rules takes place this weekend and the only Extreme Rules match on the card is between the women, a match that arguably hasn't been built up to need a stipulation.

The idea of a gimmick pay-per-view should be that every match on the card is contested under Extreme Rules conditions, this would then allow the company to set up much bigger surprises in matches that would be seen as forgettable on the overall card.

Hell in a Cell should see all matches contested inside the steel, the women being in the match wouldn't be such a big deal if it was a yearly affair and there was build up towards a match that deserved to be inside Satan's structure. This should go for all gimmick events in the future, Money in the Bank could also have all titles on the line in ladder matches, which would add more excitement to the event and allow more stars to be part of the show.