Daily DDT
Fansided

WWE Survivor Series 2017 Should Be Given a ‘Money’ Stipulation

By John Brown

facebooktwitterreddit

WWE is still SPORTS entertainment.  Athletes don’t compete simply for bragging rights.  There is an untouched stipulation that can be utilized to add some “value” to the Raw vs. SmackDown main event at WWE Survivor Series 2017. 

From 2003 to 2016, Major League Baseball had a rule stating that the league that won that year’s All-Star Game would have home field advantage given to that leagues representative in the World Series.  This rule was possibly created to prevent the duplication of the fiasco that was the ending of the 2002 MLB All-Star Game, or maybe to prevent the game from employing the elementary school playground rituals of the NFL Pro Bowl.

Regardless of the reason for the rule, something was at stake.  As Daily DDT writer Josh.0 pointed out in his article, there is little beyond bragging rights on the line at WWE Survivor Series 2017, just that Kurt Angle could be fired should Raw’s Survivor Series team lose.  WWE showcases a form of entertainment that presents itself as a sport based on individual accomplishment.  For a battle of apparent brand supremacy to matter, something has to be at stake.

Enter my MLB All-Star Game analogy.  WrestleMania is WWE’s equivalent to the World Series, but it would be asinine to give that show to just one brand (I would also extend a spot on that show to NXT, but that’s just me).  Again, the sport WWE portrays is one of individual (or dual when pertaining to tag teams) achievement, and the participants of the winning Survivor Series team should be rewarded for the glory bestowed upon their show due to the victory.

What should be on the line is the Pay-Per-View (are they still being called that?) is a substantial shot at the winning brand’s version of the Heavyweight Championship.  As such, the winning brand should earn the right to produce the Money in the Bank Pay-Per-View, and the members of the winning Survivor Series team should be placed in that year’s Money in the Bank Ladder Match.

More from WWE

Using this stipulation would technically fix two issues that stick out like broken kendo sticks in this year’s Survivor Series: the fact that nothing is at stake, and the fact that egotistic wrestlers seeking championship gold suddenly are supposed to care about whether or not their brand is better than the other.

Heels and babyfaces now have a justifiable reason to function cohesively for one night for the sake of brand supremacy before going back to stabbing each other in the back.

Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn now have a reason to argue against having the night off from a show that has no titles on the line.

Why would Samoa Joe care about Kurt Angle losing his job?  Why should Shinsuke Nakamura care about whether or not the man who has been his employer for less than a year is shamed by the show his sister supports?

All lapses in logic and story sequence receive the same justification: “The winner gets closer to the title.”  After all, championship gold is ultimate driving force behind one become a wrestler, right?

Survivor Series contains a card undoubtedly has the potential to be an excellent show, especially with AJ Styles vs. Brock Lesnar being added as a last minute gem.  Professional athletes of all sports can put on spectacular shows.  That is what makes them professional.

However, athletes compete for the right to be seen as the best in their profession, and championship gold is the symbol of this label.  Should the stipulation of adding a chance to compete in Money in the Bank eventually be added, Survivor Series, and the battle for brand supremacy, becomes something actually worth fighting for.

Next: What Were The 10 Greatest Moments In Survivor Series History?

WRITER’S EDIT/CREATIVE BREAKTHROUGH:  The losing brand must produce Great Balls of Fire…the ultimate “low blow”.  AM I RIGHT???!!??

…because of the “Balls”?   RIGHT???

…No?

…

…

…

………I’ll get my coat.

Home/WWE