From @kfox9611: With creative trying so hard for the big 4 PPVs, why do they try and rush the other 8 with "rubber" matches and screwed finishes?
It's a case of wanting to build to the next show whether that means doing a huge angle to set up something interesting for Raw or for the next PPV. When Dean Ambrose beat Seth Rollins by disqualification at Elimination Chamber and it looked like he had won the WWE Title, it was really just a way to set up the Money in the Bank Ladder Match two weeks later. That may have upset some fans, but WWE has a business to run. They need to look ahead in order to sell that next show because it's just as important as the current show. It hasn't been a bad year for WWE PPVs. In terms of matches, there have been great ones. The main problem is that there aren't enough surprises or unforgettable moments that people will remember for a long time. WWE will always concentrate on WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Royal Rumble more. Survivor Series isn't as big of a deal although Sting's debut last year certainly helped it a bit. They know that more fans are going to be tuned in to expect something bigger, so they're right to make them feel more special. This kind of philosophy for PPVs is probably not going to change any time soon. They are set in their ways.
John wrote at WhatCulture from December 2013 to December 2015. It was fun, but it's over for now. Follow him on Twitter @johnreport. You can also send an email to mrjohncanton@gmail.com with any questions or comments as well.
