WWE RAW To Be A Three-Hour Show?

[TPIB 62]

Credit: Wrestling Observer & 24Wrestling.com

USA Network has talked of wanting Raw to increase to three hours in the fall. The belief is that is guarantees the network one extra hour of very high ratings every week, thus enabling them to maintain their status of being the most watched network on cable television. The thought process being the move is that if Raw starts at 8 p.m. more often, people will get used to tuning into Raw at that time, and it will lead to higher ratings in the second hour in particular.

 

They also made the suggestion of Steve Austin and Undertaker being regulars on the show, even if they can't wrestle. On the WWE front, they aren't too keen on making Raw a three hour show, every single week. They think this is the last thing they need. Although, if they go through with the move, they'll likely get a rate increase from USA.

 

 

I personally wouldn't mind RAW being enhanced to three hours, not to mention it seems to be 3 hours quite often as of late.

Edited July 2, 2007 by TPIB

[Dead Crow 370]

I'm against this on the premise that WWE already has 5 hours of original programming every week, which is overkill in itself.

[Guest The Crippler]

I wouldn't particularly be keen on this even if WWE were producing spell-binding material week in, week out. They are certainly not doing that at the minute so I would be dead against it.

[Guest Redneck Messiah]

I wouldn't mind it if they would utilize some of the wrestlers that don't see much tv time. I guess I would fear that wrestlers that already get too much tv time would get even more which would make me go crazy. I liked the old days when WCW Nitro was three hours. They seemed to give more time to the cruiserweights and midcard guys with the extra hour which I really enjoyed watching.

 

Seems like it would be a win for USA as wrestling gets them good ratings. I'm not sure I want Austin as a full time character on the show. I like Austin but when he's overused on the shows every week it kinda gets old (I remember a few commish type times I just got bored with him). Sometimes less is more efficient although WWE fails to realize that. I wonder what type of role The Undertaker would have if he didn't wrestle?

Edited July 2, 2007 by Redneck Messiah

[Guest the HiTman]

I said no, it's just too long and there is far too much WWE on TV as it is.

[Guest SuperKick Kid]

If it means longer and better matches combined with more character and story developement, then yes.

 

If it just means the same old crap, only expanded into three hours, then no.

[Guest Twig]

Well, they could deffinately do it with all the talent they just brought in from Samckdown during the draft.

[Guest Laffy]

It does not matter to me either way as what ever is on i would watch it although if it was three hours that would mean i would not have to stick a wrestling dvd in afterwards to get more wwe wrestling me thinks i am too obsessed with wrestling. Maybe i should seek out a job where i get to watch wresstling 24/7 would be GREAT!!!

[DC 536]

I never had a problem with Nitro being three hours long, so I wouldn't have a problem with RAW being three hours long either. But with Vince's comments about him wanting RAW to be half that length, I can't see him being to happy to go the other way.

 

Besides, with adverts included, it'll probably only be about two hours of actual wrestling related content anyway.

[Guest dpddave]

I dont care,ive only seen about 40mins of RAW live over the last couple of weeks anyway...ive taken to just catching a re-cap show like experience when i can its much easier than sitting through the full show.

[Guest the HiTman]

I dont care,ive only seen about 40mins of RAW live over the last couple of weeks anyway...ive taken to just catching a re-cap show like experience when i can its much easier than sitting through the full show.

 

Agreed. And it's a shame.

[Murph 93]

If it means longer and better matches combined with more character and story developement, then yes.

 

If it just means the same old crap, only expanded into three hours, then no.

 

What he said.

[Guest iwficon]

I would possibly be in favour if they used the extra hour to push new stars, have longer matches and so on.

 

But the WWE wouldn't. They'd just have more, and longer, non-wrestling segments with the likes of Triple H, John Cena and Lashley doing even more than usual (overkill time).

 

Plus these days they hardly seem to have the gumption to produce a good two hour show, never mind adding another hour of crap to it.

[Murph 93]

But the point is hopefully the other hour WON'T be crap.

[Guest CoTT]

Three hour RAW and ditch ECW methinks.

[Guest Colin]

Three hour RAW and ditch ECW methinks.

 

Yes, I'm sure Sci-Fi will be happy about that situation

[Guest The Great Ahmar]

Three hour RAW and ditch ECW methinks.

 

NO! ECW is really starting to get good

[Guest DanielFullard]

I never had a problem with Nitro being three hours long

 

 

Agreed.

 

But I must say a 3-hour WWE TV show, given the current state of creative and current way of booking isnt too appealing to me. Although I usually enjoy RAW some weeks, and far too often, event at a smidge over two hours it drags on too long.

 

I would love to see it happen if, as someone said, it meant we got some longer matches and they utilised the chance to really get talent and feuds over then I would welcome it but because I dont think WWE are capabale of this at the moment and RAw is often a stretch at 2-hours its not something Id be that excited about.

[Guest LUKE]

I only ever get round to watching Raw so if it was a little longer I wont mined.

[Guest FreeSpirit]

Three hour RAW every week would be far too long IMO. It would be too much to digest every Monday Night for me.

[Guest mrkennedy]

Three hour RAW and ditch ECW methinks.

 

I agree ECW is a waste of time and RAW is in need of some mid-carders breaking through.