I found the TNA BFG PPV review that was posted on your website earlier this week interesting. It seemed that it was an excellent PPV until the poor main event, and as result everyone bashed the PPV as a whole. While it would be awesome to have a PPV that was excellent from top to bottom, that rarely happens. So my question to you is do you think it is better to have a excellent undercard (but a crappy main event), or a crappy undercard but a excellent main event. Also, can you think of any PPV's (from any company) that fit either criteria? Meaning ones that had an excellent undercard, but blew it with their main event, along with ones that had a crappy undercard, but were potentially saved because of an awesome main event. Is one situation better than the other?
I’d rather sit through a crappy undercard and get blown away by the main event, because usually that’s what you remember anyway. Like with Royal Rumble, I’m spending the $50 because of that one match, not anything happening before it. As noted, WCW used to do the opposite all the time, where you’d get an awesome 2 hours of matches and then Hulk Hogan stinking up the main event. The Roode thing just really bugged people because that’s why most were spending the money on the show, I think.