|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Jun 3, 2010 13:12:54 GMT -5
I noticed a few topics on here speak on Tag Teams and how they are half assed and what not. Well in the place I tried running with Garrison and another guy I had created a fool proof plan for Tag Titles to actually work. The company didn't work so it failed too I suppose but here was the idea.
-Cross Division-
The Champions defend their Titles in a Tornado Tag Elimination Match. Everytime. The last two men in the ring are the Champions even if it's a mixture of the two teams involved in the match. You would change partners on occasion but if you wanted to keep your partner you'd work harder as a team. It feels like a Singles title because it's up to you to keep your half because if your partner loses, you still have a chance to keep your half of the crowns.
Just an idea I had that I thought I'd add to here. Makes the Tag Division that most the time lacks a little more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seth on Jun 3, 2010 16:15:35 GMT -5
Thats actually a pretty neat idea. I don't think I'd permanently change the tag setup we've got going, but use that as a match type every now and then. Thanks for posting it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Jun 3, 2010 18:58:59 GMT -5
No problem man, just figured a few posts talked about it and I had a could be solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Black on Jun 6, 2010 12:16:21 GMT -5
So, wait. It's a battle royal basically?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Jun 6, 2010 12:27:44 GMT -5
No, you'd help your partner as much as possible but in the end the last two men left are the champions. You'd work the match wanting to keep your half of the titles but your tag team would work together and try to keep them. Sometimes that doesn't work out and that would create new situations to make them more desired titles. It was a suggestion, some people might not like the idea but for E-Feds it would work. Who likes being in a Tag Team only nowadays?
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Black on Jun 6, 2010 12:32:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I get that. But, in the end, it's the last two remaining. There's usually teams in battle royals anyway. It's not a NEW concept, but one that I'm not sure we have used. And anything new is a breath of fresh air.
As for tag teams only, I did that for the last few months. It was pretty fun. Tort and I gave the Tag Division some worth going forward!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Jun 6, 2010 12:34:50 GMT -5
Never said the concept was new, just made for Tag Titles. Not a battle royale either, you work as a team until your partner is eliminated and then you become double teamed. It wouldn't turn into a triple threat at any time because 2 of the 3 would always be partners. I too would like to get a Tag Team going, with Knoxville here now maybe that'll happen. I like the Tag Division but most stay for short periods before they think of singles gold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Black on Jun 6, 2010 12:47:49 GMT -5
Let me get this straight.
Wrestler A and B vs C and D
Wrestler B is eliminated, leaving A vs C and D
A somehow eliminated D, leaving A and C as Tag Champions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Jun 6, 2010 13:55:32 GMT -5
Exactly. It would mix the Champions. Look at it like this instead.
A/B Vs. C/D
A Out Rps C (Elimination)
D Out Rps B (Elimination)
A & D are New Champions.
If A/B were the Champions then A would remain Champion and D would be given a Title Reign on record. A wouldn't get another reign added, he'd just retained his part of the Titles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Black on Jun 6, 2010 14:37:20 GMT -5
Oh.. I thought it was more than four dudes.
...
Ugh. I don't know how well that would actually work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Jun 6, 2010 18:51:24 GMT -5
Like I said, some might not ride with the idea but it makes it interesting. Makes keeping the same partner the true challenge. Oh well, some like it others don't. No big deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Black on Jun 6, 2010 19:23:37 GMT -5
It would be ok for thrown together teams, but I don't think established guys would go for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Jun 6, 2010 20:19:20 GMT -5
Which would be why they would work hard to win the match. Just the same goes for regular Tag Titles, if they want to keep them they need to out rp their opponents. This method turns Tag Team Rping into a more individual event which is what Tag Teams usually end up doing anyway. Nobody stays consistant partners for very long and this creates a storyline for the titles because every match can shake things up. If someone doesn't like it they don't have to participate but those I had signed to the company I helped start loved the idea. So to each his own. It's not being used here so why continue about it? Good discussion though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Black on Jun 6, 2010 20:53:33 GMT -5
I'm just trying to get it so it'll make sense for us. It's a good idea and all, but it just feels like it would alienate teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seth on Jun 7, 2010 15:03:26 GMT -5
CD, I wouldn't use it all the time. But say two singles guys that arent REALLY a team win the belts somehow, it would be an interesting match type to use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Black on Jun 7, 2010 17:27:48 GMT -5
That's what I was trying to get at! Haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Jun 7, 2010 18:22:41 GMT -5
Yes that's the point, alternate teams. Mix them up so that those who want to stay together will work harder on rping and win. I love a good debate so it's all good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Black on Jun 7, 2010 18:26:39 GMT -5
The next real problem I see is the teams that are only one handler.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Jun 7, 2010 18:35:19 GMT -5
Yeah that's something I hadn't thought of much....I would guess that if he out rped both opponents then he retains with both members of his team. If not then his team would split or he'd try to get the other title back...I guess it wasn't thought out completely...Damnit, why didn't I know you before when I was putting ideas together? Could have helped...
|
|
|
|
Post by Seth on Jun 7, 2010 19:03:04 GMT -5
The next real problem I see is the teams that are only one handler. Would never use that match type in that situation! Haha. |
|
