20 vs. 30 vs. 40.

[PandaMassacre]

I always liked the 30 man royal rumble. B'I

It is not too short and its not too long. Last time they did 40 they had so many filler wrestlers it wasn't even funny.

[Viperfish]

I wish they would at least bring back the War Games, at least once. We got a 3v3 TLC match between The Shield and some victims... if two more are going to join or be affiliated with The Shield, it wouldn't be a bad match to bring back.

[PandaMassacre]

I wish they would at least bring back the War Games, at least once. We got a 3v3 TLC match between The Shield and some victims... if two more are going to join or be affiliated with The Shield, it wouldn't be a bad match to bring back.

Good idea! You are definitely not alone on this one. War Games to me was very interesting.

[Poot-Hair]

Just to play Devil's Advocate I'm going against the 40 man Rumble. Let me preach on it.

If you watched last years 40 man Rumble, you would have noticed one thing; It was slap FULL of jobbers. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that even the "enhancement talent" and lower midcard wrestlers need their paydays and T.V. time but on one of the "Big Three" PPV's? I don't think so.

The RR traditionally has excitement, suprise returns, and stuff that you'd never expect. It was all part of the Lore of the RR; you knew that you were going to get an awesome show. The 40 man just seemed lackluster, thrown together, and wasn't up to par with the tradition of the show. This is why I say keep it at 30, or even 20, and make every entrant count towards greatness.

[peppermill25]

I like the 30 man Royal rumble. Although it is fun to tweak it here and there. I loved when it turned hardcore one year, and liked the 40 man. I think they should do the entire roster one year. Keep it 30 man traditionally though.

[Poot-Hair]

I wish they would at least bring back the War Games, at least once. We got a 3v3 TLC match between The Shield and some victims... if two more are going to join or be affiliated with The Shield, it wouldn't be a bad match to bring back.

This is perhaps the post of the thread. Good job sir.

[Dennis]

they're obliged to put fill in some spaces with former stars and vets, so increasing it to 40 on a regular basis allows 10 extra spots for guys who might be pushed out of a 30 man Rumble by those one off guys.
So I say increase it.

I agree with this. wwe's trademark is to put some legends in the rumble... it gets a pop. Older people want to see their child hood idols one more time.

[Ruthless_Aggression]

Quality>Quanity

[evilgenius780]

I hated the 40 man rumble, could of possibly been the worst RR in history, though I think that was more how it was booked than the quanity of wrestlers. I think 30 is perfect.

On another note, I agree, War Games should be something WWE adopts. Though not needed, I would hope if they did, they used 2 rings, something that made it very unique.

[TempestH]

Keep it at 30, but they need to change it up a bit

1. Limit the surprise legend returns to 2-3.

2. Balance between upper card and lower card stars. Don't give upper card stars a match on the card AND put them in the Rumble match. If your top stars are going to be wrestling, then focus the Rumble on the midcard talent. If the top guys are going to be dominating the rumble, then build the Royal Rumble card around the midcard guys. Team Hell No shouldn't have a Tag Title match on the card THEN take up two Rumble slots. The loser of the WHC match should not just be randomly inserted into the Rumble (unless he's going to win).