20 vs. 30 vs. 40.

[FLWWEFan]

30 is a good number. With that number if they play their cards right they can still feature a good combination of top guys, mid-carders, guys who are hardly on tv, and a few surprises. With 40 it seems like too much and who really wants to see guys like Ricardo and Hacksaw in the Rumble anyways?

[Tomsta666]

40. The more the merrier!

[Cabers]

With the size of the current roster and to help all the talent get a payday from the Rumble it would be best to have it at 40.

[Snair]

It should be 30. Can't understand the need to insert another 10 irrelevant wrestlers.

[k_roll00]

I'd like it to go back to 20. Tag team wrestlers should NOT be in the rumble, nor should women, legends, announcers, or midgets because we all know that they aren't going to win it anyways. Narrow it down to 20 guys and leading up to the rumble there will be qualifying matches for each spot. Since there are 20 guys instead of 30, make the time between new participants a little longer.

[HCollins-TNA1]

Fuck the Bullshit... 90 man, 3 ring mayhem!!! World War 3 baby - Put the WCW Brainchild into a WWE format and let them fuckers go to town!!!

Personally favor 30.....

But the 90 man idea would be awesome if the WWE would do this... they have enough guys or can hire enough.... They have well over 100 guys including developmental and legends...

[Rockstar83]

20 is to less and 40 is to more. so...

[bearkg88]

I like the idea of keeping it to 30. To me it gives an adequate amount of time then for other matches on the card, and also doesn't bog down the rumble with superstars people don't care much about, aka fillers. I mean, I'm all for the occasional superstar that doesn't normally get featured, but let's be serious. When you see Yoshi Tatsu or Mason Ryan come to the Rumble match and enter it, you don't expect them to win.

[steveorton]

Thirty 30.....