QUESTION OF THE DAY: Assuming you watch WWE PPVs on the Network now, do you feel less upset when there is a non-finish/screwy finish to a big match/PPV main event? Or, do you still feel upset no matter how much you're paying compared to the previous PPV price?

- DERRICK IN UTAH REPLIES: I don't believe WWE owes the fans an "out" or period at the conclusion of every PPV event. The WWE product is like a never-ending clock, it continues to circumnavigate the year progressing from event to event. Sometimes the PPV ends with a conclusion (period or exclamation point) and sometimes the event ends with a "to be continued" (comma).

- BRYAN IN HASTINGS, ENGLAND REPLIES: The Network being cheaper doesn't excuse non-finishes on PPV. With the terrible search engine and lack of worthwhile new content on the Network the only reason to subscribe is for the PPVs. If those keep having non-finishes then you don't really need to watch them, and little else is worth the price. Once you've seen WM17 and a couple of other decent PPVs you wanted to revisit, then grabbed the most famous matches, I believe the Network is a whole lot of nothing and one PPV a month.

TV programming is building feuds towards the PPV blow-off, except we're never having that blow-off match any more. And, if it does happen, then WWE just does the re-match on Raw/Smackdown/the next PPV. The days when you would genuinely miss something are past, and if you don't feel like you're part of a once only, had to be there live, event then you wont watch. If you're not watching the PPVs you wont subscribe. If you don't subscribe WWE goes the same way as TNA. They're doing their best to book like TNA of late. WWE needs to get off this slippery slope and deliver interference-free, DQ-free PPV matches, otherwise everyone will just move on to something else.

- JUSTIN BERGLUND REPLIES: The PPV was solid. Every match delivered and was entertaining. If the show was a dud up to the main event, then I would've had issue with the non-finish. Between NXT, my current obsession with watching old Rumble matches, and the rest of the programs I get through the Network, I'm more than happy with what I get out of my subscription as long as the PPVs entertain me.

- MATTHEW PRENTICE REPLIES: The Network price point is not a valid excuse for promoting underwhelming or bad shows. The 500,000 or so diehard wrestling fans who subscribed on Day One aren’t going away, but if WWE wants to break-even or someday make money on the Network, they have to hook and retain another 500,000+ subscribers. PPV’s that resemble "Raw+" events or feature sloppy finishes to big matches aren’t doing them any favors. This time of the year has been very underwhelming for years, but in the age of the Network, WWE cannot afford to mail it in any longer.

Also, although the majority of viewers are paying $9.99, a measurable amount are still paying $50 on traditional cable PPV. Most of these viewers are either not comfortable with or cannot subscribe to an over-the-top service, but are still dedicated enough that they spend a good chunk of money on WWE each month. It’s extremely foolish of WWE to turn their backs on these long-time and dedicated customers out of spite.

Have an opinion on the Question of the Day? We're continuing to take your feedback at pwtorch@gmail.com.

[Torch art credit Grant Gould (c) PWTorch.com]

We suggest these recent related articles...

WWE PPV REAX #1: "I wanted the biggest event of the summer to end with an exclamation point; it ended with a semicolon and a question"

WWE PPV REAX #1: Battleground finish generates mixed reactions...

WWE PPV REAX #2: In-Person Battleground Report on overall show, reactions, more