Wrestlemania 2: Part Two?

Interesting e-mail here, so I thought I’d just present it as is and let everyone discuss. Scott,
Pack a lunch and hear me out…
The three-venue concept of ‘Wrestlemania II’ is typically regarded as a bad idea.  While it may not have worked well in execution, I do not think the idea is bad on its own merit.  In fact, I think one could argue that it would make a bit more sense in the current WWE Universe than it did in 1986.  Since the WWE monopoly began in 2001 and the multi-brand presentation of the roster, the talent depth lends itself to putting on three shows, at least in theory.    There could be benefits to revisiting this tri-venue presentation in terms of gate, roster morale, and the scale of the event.
For years, WWE has presented Wrestlemania in the epic football stadium venues and has drawn a massive house.  Snap judgment says breaking from the stadium setting would cost the show gate money, as well as the scope and grandeur that signifies the modern era’s Wrestlemania brand.  However, I believe the multi-venue approach could work today particularly because Wrestlemania sells as a brand first, not entirely because of the card.  My point is that running a coordinated Wrestlemania in three separate cities could conceivably sell out multiple venues (even if they use normal arenas rather than stadiums) and draw a larger cumulative gate.  The idea of running a ‘coast-to-coast’ Wrestlemania could allow the company to really promote the ‘WWE Universe’ transcendence they seek.  In short, Vince can buy into his ‘spanning the globe’ mentality and find yet another unit of measure for his manhood.
Whereas Wrestlemania 2 featured only a few televised matches from each venue, the WWE would have to deliver a relatively full card at each city in order to justify the attendance.   This is less of an issue today because the WWE controls such a deep roster.  For example, the tag team champions are not even on this year’s card, the secondary titles are virtually defunct, and there are multiple workers not involved in the show.   (Naturally, this would mean giving some exposure and direction to more talent, but that is another tangent).  In terms of the end PPV product, half of each individual city’s card would be ‘dark matches’.  Each city would receive a 7-8 match card, but only the 3-4 matches intended for the PPV would appear in the purchased PPV product.  (Aside: the ‘dark’ matches could be included on the later DVD release as ‘bonus’ or ‘easter eggs’).
In essence, the three cards could be composed of the one high profile match, an upper card feud, and one or two undercard matches that would result in a 9-12 match PPV end product to which we are accustomed.  Modern technology makes this far more feasible from a logistics standpoint as well.  Coordinating the live broadcast across three venues into a seemless program would not present anywhere near the challenge it did 25 years ago.  Also, the WWE has enough capable figureheads to disperse to each city (say, Stephanie, HHH, and Vince each in a city ‘producing’ the show).
Specifically, I think the three-venue concept could be an interesting fit for Wrestlemania 30.  As a matter of tradition, it would make sense for the 30th anniversary show to be held at Madison Square Garden (as with numbers 1, 10, & 20).  However, this would be a step back from the now-standard stadium-size gate and scale of Wrestlemania.  The three-venue idea allows the show to ‘return where it all began’ (MSG) without compromising the ‘Wrestlemania feel’ of a larger-than-normal PPV.  Have one-third on the west coast (L.A.?), one in the midwest (Chicago?) or Canada (for the multinational feel), and the concluding third at MSG (N.Y.).  WWE already has multiple separate production crews for their various programming and ‘separate brands’, so they will not be spread-thin logistically.
The current roster structure allows for this: have a WWE/World Title match at Venue #1, the other World Title at Venue #2, and the annual ‘special attraction main event’ at Venue #3 (ala Rock-Cena, Taker-HHH, Rock-Hogan, etc).  In fact, this year’s installment has exactly this sort of stature, with Rock-Cena, a pair of World title matches, and HHH-Undertaker all carrying ‘main event’ status on most cards.
Example televised ‘Wrestlemania’ Broadcast, sans ‘dark matches’:
Venue #1 (West Coast)
– WWE Championship
– Intercontinental Championship
– mid-card match
– mid-card match
Venue #2 (Midwest/Canada)
– World Championship
– United States Championship
– mid-card match
– mid-card match
Venue #3 (Madison Square Garden)
– ‘Main Event/Special Attraction’ (ala Rock-Cena)
– Tag Team Championship
– Divas Title
– mid-card match
In summary, you get more gate revenue (approx. 40k in attendance at each = 120k total); an expanded feel (Wrestlemania ‘Coast-to-Coast’); three individual main events in which the participants actually get to ‘main event’ their own venue (unlike a WWE Title match opening the show this year); a way to end Wrestlemania XXX at MSG without compromising gate or scale of the show; nation-wide appeal instead of focused single-city attention for the ‘Road to Wrestlemania’, ‘Axxess’, and all the local attention the show draws.  As a bonus, you get essentially the whole roster involved on some level.  Sure, the NXT guys, some random divas, and a handful of mid-carders might not actually air on the PPV presentation itself, but their ‘dark matches’ will be in front of a Wrestlemania crowd and included on later packages (WWE Network, DVD release, etc).  You can let guys go out and make the ‘dark’ portion of the show special for the live crowd–if a match ends up being blow-away great and isn’t on the PPV, you can always air it on ‘Raw’ or on WWE Network to reward the workers.  WWE could also do their celebrity appearances and concert bits as part of the ‘dark’ part of each venue, rather than another instance of Kid Rock (or token flavor of the week) taking up PPV time from the wrestlers.  Everyone gets a Wrestlemania payday, every city gets a full card, but only the top guys air on the actual show.
I think the three-venue idea has merit financially, logistically, and for the simple ‘cool factor’.  I especially think it is do-able for Wrestlemania XXX.  Personally, I think the Wrestlemania 2 idea was fine in theory, it just did not work in practice 25 years ago.  Whereas that show was closed-circuit and only the second attempt at a Wrestlemania ‘super show’, the Wrestlemania brand is a major event today, with pay-per-view, large venues, and mainstream media attention.  I think the most significant impedements to Wrestlemania 2’s success are virtual non-factors in the modern market.  Readers, feel free to expand upon, amend, or flat-out pan this idea as you see fit.  Just throwing it out there….