I disagree about winning WW3 as being a possible opportunity to build a new star. I mean, if they did the 'winner gets Starrcade shot' a la the 98 edition, then they'd have just one month to make them a credible challenger in the eyes of the fans. Compare to the WWE, where the Rumble winner has 2+ months of buildup to put heat on the match.
Also, the Rumble has 30 guys all in one ring; you could get attacked by 29 other guys through the course of this match. Plus, it's an hourlong match full of constant action.
World War 3 was just 3 battle royals right next to each other with only 19 other guys in each ring. You don't even TOUCH 30 or so of the other guys in the match (they're eliminated in other rings). You don't need stamina to win this match (all went around 26:00). All you need to do is hold onto the ropes/stay low to the ground to win, like in any battle royal.
Bottom line: winning a Rumble requires Herculean effort, while World War 3 can be won with luck. I think any casual fan could see that then and can see it now.