I was under the impression that the WWE writing team was too damn lazy to write a on screen reasoning so they just made the match and left an actual purpose for the fans to decide.
Did they really ever provide a reason for ANY of the old school SurSer matches?
1989 EXAMPLE:
Sure, Hogan hates DiBiase and vice versa, but WHY did DiBiase decide to get 4 partners and face him in an elimination match when he could just beat his ass mano e mano in a cage and WIN THE TITLE (his primary goal in the first place)?
At least with the Rumble it made sense to have 30 people in the match because EVERYONE wants a title shot @ WM, but what's really in it for you if you're on a team of 4 or 5? Heck, depending on who the opposition tags in/out, you might not even be able to get your hands on who you're feuding with.
And who dictates the size of each team, anyway? Why couldn't Andre have insisted on having a team of 6 back in '87? Or did all the WWF wrestlers get a memo from Jack Tunney dictating that they HAD to have teams of 5 and compete under elimination rules?
Just some things I've always wondered about SurSer....