Split brand or together?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Harley Quinn, Aug 13, 2012.

  1. Different Brands

    0 vote(s)
  2. All one brand

    0 vote(s)
  1. How do you prefer the WWE to run Raw and Smackdown? As two separate shows like they used to do a few years ago, or how they are basically doing it now and when they first had Smackdown and having them together?

    I liked having them separate, since everything was different. They were two complete different shows with different storylines, different wrestlers, and the feel of the shows were just different. It was also cool when PPVs like Survivor Series and Royal Rumble came along because then they would start competing with each other just for the sake of their own shows.
  2. Different brands would be more interesting than the "RAW SuperShow" crap they're doing.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Advantages to both sides, although in the long scheme of things, I prefer one world title.

    I like having one world title and having everyone compete for it to become the one and only 'best.' You also don't have to worry about two people being on different shows if you want them to feud or wrestle, if everyone is all on one brand.

    On the other hand, the brand extension did have it's advantages. More people get a main event push, and you can push twice as many feuds. It also stops the main event scene from just revolving around the same 4-5 guys for several years. If there had only been one world title since 2002, the main event would constantly revolve around Cena and Orton and Batista and Edge and Triple H switching the title back and forth with little exception. The brand split prevents this (kinda.) But something I did always dislike about it was the fact that it makes winning the Rumble mean a lot less. Winning the Rumble used to mean getting a direct spot in the main event of WM against the one world champion. With two world titles, that means you can always find a way to get a world title match at WM even if you fail to win the Rumble. To make it worse, the world title match with the non-Rumble winner very often (more often than not since the brand split, actually) gets the main event slot over the other title match.

    My feeling is that the brand split has run it's course, as I always suspected it would. I never thought it'd be some permanent thing. It's all just one show now and having two world champions both saying they're the 'best' in the company doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think it would make sense to go ahead and combine the belts at this point, but of course they probably can't do that due to Mattel having creative control in their contract with WWE. So, perhaps the best solution is to make it actually feel like a brand extension again. That doesn't just mean splitting the rosters, but also bringing back brand split PPVs, a concept which I actually enjoyed.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I honestly like the exclusivity better, so I prefer the brand extension. But, at the same time because of it a lot of people can go unused. Whereas with everyone on both shows there's a lot more possibilities for feuds.

    It's a really tough choice. If done right (most people in meaningful feuds, noone left out, etc) I like the brand extension more. If not however the "supershows" are better.
  5. I prefer Separate Brands. Smackdown has a god awful Roster compared to Raw! Because of the "Show" I'm sure if the brands separated again Smackdown would have a much better, healthier roster.

    A way to make this happen would have Booker T turn a heel GM and have a segment with A.J Lee saying he's pulling all Smackdown superstars from Raw's super show. Bring back the WWE draft because everyone loves it. And thus you can bring back the "Bragging Rights" PPV.
  6. Split them, have them completely different. A better chance at unique storylines and more of them.
  7. Combined roster, RAW 3 hours, add another title (just not a world title). If there was a way to keep Smackdown! too and just extend more, I'd do it, but that's unlikely.

    I get pros and cons of both, and from a use of talent perspective there is talent that would get underutilized, but from a show standpoint the roster would be excellent, storylines better (since they only have to make them for one show), and you would have to be elite to participate on the show.

    It all goes down to if you prefer it to see a better show, or more people become world champion. I prefer the former, because when your favorite wrestler finally wins, it makes it more special if there's one title.
  8. Idk, but I hate how it is now, with it being one in the same but still having two world titles. That's the worst of both worlds. Either get rid of one of the titles or make the two shows separate again, but enough of this one show two champions nonsense
  9. I loved SD when Eddie was running around. I also enjoyed ECW immensely once it got its feet wet. Keep RAW and SD/ECW completely separated. They won't dump SD for ECW but I can dream.
  10. I think eventually NXT could be that replacement for ECW. It's already got that unique feeling to it and it can easily be an edgier product. It just needs to make it to PPV's.
  11. Crayo's got it. An hour long event isn't too inappropriate
  12. Keep them apart, and stop crossing over both rosters, I liked it more when each show had it's own superstars and storylines:yes:
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Split the brands for sure. There's more time to spotlight young talent, and superstars don't get overexposed as much. Imo, Sheamful would be a lot more tolerable if we only saw him once a week.
  14. Both have their benefits. If I could choose I'd work with completely separated rosters, which I personally prefer, more emphasis on the midcard, no one is over exposed, etc. Although it's easier to book just one single thing, when there's only one champ it feels like being champ is more important, so I'm in doubt but I think I'd go with separate brands.
  15. They could always go back to having one world champion even with two separate brands. But that didn't really work out that well in 2002, but at least you get the best of both worlds (in my opinion) - you get the good feeling of there being only one world champion, but you also split the rosters and don't have to worry about everyone being on one show or two shows a week (Raw and Smackdown.)
  16. One brand. Two world titles, One midcard title, one Tag title, One Divas title. Five titles on a three hour show would be manageable.
  17. If you have one brand, you have to have one world title. If you are rolling with five then you do a WWE Heavyweight belt, an Intercontinental, a European, a Tag, and a Divas. Or TV title or some other midcard belt. You make the Intercontinental worth a damn and have it be coveted, then everything makes sense.
  18. I'd replace the European championship for the Light Heavyweight championship or the Television championship. Five championships are enough in my opinion. I think the less titles the more prestige being called a "champion" is.
  19. That's my main wanting of one brand, because it makes the champion look like the true top of the company if they are 1/1 world champions, not 1/2. If there was a good way of doing it with one heavyweight belt and two shows, I'm all for it...but I don't see that working well, and the champion would just mainly show up on RAW anyway since it's live, the flagship, and the only one WWE cares about.