Brand poll

[Raja Lion]

I was talking to a friend of mine today and we got into a heated discussion about this. Personally, I think the overall quality of WWE has deteriorated since the brand extension and that is one of the causes for the lack of quality.

The downside to this of course would be that a lot of wrestlers would likely lose their jobs, but the bright side is that business would possibly pick up overall.

What do you think about this situation?

[Jiren]

on one side i say yes it could be ended and they could get rid of some deadwood and it will make for some interesting feuds

BUT

As there are seperate brands more people are getting chances

It's a hard choice

[Loki]

No

As I stated several times, I don't think reuniting the brands would benefit the show.

Besides the obvious firings (which aren't bad per se, because it'd be mainly Heat and Velocity jobbers), a lot of upper-midcarders would have to be sent back to the midcard, killing their push, and hence wasting year(s) of build up.

Not to mention the monopoly in the main event: we could easily end up with HHH Cena Angle, plus maybe Edge and Orton feuding for the belt, with occasional "cameos" by Taker, Rey and later on Batista.
But since we know WWE can't handle storylines involving more than two-three people at the same time, those 8 guys would basically take all the airtime, leaving the filler time to the rest of the roster.

All in all I still think the brand split is the lesser of the two evils: at least we get more people involved.

[slax]

I say yes.

But another option is to combine the WWE and World championships again, since there is a shortage of capable main eventers. The belt must be the "big gold belt" though, no matter who holds it. And the champion defends on both shows. If the brands are still split, one who loses the belt will join the brand of the one who won the belt, to fill the void... so no, HHH, you can't go back to Raw if Batista wins the belt back from you.

Going back to one champion puts prestige back on the IC and US titles, as they'll be the brand titles.

But I'm sick of the brand extension. They tried to create competition. It had potential. But I think it fell short. Plus, it appears to be impossible to write two shows that don't mirror each other.

Just my thoughts.

[BrianZane]

octagoncito said:

The downside to this of course would be that a lot of wrestlers would likely lose their jobs, but the bright side is that business would possibly pick up overall.

What evidence is there that business would pick up? With so much of the undercard probably getting the axe if the brand split, how can the the product be good? With the brand split, they do a little over 300 events a year (more or less evenly split up between the rosters). Would they decide to keep that number of shows with the roster split? Or would they shrink the number of shows down to the 200+ mark, which would lead to a ton of lost money.

[CrOaT....]

no because i dont want to watch cena matches on raw and SD in the same week and see all my favorite low card to low mid card get fired i bet TNA would like the firings though

[TheThreadKiller]

I like the brand split. Alot.

I love the two seperate rosters, I like the competition.

[Jeff]

Yes, Fire the people I dont care

[THRJamesAngelo]

Yes. It would make for better feuds, a good midcard, a good tag team division IMO.

For those that would get layed off, there are some indy guys that make decent money.

[Raja Lion]

brianzane said:

octagoncito said:

The downside to this of course would be that a lot of wrestlers would likely lose their jobs, but the bright side is that business would possibly pick up overall.

What evidence is there that business would pick up? With so much of the undercard probably getting the axe if the brand split, how can the the product be good? With the brand split, they do a little over 300 events a year (more or less evenly split up between the rosters). Would they decide to keep that number of shows with the roster split? Or would they shrink the number of shows down to the 200+ mark, which would lead to a ton of lost money.

I mis-stepped in my description of what I was saying. I meant along the lines of entertainment quality rather than revenue, but certainly they can find a way to built that up than with house shows that are a lot of the time half - 3/4 full. But in the business sense it may help ratings as well, although the ratings are still decent now they will likely never get back to what they were during the "Attitude" era.

[dorf]

I like it the way it is now. Making more loopholes so that more brand intervention can occur. So, my vote is no. Besides, things are okay on both rosters right now. I wish Smackdown had another upper mid-card quality superstar, other than that, everything else is fine.

Besides, nobody liked how WWE was in early 2002, when it was hard for them to keep up with a huge roster. The brand split was one of the more intelligent and busine$$ ideas to date.

[Well, Youre Wrong]

I would say no, I didn't like it at first, but I got used to the two brand setup. The brand split kinda gives other guys a push who normally wouldn't get a push with one big roster.

[HRH The KING]

I say yes.

The WWE doesn't have a deep enough talent pool and strong enough creative booking to sustain two rosters.

I think it devalues the titles and since the brand split, the WWE have failed to develop their various divisions.

I think they should unite the rosters, cut the dead weight, restructure the roster and build strong divisions.

[espsychologist]

The brand split should not be ended, but should rather be enhanced by making the two shows of Raw and SMACKDOWN different enough that people who decide to watch both will not feel like they are watching the EXACT SAME SHOW two nights a week. The brand split should also OVERTLY (means obviously )emphasize either more storyline or more pure wrestling one one show or the other.

[nisi]

espsychologist said:

The brand split should not be ended, but should rather be enhanced by making the two shows of Raw and SMACKDOWN different enough that people who decide to watch both will not feel like they are watching the EXACT SAME SHOW two nights a week. The brand split should also OVERTLY (means obviously )emphasize either more storyline or more pure wrestling one one show or the other.

slax said:

But another option is to combine the WWE and World championships again, since there is a shortage of capable main eventers. The belt must be the "big gold belt" though, no matter who holds it. And the champion defends on both shows. If the brands are still split, one who loses the belt will join the brand of the one who won the belt, to fill the void... so no, HHH, you can't go back to Raw if Batista wins the belt back from you.

Going back to one champion puts prestige back on the IC and US titles, as they'll be the brand titles.

But I'm sick of the brand extension. They tried to create competition. It had potential. But I think it fell short. Plus, it appears to be impossible to write two shows that don't mirror each other.

You guys are brilliant. I hate having two separate top titles. But Smackdown isn't really competitive now, it's clearly the step-child show, and either having it be more storyline or more wrestling action is a way to distinguish it and make it more interesting. "Forcing" guys to move back and forth between brands is a very "reality TV" move that keeps things interesting while preventing either show from becoming the "B" team for too long.

[Rick Mad]

YES YES OH GOD YES.

I want a midcard. A good midcard.

And maybe even an undercard and a tag division, too!!

[mike5286]

Or at least unify the heavyweight and tag team belts and make them accsessable to both brands.

[Raja Lion]

I really dont like the two belt thing. Thats probably my biggest dislike.

[admiralcrunchy™]

I voted yes...original poll btw

[Raja Lion]

admiralcrunchy said:

I voted yes...original poll btw

IM A NOOB!