|
Post by TRUTH TELLER on Feb 21, 2009 16:27:59 GMT -5
Like communism, the Brand extension only works in theory. Certain wrestlers have benefited as far as card placement goes, but all you have to do is look back to WWE's past to see a huge FULL roster of talent STILL being better utilized in some capacity.
The biggest mystery to me as a fan, is the strange belief that a unified roster can't work. People forget that there was a much larger combined roster in 1987-1989, and even 2000, and that like today, they still did two (sometimes three) cards a day, featuring certain key talent on each show.
As for the great phantom bogeyman that is "midcarders being released". There's no proof to that. In the 80's and even Attitude era, midcarders were actually better utilized; being made into tag teams (not just the same 2 teams fighting every week) or put into the Intercontinental title division. They had more of a role. And had a place where they could shine. Not everyone can be World Champion, people. Every leading man needs a set of supporting actors.
I mean, all you have to do is pop in a video of Survivor series '88, and watch the opening tag match which had 20 men in one match, to see that their roster was stacked. And that was ONE match. Now take a look at the pathetic slew of shmoes that come out whenever a GM calls the full roster to the ring. There's like maybe 20 guys total. It's really sad.
That said, I have yet to ever have anyone explain to me how or why the way they run things now is better. Not logically. There's a certain line of paranoid propaganda spewed, but its always just unproven lip-service. WWE's own history refutes it.
What, it's better, because, a Rey Mysterio got a World Title reign? Well, it was a lousy reign that was sabotauged right from the beginning. Because Orton & Cena may have never gotten over? What, like the way midcarders Warrior & Savage & Austin, HHH, Foley & Rock never got a chance? How guys like Benoit, Punk & Eddie would have been relegated to the IC title? What, like Bret Hart & HBK?
Come on, people. Take the WWE goggles off for a second. Today's brand extension Title reigns are like gold stars for retards. They'll give you one for just showing up and trying. When you were on top of a combined roster, you really were on top.
So, you can love the Brand split all you want, but to say a combined roster could never work is just ignorant. Go watch WWE 24/7 and tell me I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Feb 21, 2009 16:38:19 GMT -5
Thats where I stopped. We're now comparing the Brand Extension to Communism. WWE doesn't work like it did in the 80's. WWE ran 4 pay per views, and weekly squash shows. Other than that they toured with 3 groups and ran house shows. Now they are an episodic program. Raw and Smackdown are not Wrestling Challenge and Superstars. Some people like watching one show a week, but don't want to commit to watching two or three. With a unified roster you're going to have watch Raw and Smackdown or you'll get lost. One of the reasons I lost a lot of interest in the product in 2000 was because I didn't have a UPN affiliate and things would happen on Smackdown I'd miss. Its just not possible in the current model of Smackdown and Raw being equals to successfully pull it off. You could make Raw the main event show and Smackdown the midcard show (similar to what Superstars and Challenge were), but I doubt My Network TV would be too thrilled with that. Simply put trying to run two two hour programs each week with the same roster becomes overkill. And if they got rid of one of the programs they'd have more talent then they could use.
|
|
|
Post by TRUTH TELLER on Feb 21, 2009 17:15:26 GMT -5
Thats where I stopped. We're now comparing the Brand Extension to Communism. WWE doesn't work like it did in the 80's. WWE ran 4 pay per views, and weekly squash shows. Other than that they toured with 3 groups and ran house shows. Now they are an episodic program. Raw and Smackdown are not Wrestling Challenge and Superstars. Some people like watching one show a week, but don't want to commit to watching two or three. With a unified roster you're going to have watch Raw and Smackdown or you'll get lost. One of the reasons I lost a lot of interest in the product in 2000 was because I didn't have a UPN affiliate and things would happen on Smackdown I'd miss. Its just not possible in the current model of Smackdown and Raw being equals to successfully pull it off. You could make Raw the main event show and Smackdown the midcard show (similar to what Superstars and Challenge were), but I doubt My Network TV would be too thrilled with that. Simply put trying to run two two hour programs each week with the same roster becomes overkill. And if they got rid of one of the programs they'd have more talent then they could use. You do realize the communism thing was just an analogy? In that the belief in their functionality is based off of theory because practical evidence debunks their usefulness. As for your argument... WWF pulled off two equal programs plus Sunday night Heat for YEARS, and pulled in better ratings. Now, TV has changed somewhat since then because of more access, but it was still "must see TV", unlike today, where you can disappear for 4 weeks in some cases, and be plugged right back in like you've missed nothing. Creating a product where you are afraid to miss even one episode..like a Soap..should be the goal. Not fragmenting the audience to 3 unequal lackluster shows. Hell, the Orton/HHH saga proves how it SHOULD be done. For once, Smackdown was must-see, because it was a big time cliff hanger from RAW that necessitated you watching it for follow-up. Any company who wants you to only watch one show is utterly clueless. I mean, really, McNew. To say today's model can only work is somewhat naive, because it DID work from 1999-2001 without any issues. I'd think someone with your grasp on wrestling and its history would at least admit to that. Now, I'm not picking on you, because I've always respected your opinion, but you have to admit, as I will now, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF 100% KNOWING THAT A BRAND COMBINED WWE WOULD BE BAD. It's just wild speculation on your part based on personal preference and maybe unfounded fears. And sure, I'm speculating as well, but I'm doing so with years of successful TV as a combined roster just 8 years ago as my exhibit A.
|
|
greeby
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,088
|
Post by greeby on Feb 21, 2009 17:23:32 GMT -5
Look what's happening now: certain wrestlers they want to push appearing on multiple shows (Did it with Punk, doing it with In-Crowd, were starting to do it with Bourne, even Kelly was doing twofers at the start of her push as a wrestler), they have the main eventers on Smackdown wrestling twice each night.
Bottom line, brand split or no split. Anyone who is long-term unused is that way not because of lack of TV time, the booking team just plain doesn't want to use them.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Feb 21, 2009 17:46:10 GMT -5
Bad, bad and bad.
First of all, what would happen to the three weekly shows WWE run right now?
Scenario A: We'd have the same 6 Main Eventers on every show, or at least on TWO of them, thus leading to an even quicker process of "staleness" for feuds, characters and workers. It's already quick enough now, it'd be suicide overexposing the same Superstars even more.
Scenario B: we'd still get a brand split de facto, with Superstars and angles being booked alternately on The Monday Show or on The Thursday Show [and occasionally on The Tuesday Short Show]
So, if it's A, WWE will be shooting themselves in the foot If it's B, what's the point?
But anyway, rest assured a lot of midcarders and curtain-jerkers would get fired on the spot, as Main Event and other "important" angles would still be featured on as many shows as possible, thus requiring to free some slots that are now used to give airtime to "the Rest of the Roster".
Despite the, unexplainable, love the idea of ending the brand split gets around here, I still fail to see how that could actually help the product instead of harming it with its long-time fiends: OVEREXPOSURE and SATURATION
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Feb 21, 2009 17:50:14 GMT -5
Thats where I stopped. We're now comparing the Brand Extension to Communism. WWE doesn't work like it did in the 80's. WWE ran 4 pay per views, and weekly squash shows. Other than that they toured with 3 groups and ran house shows. Now they are an episodic program. Raw and Smackdown are not Wrestling Challenge and Superstars. Some people like watching one show a week, but don't want to commit to watching two or three. With a unified roster you're going to have watch Raw and Smackdown or you'll get lost. One of the reasons I lost a lot of interest in the product in 2000 was because I didn't have a UPN affiliate and things would happen on Smackdown I'd miss. Its just not possible in the current model of Smackdown and Raw being equals to successfully pull it off. You could make Raw the main event show and Smackdown the midcard show (similar to what Superstars and Challenge were), but I doubt My Network TV would be too thrilled with that. Simply put trying to run two two hour programs each week with the same roster becomes overkill. And if they got rid of one of the programs they'd have more talent then they could use. You do realize the communism thing was just an analogy? In that the belief in their functionality is based off of theory because practical evidence debunks their usefulness. As for your argument... WWF pulled off two equal programs plus Sunday night Heat for YEARS, and pulled in better ratings. Now, TV has changed somewhat since then because of more access, but it was still "must see TV", unlike today, where you can disappear for 4 weeks in some cases, and be plugged right back in like you've missed nothing. Creating a product where you are afraid to miss even one episode..like a Soap..should be the goal. Not fragmenting the audience to 3 unequal lackluster shows. Hell, the Orton/HHH saga proves how it SHOULD be done. For once, Smackdown was must-see, because it was a big time cliff hanger from RAW that necessitated you watching it for follow-up. Any company who wants you to only watch one show is utterly clueless. I mean, really, McNew. To say today's model can only work is somewhat naive, because it DID work from 1999-2001 without any issues. I'd think someone with your grasp on wrestling and its history would at least admit to that. Now, I'm not picking on you, because I've always respected your opinion, but you have to admit, as I will now, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF 100% KNOWING THAT A BRAND COMBINED WWE WOULD BE BAD. It's just wild speculation on your part based on personal preference and maybe unfounded fears. And sure, I'm speculating as well, but I'm doing so with years of successful TV as a combined roster just 8 years ago as my exhibit A. How do you know my last name? anyway... Yes you could combine the rosters, if you get rid of a number of guys. There is no way to pull it off in the current model without trimming a number of guys. Heat became irrelevant the minute Smackdown debuted. So forget about that. They ran two programs, at a time when the product was so ridiculously popular that they could have ran 2 hours of television every single night and pulled in monster numbers. I disagree that you can miss four weeks and pick right up where you left off. The episodic nature of today is no different than it was back then. Forcing people to watch the same show two or three times a week becomes overkill. Look at anything. Random example, Deal or No Deal. The program debuts and its absolutely red hot. NBC runs it like three times a week because they can, but what happens? Eventually people get burnt out on seeing it three times a week so NBC has to reign it back in to once a week. You can't overkill the audience. Eventually they will get burnt out. I think a brand combined WWE would cause the cancellation of Smackdown eventually. I also know it would cause a lot of wrestlers to lose their jobs. Neither of these are good for wrestling fans. To me the brand extension is a lot like the introduction of extra pay per views or changing the TV model from squash matches to superstar matches. It may not have been a good idea when it was implimented (or at worst short sighted) but at this point there is no turning back.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Feb 21, 2009 17:54:17 GMT -5
Bad, bad and bad. First of all, what would happen to the three weekly shows WWE run right now? Scenario A: We'd have the same 6 Main Eventers on every show, or at least on TWO of them, thus leading to an even quicker process of "staleness" for feuds, characters and workers. It's already quick enough now, it'd be suicide overexposing the same Superstars even more. Scenario B: we'd still get a brand split de facto, with Superstars and angles being booked alternately on The Monday Show or on The Thursday Show [and occasionally on The Tuesday Short Show] So, if it's A, WWE will be shooting themselves in the foot If it's B, what's the point? But anyway, rest assured a lot of midcarders and curtain-jerkers would get fired on the spot, as Main Event and other "important" angles would still be featured on as many shows as possible, thus requiring to free some slots that are now used to give airtime to "the Rest of the Roster". Despite the, unexplainable, love the idea of ending the brand split gets around here, I still fail to see how that could actually help the product instead of harming it with its long-time fiends: OVEREXPOSURE and SATURATION It would almost certainly be B. Hell Scenario B is almost exactly how they're booking Wrestlemania anyway.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,515
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Feb 21, 2009 17:58:43 GMT -5
Bad, bad and bad. First of all, what would happen to the three weekly shows WWE run right now? Scenario A: We'd have the same 6 Main Eventers on every show, or at least on TWO of them, thus leading to an even quicker process of "staleness" for feuds, characters and workers. It's already quick enough now, it'd be suicide overexposing the same Superstars even more. Scenario B: we'd still get a brand split de facto, with Superstars and angles being booked alternately on The Monday Show or on The Thursday Show [and occasionally on The Tuesday Short Show] So, if it's A, WWE will be shooting themselves in the foot If it's B, what's the point? But anyway, rest assured a lot of midcarders and curtain-jerkers would get fired on the spot, as Main Event and other "important" angles would still be featured on as many shows as possible, thus requiring to free some slots that are now used to give airtime to "the Rest of the Roster". Despite the, unexplainable, love the idea of ending the brand split gets around here, I still fail to see how that could actually help the product instead of harming it with its long-time fiends: OVEREXPOSURE and SATURATION Pretty much what I was gonna say. If you guys hate the annual spring cleaning and semi frequent releases/"misuses" of indy god #567 now, then just imagine how much you'll love it with a combined roster
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Feb 21, 2009 18:37:03 GMT -5
Bad, bad and bad. First of all, what would happen to the three weekly shows WWE run right now? Scenario A: We'd have the same 6 Main Eventers on every show, or at least on TWO of them, thus leading to an even quicker process of "staleness" for feuds, characters and workers. It's already quick enough now, it'd be suicide overexposing the same Superstars even more. Scenario B: we'd still get a brand split de facto, with Superstars and angles being booked alternately on The Monday Show or on The Thursday Show [and occasionally on The Tuesday Short Show] So, if it's A, WWE will be shooting themselves in the foot If it's B, what's the point? But anyway, rest assured a lot of midcarders and curtain-jerkers would get fired on the spot, as Main Event and other "important" angles would still be featured on as many shows as possible, thus requiring to free some slots that are now used to give airtime to "the Rest of the Roster". Despite the, unexplainable, love the idea of ending the brand split gets around here, I still fail to see how that could actually help the product instead of harming it with its long-time fiends: OVEREXPOSURE and SATURATION It would almost certainly be B. Hell Scenario B is almost exactly how they're booking Wrestlemania anyway. Not quite... Having a RAW Main Eventer showing up on SmackDown every once in a blue moon to hype a PPV (or THE PPV, in our case) is so much different than having the same 6-8 main eventers featured on BOTH shows every other week. Crossbrand matches, feuds and PPVs have been interesting because we had the chance to see Superstars interacting with other Superstars thay hadn't faced for a long time, if at all. If you have that every week, twice a week, how long will it keep the fans interested? How long could an angle last?
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Feb 21, 2009 18:39:41 GMT -5
It would almost certainly be B. Hell Scenario B is almost exactly how they're booking Wrestlemania anyway. Not quite... Having a RAW Main Eventer showing up on SmackDown every once in a blue moon to hype a PPV (or THE PPV, in our case) is so much different than having the same 6-8 main eventers featured on BOTH shows every other week. Crossbrand matches, feuds and PPVs have been interesting because we had the chance to see Superstars interacting with other Superstars thay hadn't faced for a long time, if at all. If you have that every week, twice a week, how long will it keep the fans interested? How long could an angle last? Thats what I mean though, they're booking Wrestlemania as they would in scenario B. Moving guys from show to show to fit whatever storyline they want to do. The 6-8 guys on both shows every week would be scenario A if I'm understanding you correctly.
|
|
Above Average
Wade Wilson
Being Held Down by the Man and Several "Women"
Old School Tope Con Fiveo!!!
Posts: 25,137
|
Post by Above Average on Feb 21, 2009 18:40:34 GMT -5
Why are there always the silly comments that we'd see the same people two or three times a week?
You don't NEED to put everyone on every show every week when you end the split. You just put them on one show each week. It keeps it exciting as you never really know who will show up on each show - you need to watch all 3 to guarantee seeing your favourites. There's more match variety, more possible feuds, and we don't get the stupidly inflated number of former world champions.
|
|
Dean-o
Grimlock
Haha we're having fun Maggle!
Posts: 13,865
|
Post by Dean-o on Feb 21, 2009 18:56:00 GMT -5
Why are there always the silly comments that we'd see the same people two or three times a week? You don't NEED to put everyone on every show every week when you end the split. You just put them on one show each week. It keeps it exciting as you never really know who will show up on each show - you need to watch all 3 to guarantee seeing your favourites. There's more match variety, more possible feuds, and we don't get the stupidly inflated number of former world champions. Exactly. Point is, it worked in the past, and it can work today.
|
|
|
Post by Single H on Feb 21, 2009 19:06:28 GMT -5
I think ending the brand split not only would that be a good thing but scraping Smackdown all together as well as the ECW show or call the 1 hour show something else and cut back on PPVs from one a month (or more) to 6 for the year.
Let me clarify why
Back when wrestling was at it's peak Raw was the only show they had. As an A show. During the Attitude Era (until Smackdown came along and the writing started to go down hill in 99). Take a look at WCW for an example they were running away with the 'war' till Bischoff was forced to do another 2 hour show. That two hour show not only meant he had to stretch his talent but him self as well to make another 2 hour show for the week. The writing was horrendous and the Monday show suffered as a result as well.
WWE is in a similar situation as far as booking and story writing goes as well as character development. Wrestlers are been booked on the show as main event or higher mid card players wen they have no business being on the show, generic guy after generic guy is being booked with no difference in character from the next guy, story lines are being writing with no continuity, guys are being given main event spots when they are no where near over enough or good enough to be in the main event and titles are being used as props with no prestige. The booking could be so much better. It does have it;'s highs but if they scraped the Smackdown team and ECW team (or made that a different one hour show) they could get the best of the best from the booking and backstage teams and put them together. For the ultimate in storyline and booking teams. The story lines are being written paper thin and nothing much in them as with there being 12 PPVs per month. Instead of the PPVs being special and feeling special it's one after anther with very little build up in the storylines and angles in between. Wrestlemania just feels like another PPVs due to the over exposure of wrestling and PPVs now a days. We will never see another boom period with the way things are
With the wrestlers a lot of people are coming to many people will loose there Jobs. They would find work elsewhere. Only the best of the best would be kept and the rest would be let go. Have a big emphasis not just in the main event but the mid and lower card also. As for the belts we would have one heavyweight champion one set of tag champions and one mid card (intercontinental) championship and a womens championship. With the booking every week would change and shift as to what the main emphasis is on.
They could make Raw a 3 hour weekly show 12 one hour show and 5 PPVs (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania,King Of The Ring, Survivor Series) and 2 super cards (1 Saturday Nights Main event and one Clash Of The Champions or Night Of Champions).
Story lines would be a lot better and be a lot better written and in depth. Characters would have better development and substances to them. There would be no moire over exposure of titles and PPVs. People would care about the mid and lower card all the PPVs as well as the main event. The titles would get the prestige and recognition they had years ago and thew PPVs would and the shows have a must higher buy and attendance rate due to the demand being higher and the business no longer being over saturated and over exposed.
The brand extension has lost far many fans than that has gained for the company and this is due to the product and wrestlers being water down. Many fans would come back due to them going back to Raw only. There is a far better chance of us having another boom period in the future if they use this format rather than the over exposed and under whelming approach they use at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Single H on Feb 21, 2009 19:13:46 GMT -5
Like communism, the Brand extension only works in theory. Certain wrestlers have benefited as far as card placement goes, but all you have to do is look back to WWE's past to see a huge FULL roster of talent STILL being better utilized in some capacity. The biggest mystery to me as a fan, is the strange belief that a unified roster can't work. People forget that there was a much larger combined roster in 1987-1989, and even 2000, and that like today, they still did two (sometimes three) cards a day, featuring certain key talent on each show. As for the great phantom bogeyman that is "midcarders being released". There's no proof to that. In the 80's and even Attitude era, midcarders were actually better utilized; being made into tag teams (not just the same 2 teams fighting every week) or put into the Intercontinental title division. They had more of a role. And had a place where they could shine. Not everyone can be World Champion, people. Every leading man needs a set of supporting actors. I mean, all you have to do is pop in a video of Survivor series '88, and watch the opening tag match which had 20 men in one match, to see that their roster was stacked. And that was ONE match. Now take a look at the pathetic slew of shmoes that come out whenever a GM calls the full roster to the ring. There's like maybe 20 guys total. It's really sad. That said, I have yet to ever have anyone explain to me how or why the way they run things now is better. Not logically. There's a certain line of paranoid propaganda spewed, but its always just unproven lip-service. WWE's own history refutes it. What, it's better, because, a Rey Mysterio got a World Title reign? Well, it was a lousy reign that was sabotauged right from the beginning. Because Orton & Cena may have never gotten over? What, like the way midcarders Warrior & Savage & Austin, HHH, Foley & Rock never got a chance? How guys like Benoit, Punk & Eddie would have been relegated to the IC title? What, like Bret Hart & HBK? Come on, people. Take the WWE goggles off for a second. Today's brand extension Title reigns are like gold stars for retards. They'll give you one for just showing up and trying. When you were on top of a combined roster, you really were on top. So, you can love the Brand split all you want, but to say a combined roster could never work is just ignorant. Go watch WWE 24/7 and tell me I'm wrong. This 100 per cent This is the best post I have read on here in quite some time if not ever! For other places to watch great older wrestling as well as WWE 24/7 check out you tube and daily motion.
|
|
|
Post by ChitownKnight on Feb 21, 2009 19:20:07 GMT -5
During the Attitude Era, Both Raw AND Smackdown recieved high ratings. Sure, the WWE may have to trim the roster a bit, but they already released 50 WRESTLERS last year. Superstars will also be coming to WGN soon, so they can have midcarders/jobbers wrestle. But inorder to end the split and have higher ratings, they should probably move Smackdown to Thursday or Wendsday nights, since most people are out on Fridays
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Feb 21, 2009 19:22:10 GMT -5
During the Attitude Era, Both Raw AND Smackdown recieved high ratings. Sure, the WWE may have to trim the roster a bit, but they already released 50 WRESTLERS last year. Superstars will also be coming to WGN soon, so they can have midcarders/jobbers wrestle. But inorder to end the split and have higher ratings, they should probably move Smackdown to Thursday or Wendsday nights, since most people are out on Fridays And you could certainly argue the introduction of Smackdown is what began to burn out the audience. See also Thunder, WCW
|
|
|
Post by Single H on Feb 21, 2009 19:28:48 GMT -5
Smackdown not only begun to burn out the adiuance it also usherdf in paper thin stoylines and the end of the biggest boom period in wrestling history.
Eric Bischoiff hated having to do a second show with Thunder with a host of reasons including stretching talent and himself and buring talent out and over exposing wrestling. Look what happend there. There is not as much demand for wrestling nw as there was back then. There will nevber be another boom period esspecially with the way things are at the moment.
|
|
Lara
Don Corleone
IS A SWEETHEART
Posts: 1,292
|
Post by Lara on Feb 21, 2009 19:31:11 GMT -5
This is probably a stupid question, but what the hey, I'm being extra blonde today so I'm asking.
I see the arguments are being made for how a unified roster would (or would not) affect the televised product, but how would it affect the talent in terms of them being on the road?
At the moment - as I understand it - the Raw guys don't work quite the same schedule as the Smackdown guys in terms of what days they're on the road. (This anyway is what I've always understood HBK's refusal to move to Smackdown to be about. I may well be wrong there.)
If there was no brand split, would WWE scale down the number of house shows, or would the guys now work every house show?
I ask because if the whole roster was made to work every show, that would logically suggest that the guys who are the big draws would be working even more shows than they do now - giving them more chance of injury, burnout etc.
Either that, or the main eventers would have nights off here and there. Which would royally piss off the fans who bought tickets to the show expecting to see (for example's sake) Orton, and then get told, "Randy's off for a manicure and won't be wrestling tonight, sorry, hope you enjoy the Umaga v Jobber squash booked in his place".
So, seriously, what would happen with house shows if there was no brand split?
|
|
|
Post by WWE Trademarked My Name on Feb 21, 2009 19:31:35 GMT -5
If the brand split were to end today the roster would look like this:
Main Eventers: Randy Orton John Cena Batista Triple H Shawn Michaels Edge Jeff Hardy The Undertaker Chris Jericho
Upper Midcard: JBL Rey Mysterio Kane Big Show Matt Hardy Mr. Kennedy MVP Umaga Vladimir Kozlov
Midcard: Jack Swagger Christian Shelton Benjamin CM Punk William Regal Carlito Primo John Morrison The Miz Cody Rhodes Ted DiBiase Kofi Kingston Mike Knox Santino Marella The Brian Kendrick Chavo Guerrero The Great Khali Evan Bourne Finlay Mark Henry Tommy Dreamer
Lower Midcard: Charlie Haas Dolph Ziggler Goldust Jamie Noble JTG Shad Ezekial Festus Jesse Hurricane Helms R-Truth The Boogeyman DJ Gabriel Paul Burchill Ricky Ortiz Tyson Kidd
Not to mention I left off guys who aren't used on a consistent basis with the roster currently split into 3 and diva's.
It'd be easy to consistently use the main eventers and upper midcard but the rest would immediately be lost in the shuffle and be left with nothing to do but either job or win and get moved up the card making the upper midcard spot overloaded. I know you don't have to use everybody on a weekly basis but if guys are having trouble getting over and moving up the card how are they going to do that with an overcrowded roster while being MIA for periods of time.
|
|
|
Post by Single H on Feb 21, 2009 19:34:22 GMT -5
The roster would need a total re vamp a lot would only work house shows and a lot of those guys should be no where near a TV match.
|
|