Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 28, 2009 17:59:12 GMT -5
Ending the brand split couldn't work as of right now, and it's because of the amount of talent on each show would result in a lot of guys not getting any airtime, and a bunch of future endeavors. Let's take a look at the rosters, with the safe-bet keepers in bold.
RAW
Big Show Carlito Chavo Guerrero Chris Masters Cody Rhodes Evan Bourne Hornswoggle Jack Swagger John Cena Kofi Kingston Mark Henry The Miz MVP Primo Randy Orton Santino Shawn Michaels Sheamus Ted DiBiase Triple H Alicia Fox Brie Bella Eve Gail Kim Jillian Kelly Kelly Maryse Melina Nikki Bella
SmackDown
Batista Charlie Haas Chris Jericho CM Punk David Hart Smith Drew McIntyre Edge Eric Escobar Finlay The Great Khali Jimmy Wang Yang John Morrison JTG Kane Kung Fu Naki Luke Gallows Matt Hardy Mike Knox R-Truth Rey Mysterio Shad Slam Master J Tyson Kidd Undertaker Beth Phoenix Layla Maria Michelle McCool Mickie James Natalya
ECW
Caylen Croft Christian Ezekiel Jackson Goldust Paul Burchill Shelton Benjamin The Hurricane Trent Barreta Tyler Reks Vance Archer Vladimir Kozlov William Regal Yoshi Tatsu Zack Ryder Katie Lea Burchill Rosa Mendes
So, that makes approximately 46 Superstars and Divas who would be likely to keep their jobs, and would need to be featured on a regular basis. Then, there are somewhere around 29 people who would stand a good chance of losing their jobs. This doesn't even include GMs, referees, and ring announcers who might be considered excess.
All in all, probably a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Dec 28, 2009 18:04:55 GMT -5
If the WWE DIDN'T end the brand split, the exact same people everyone expect to be fired face the exact same risks. I do not see the difference it would make.
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Dec 28, 2009 18:09:33 GMT -5
If the WWE DIDN'T end the brand split, the exact same people everyone expect to be fired face the exact same risks. I do not see the difference it would make. Agreed.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 28, 2009 18:09:34 GMT -5
If the WWE DIDN'T end the brand split, the exact same people everyone expect to be fired face the exact same risks. I do not see the difference it would make. Right now it's a risk that guys like Jimmy Yang and Charlie Haas will be future endeavored. If they ended the brand split, it'd be a guarantee. The chances of people being fired goes way up if they end the brand split. It's common sense.
|
|
|
Post by coolkevthedude on Dec 28, 2009 18:17:40 GMT -5
No. Just no. Let me ask you...you're complaining about 3rd and 4th string main eventers on Smackdown! Hell, most of the midcarders won't see the light of day if the brand split were to end...welcome to 3 shows full of main events featuring Cena, HHH, HBK, Randy Orton, Undertaker, Batista, Rey Mysterio, and occasionally possibly CM Punk. Midcarders will suffer MORE if the split ends...Raw barely knows how to book the ones they have now, not to mention the 20 or so more ones that would be the influx. (Plus all those that would be released.) What about all the WWE midcarders in the 90's and early 2000's that were on tv almost every week. This isn't like the Invasion storyline, where a lot of people were not on tv.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Dec 28, 2009 18:17:47 GMT -5
If the WWE DIDN'T end the brand split, the exact same people everyone expect to be fired face the exact same risks. I do not see the difference it would make. Right now it's a risk that guys like Jimmy Yang and Charlie Haas will be future endeavored. If they ended the brand split, it'd be a guarantee. The chances of people being fired goes way up if they end the brand split. It's common sense. Why? How? Especially with the whole "There's been MORE people on the roster before" detail? Isn't it slightly believable there would simply be more trainers, or agents, or some sort of other position to these guys that barely get TV-Time now?
|
|
|
Post by coolkevthedude on Dec 28, 2009 18:18:56 GMT -5
If the WWE DIDN'T end the brand split, the exact same people everyone expect to be fired face the exact same risks. I do not see the difference it would make. Right now it's a risk that guys like Jimmy Yang and Charlie Haas will be future endeavored. If they ended the brand split, it'd be a guarantee. The chances of people being fired goes way up if they end the brand split. It's common sense. Those guys are rarely on tv as is.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 28, 2009 18:20:10 GMT -5
Right now it's a risk that guys like Jimmy Yang and Charlie Haas will be future endeavored. If they ended the brand split, it'd be a guarantee. The chances of people being fired goes way up if they end the brand split. It's common sense. Why? How? Especially with the whole "There's been MORE people on the roster before" detail? Isn't it slightly believable there would simply be more trainers, or agents, or some sort of other position to these guys that barely get TV-Time now? For some of them I'm sure, but I really don't see WWE keeping a Slam Master J once they no longer need him for squash matches on SmackDown or house shows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2009 18:23:37 GMT -5
My problem with getting rid of the brand split isn't that it'd possibly lead to some releases (if anything, it might see the return of the Hardcore or European title to give midcarders more stuff to do); no, my complaint's that in the current landscape breaking through to the main event scene would become even more impossible. With guys like Triple H, John Cena, Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, Batista, and Randy Orton on every show every week, not only is there not going to be any further main eventing any time soon by Punk or anyone around his level, but guys like Miz, Morrison, and Kofi who are all potentially ready for the main event would be waiting years on the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Dec 28, 2009 18:28:25 GMT -5
guys like Miz, Morrison, and Kofi who are all potentially ready for the main event would be waiting years on the opportunity. They wouldnt be waiting that long. Guys like Batista, HBK and Taker are old and wouldnt be active that much longer.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Dec 28, 2009 18:29:26 GMT -5
My problem with getting rid of the brand split isn't that it'd possibly lead to some releases (if anything, it might see the return of the Hardcore or European title to give midcarders more stuff to do); no, my complaint's that in the current landscape breaking through to the main event scene would become even more impossible. With guys like Triple H, John Cena, Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, Batista, and Randy Orton on every show every week, not only is there not going to be any further main eventing any time soon by Punk or anyone around his level, but guys like Miz, Morrison, and Kofi who are all potentially ready for the main event would be waiting years on the opportunity. See. Here's how I see it, that glass ceiling's already impossibly hard for alot of guys to reach. Certain people, like yourself, make the argument that if there were no split even less guys would be capable of doing so. I see it as..Can it really get worse? I seriously doubt it. And so on that point I say it might even help. You've got two shows a week where a certain core of Main Events tend to hog tv-time on both shows......If it was One Roster, Three Shows a week (Pending what the hell ECW turns into) talent could be spread out more evenly. It might put them in a position where they have to focus on the Mid-Card and low-card due to the shift in having it be one entity yet again. The one thing the roster split was supposed to do upon it's creation was "create new guys". With the exception of Batista, Orton, Cena, and maybe a few others..I don't think it's really worked to it's full extent. They've tried with a few guys, yeah..but ECW's done a better of that then I think RAW and SD! has in the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by Solid Stryk-Dizzle on Dec 28, 2009 18:30:35 GMT -5
Everything is a reason to end the brand split it seems.
It's wednesday! Time to end the brand split!
|
|
|
Post by biggdeez40 on Dec 28, 2009 18:43:02 GMT -5
I don't get why anyone would want this. How many people complain that they hate RAW but like ECW or Smackdown. End the split and every show is the same. Over exposed stars will become even more over exposed because thats all writers know how to focus on. Its hard enough for anyone to break through on a brand with 4 or 5 top stars. Image if there were 8 or 10.
Just because one huge brand worked in the Attitude era doesn't mean it would now. Wrestling was so mega popular that almost anyone associated with it was over. It also helped that they had actual midcard storylines, tons of midcard titles, plenty of stables and tag teams, lots of 1 or 2 minute matches with run ins a plenty and even more title changes than they have today. For better or worse thats not the format they're going for today so I have a feeling even more talent would get lost in the shuffle.
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Dec 28, 2009 18:44:38 GMT -5
Why? How? Especially with the whole "There's been MORE people on the roster before" detail? Isn't it slightly believable there would simply be more trainers, or agents, or some sort of other position to these guys that barely get TV-Time now? For some of them I'm sure, but I really don't see WWE keeping a Slam Master J once they no longer need him for squash matches on SmackDown or house shows. First of all, I really resent you responding to my post saying it was "common sense" like I'm some kind of idiot. Besides, they'll still need jobbers. For example, I would buy Sheamus a lot more if he hadn't just gone through Jamie Noble. More jobbers=more people the audience actually KNOWS for the new guys to go over. Sheamus spending a few weeks going through Noble, Yang, Slam Master, R-Truth, then Finlay would have given them more time to build him up. Also, as has been said, the rosters are the same size as before the brand split. Hell, it might even be smaller. They managed once they can manage again.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Dec 28, 2009 18:45:05 GMT -5
I don't think it's neccesarily about firings that need to take place that keeps the brand split alive (although it would happen), it's about the focus you can put on a star in order to elevate them.
Look at it like this. People say that you wouldn't have to feature Cena, Taker, HHH, HBK, Orton and Batista on all shows, but you would. I mean, you could have most of these guys on Raw, but if they are able to appear on all shows, and you are telling stories featuring them, then why would you not continue to feature them? If you then kept Smackdown for the likes of Morrison, Punk and Kofi then you've basically got a brand split anyway, just that Smackdown would get lower ratings because the fans will see the main eventers on Raw being made to look better by the mid-card, which gets featured on Smackdown, which then won't have it's own world title.
So you may as well have a brand split, because it means two/three main stories can be told at one time, with different guys getting exposure so they can be elevated. On Raw, Kofi and Miz are getting elevated, on Smackdown, Morrison and Drew are getting elevated, and on ECW, Christian is getting focus and Yoshi and Ryder are getting made. You end the split, this simply doesn't happen. Some of the established main event will have to take turns in the mid-card, so the guys that are getting elevated now would be lower down still, with maybe one of those getting elevated now getting a shot.
So the split allows guys to develop and get focus. And you can't give too many different guys focus on the same show. Let's say Kofi did that promo with Orton's Nascar and then the next week, you have MVP destroy Jericho's house or something. Then you have two guys giving a promo that signifies to the fans they are worth getting behind. Their 'push' begins. So instead of the fans getting a buzz around Kofi, you've split it so some fans get behind MVP, which means neither guy gets the full benefit of a proper push, because you're going half hearted. One of them will have to be booked better than the other, so then you've half heartedly put focus on both, instead of going full pelt and being sure about one of them, but you still have to have the hierarchy, so one wouldn't be able to get as high as the other anyway, so you may as well have just put the focus on the one guy who you actually want to get behind. But having 2/3 rosters allows you to put focus on 2/3 different faces/heels at once.
For what it's worth, I reckon they could do away with ECW and do another Superstars type show, so the lower guys get some exposure. ECW is a great idea in theory, but if no-one is watching, the establiushment you should have received on the show doesn't happen. Or bring back Heat and Velocity style shows, but make sure you feature some serious mid-carders on the show so people watch them, as well as story development so people have to tune in, rather than half heartedly booked matches.
When it comes to Russo's idea of booking, I kind of like the fact that WWE won't always invent some angle for a feud. Sometimes it means that the feuds we get absolutely suck, like Cena/Big Show this year. But it was always going to be a placeholder feud, so if they tried to piece together a long story for the feud, we would have had to suffer it for longer, which I don't think anyone would have wanted. The way WWE do it, they let the characters dictate the feud, unless there's a story behind it. So Knox vs Kane is driven by their characters, and it works because they are good characters, and it doesn't look unrealistic or ruin the illusion, because you can buy it. The lack of storylines was particularly evident in WWE in mid 07, but the roster was terrible then, and is far better now. With Russo, when he tries to give everyone something to do, that's when you start getting overcomplicated, having angles that don't really tie in with the character, aren't believable and give the impression that the show has 'too much going on', is 'too hard to follow', and you don't always know who is supposed to be focussed on, and as fans we should know.
So like in WWE, if you let the characters dictate it, you just put them in situations where their characters can flourish. So McCool is a high school bitch, put her in an angle where she trades high school insults with a face. Knox loves pain, give him an angle where he beats people up, but wants to be close to them afterwards to feel their pain. Batista is obsessed with being World Champion, so give him angles where he disregards everything else, like friendship, in order to get his goals. Jeff Hardy is a risk taker, so show him taking risks as often as possible. etc etc. When the characters are strong, the storylines in the mid-card are strong, and I think if they keep as many guys injury free in 2010, we will see some good stuff. The fun happens when you put focus on a character and let them do what feels right with their character. Fun also happens when you have two characters that mesh so well that the story writes itself. Punk is straight-edge, Jeff Hardy clearly wasn't. Great story.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 28, 2009 19:08:36 GMT -5
The brand split was needed in 2001 because there were too many guys on the roster. Now, there are too little. I've made a post before about how small the rosters have become, and the Raw roster is almost as small as the ECW roster. The problem with that is it leads to a very stale product.
If they put the rosters together, I highly doubt there would be many, if any people getting released. A few years back, yeah, there would be people let go left and right. But, with so many shows on now, it's easier to get television time more then ever to help out those guys down the card.
The use of stables and tag teams on a show with a large roster can help out. Time limits on matches, less skits, and stuff like that can help add to television time and potential exposure for up and coming stars. TNA has made more break out stars this year then WWE. I had a poll created on both boards. The TNA results were more spread out, where as the WWE results were between Sheamus and Kofi. It's a small poll, and may not mean much, but it shows how bad of a job WWE has done in creating new stars.
If they want to keep the brand extension, they need to beef up the rosters. Once the ECW roster is gone, which it's rumoured it might, they could help.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Dec 28, 2009 19:10:02 GMT -5
Look at it this way. Basically, everybody complains that the MEs have a very small list of wrestlers. In the Monday Night Wars, you could conceivably have 4 or 5 guys chasing the belts. Now, you have contests that amount to as few as 3 or even 2 guys competing. This makes for a phenominally dull main event scene. And the ME is supposed to draw people to watch the show. Instead its so dull and predictable that you get posts like "Spoiler: Cena Wins" all over this forum. If you're worried about the employment of unpopular jobbers...those guys would always be in danger of the axe. They'd be in less danger on a macro roster, since they'll always be a need for dark matches. Having Primo stuck on RAW, ECW, or Smackdown is immaterial since he rarely gets utilized anyway and doesn't appear to be getting a push anytime soon. If anything, having Primo job on different shows might make different audiences take notice of him and make him more popular. The whole thing with the "brand split" is starting to remind me of late GM when they thought a different front end justified a car's "identity" as a "Pontiac" or a "Saturn" when in terms of price, performance, etc., it was the same thing to most buyers. And like GM, WWE seems to be spreading its resources (wrestlers) overly thin.
|
|
|
Post by RI Richmark on Dec 28, 2009 19:28:42 GMT -5
I think I have a compromise. Keep the brand split, unify the titles.
The WWE, ECW, and World titles should be combined as well as the Women's and Diva's titles. The Champions can appear on all shows. The I.C. and U.S. titles can stay on their respective brands and maybe a TV title added for ECW. The Champion faces a challenger from a different brand at each PPV.
With only one World title, we can have a little more variety in the main event scene without a ton of main eventers appearing on all shows taking time away from the midcarders.
I think this would be the fairest thing for all involved.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Dec 28, 2009 19:38:29 GMT -5
I think I have a compromise. Keep the brand split, unify the titles. The WWE, ECW, and World titles should be combined as well as the Women's and Diva's titles. The Champions can appear on all shows. The I.C. and U.S. titles can stay on their respective brands and maybe a TV title added for ECW. The Champion faces a challenger from a different brand at each PPV. With only one World title, we can have a little more variety in the main event scene without a ton of main eventers appearing on all shows taking time away from the midcarders. I think this would be the fairest thing for all involved. Pretty good idea, although part of my plan for ending the brand split was actually to give more midcarders/jobbers TV time by sticking them in factions or tag teams that would result from the roster merge. I'd mark for Ziggler/Ryder, a Terrible Tandem with Zeke and Vance Archer (managed by Regal), Dudebusters appearing on multiple shows, and others. Getting rid of the brand split would go a very long way in restoring the WWE tag division to its former glory. Admittedly though, the real reason that made me think of it was how small the list of MEs is on each of the splot brands, which your compromise resolves well.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,054
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Dec 28, 2009 20:22:51 GMT -5
I just want it to stick because Yoshi Tatsu would probably either get fired or get turned into a full-on permanent jobber if it ended.
|
|