DISCUSSION - Smackdown should become the modern day "Sunday Night Heat"

[Heyman]

DISCUSSION - Smackdown should become the modern day "Sunday Night Heat"

What up.

A lot of posters on here seem to think that I, Heyman, hate Smackdown. This is not true!

In short - I have just reconciled to the "fact" that the WWE will ALWAYS favor Raw over Smackdown. A higher preference will always go to Raw. Think about it.

1) Why have all of Triple H, The Rock, Jericho, Benoit, Matt Hardy, Edge, etc. been moved to Raw ever since the birth of the roster split?

2) Why were guys like Big Show, RVD, and Booker T moved to Smackdown, AFTER being made to look "medicore" on Raw?

3) Why is John Bradshaw Layfield WWE Champion?


So you see? - <font color=white>I don't dislike the Smackdown product. I just dislike the way that the WWE uses the Smackdown product. They CLEARLY make it play second fiddle to Raw</font>.


A year and a half ago, Smackdown was going strong. You had Angle and Lesnar at the top, with a solid mid card composing of Edge, Guerrero, Benoit, Cena, Matt Hardy, Big Show, and Taker.

What now?

The point I'm TRYING to make, is that the WWE will always want Raw to be the better show. Think about why guys like Maven, Val Venis, Scott Steiner, Rodney Mack, etc. haven't been moved to Smackdown.....and re-packed, etc.

-Think about why Benoit defected after the Royal Rumble.

-Think about how Benjamin and Edge were moved to Raw.....while their "watered down" and "buried" counter-parts (Booker T and RVD), were moved to Smackdown.

-Why did Raw have the 'Diva' search and not Smackdown? (with ratings on Smackdown in decline, don't you think that something like this would have been better on SD?......especially where the women on that show aren't WRESTLERS anyways?).

.
.
.
.
Lately - people have been talking about how much 'better' Smackdown has been of late. While I don't neccessarily disagree with that, I still remain negative.

<font color=white>If past history is of any indication, then what's stopping the WWE from moving a guy like John Cena or Kurt Angle to Raw in the near future?.......once Smackdown starts out-rating Raw? (or atleast gaining more parity with it)</font>


Remember folks - It's the WWE that 'looks down' upon Smackdown......it's not me!


<font color=white> Smackdown is basically what "Sunday Night Heat" was a few years ago.......but is this neccessarily a 'bad' thing?</font>


Ideally - the WWE would treat Raw and Smackdown equally.....but we all know that for whatever reason, WWE management does not see it this way.


<font color=red>Why not do the following?: </font>

1) End the roster split (unify the World titles, tag titles, and US/IC titles), and make Smackdown a clear cut 'B' program (kind of what like Sunday Night Heat was a few years ago).

2) Have 30-35% of the wrestlers in the WWE (i.e. every single 'big name') wrestle on Raw. The other 65-70%, wrestle on Smackdown. This way, the WWE can 'stack' Raw and always ensure that a top quality show is put on. At the same time however - all of the 'big names' will get adequate TV time (since only 30-35% of the wrestlers will be on Raw). This way - you can have your Triple H, HBK, Taker, Cena, Guerrero, Benoit, Orton, Jericho, all on Raw.

3) As far as Smackdown is concerned, an entire hour and a half can be devoted to the 'other' 65-70% of wrestlers. Here's the catch though.

a) Atleast two "main-eventers" that are currently feuding with one another (that are Raw regulars)....will also fight on Smackdown (atleast make a TV appearance....whether it be cutting a promo with one another.....or involved in a match). That way - people will still want to watch Smackdown. Whatever is the HOTTEST feud on Raw at that time......will also get that alloted "15-20 minutes" on Smackdown. The other 1:40, will be for the 'lesser known' wrestlers.

4) Every two months, things will be changed slightly: Whoever has been 'dominating' on Smackdown, will appear on Raw. On the other hand, some guys who were wrestling on Raw for two months, will go to Smackdown (and help 'put over' other guys). If this happens, things can stay fresh. New guys can still get 'over', while the guys who were on Raw (who would now fight on Smackdown for 2 months) will become draws on Smackdown. The guys who move to Raw on the other hand, get respect from the fans (since the fans will now associate anyone being on Raw as 'special').

5) Everyone on Raw gets a PPV match. One or two feuds from Smackdown get a PPV. HOWEVER - Because the PPV's will mainly be used to end (or prolong) feuds from RAW, more "PPV quality" matches can be shown on Smackdown....with the 'lesser names'. This achieves 2 things.

a) Another reason for fans to 'tune in' to Smackdown.

b) 'Lesser named' wrestlers can prove themselves more to the fans with these "PPV quality like" matches.



My "idea" of this may be difficult to understand upon reading it (it's a bit overwhelming), and so I'll try and illustrate a bit better.

Let's say my idea goes into effect:


So let's say, the following guys are on Raw for 2 months:

-Triple H
-Shawn Michaels
-Chris Benoit
-Eddie Guerrero
-John Cena
-Undertaker
-Randy Orton
-Chris Jericho
-Kurt Angle
-Edge
-Eugene
-John Bradshaw Layfield
-2 women (the women's champ and #1 contender can feud on Raw.....this will serve as a good piss break for the fans in attendance).


Only 14 wrestlers?!?!?!? Remember - Each of these guys are 'main-event' level guys (or will be close to that in the future). All of these guys need plenty of TV time. I think the WWE could achieve that with 14wrestlers in a 2 hour time slot! (editors note - 14 wrestlers is just a 'ball park figure'.....maybe they can add a few more....or drop some).

So let's say.......the hottest feud in the WWE at the time is Triple H and Chris Benoit. They will then get 15 minutes of air time on Smackdown as well (to promote their feud).


On Smackdown?

You'd still have guys like RVD, Booker T, Shelton Benjamin, Christian, Dave Batista, Kane, and Matt Hardy. The fans will still want to see them! (combined with the Triple H/Benoit segment/promo). So let's say - the WWE wants to push a 'new' guy.....like Luther Reigns for instance.

On Smackdown, the WWE can have Luther Reigns get into the 'longest' matches of the show. He can have decent matches with Benjamin, Christian, etc. in a span of a few weeks....and defeat them. He can do the same with Kane and Batista.

He gets hyped bigtime on Smackdown.


Two months later........John Bradshaw Layfield and Eugene appear on Smackdown (fans will consider them to be 'big named' since they were on Raw for the past few months). Subsequently........let's say Luther Reigns and another guy......(Kane?) now move up to Raw.

Reigns, being "the new guy" on Raw, can use that momentum to score some convincing victories on Raw (and at PPV's).


Meanwhile - guys like JBL and Eugene (who have just been sent to Smackdown), can help other guys 'get over'.



As far as the ACTUAL Heat and Velocity is concerned, I'd get rid of them altogether. Show re-runs of the Attitude Era on those timeslots.

No Heat, no velocity. You'd still have your dark matches however (for the loyal fans who actually arrive early to shows).


House Shows - obviously, the line-up will be altered.....but every two months. The 'main-event' guys who are a part of the 'hottest feud' of the company (the ones who appear on both Raw and Smackdown)......only appear on Raw House Shows.

In terms of marketing the House Shows, the WWE does not have to 'market' the fact that they'd be watching the "Smackdown" House Show. Just market it as WWE.

[Savio]

I think kane should be moved to smackdown so he can become champ.

[Heyman]

I think kane should be moved to smackdown so he can become champ.


Oh - I should've mentioned this.

All titles would be unified.

[Savio]

....Oh I should have read [all of] it :shifty:

[The One]

Heyman, you and I don't see eye to eye on many things....I used to think we just had different tastes...but now I know the truth.

You're just a dumbass.

[jindrak]

The main goal of the brand split was to have two rival brands that would eventually develop new talent, and once the next boom period occurred, the WWE would benefit from the respective PPV revenues and house show gates of each brand.

That is the intent of the split, but WWE hasn't acted accordingly to support its own intent.

With Lesner leaving the WWE, McMahon pressed the panic button and held a draft to hopefully 'level the playing field'. However, in hindsight, it didn't work out as planned.

Booker T, who had been buried by HHH, and was a mere upper mid card (at best) went to Smackdown and alleged it was the minor leagues. <~~~THIS IS WHAT LED TO THE DOWNFALL...By Booker T acknowledging Smackdown as an inferior brand, what reason did fans have to watch the show? And when Booker made that comment, Angle (GM at the time) did nothing to disprove or refute Booker's claim! In the back of fans mind, this illustrates that Booker's words rung true, thus why should fans have to watch an 'inferior' brand?

IMO, booking is to blame-

RVD receives some of the biggest pops, despite being continuously buried. In a tenuous depth roster, many believed RVD would flourish. WRONG! RVD is now the featured attraction of the Smackdown B show. :?: How did this come to be? Bad booking, but more importantly, the WWE is holding down RVD. They should just let RVD wrestle his own style, the same style that made in such a fan favorite in ECW. However, I won't think that will ever come to fruition.

There are more booking mishaps, but I'm sure you are already familiar with them.

[Favre4Ever]

I think the fact that RAW is live attributes a lot to the A show-B show decision.

[jindrak]

I think the fact that RAW is live attributes a lot to the A show-B show decision.

I agree.

In addition, the aura of Monday Night probably leads McMahon to favor Raw more.

[Heyman]

Heyman, you and I don't see eye to eye on many things....I used to think we just had different tastes...but now I know the truth.

You're just a dumbass.

What part(s) of the post do you disagree with?......or do you genuinely believe that WWE management has the same respect for Smackdown as they do Raw?

[Heyman]

If Managment genuinely see Smackdown and Raw as equals (and based on their past actions, this doesn't seem likely), then I say keep the way things are.

In my opinion, it's OBVIOUS that they do NOT. Homosexual posters such as "The One" can call me a 'dumbass' all they want (without actually critiquing the post and offering feedback), but why should I actually believe that this "attitude" on the WWE's part will change? I mean - when one show has practically all of the big names (with the exception of Angle and Taker), then it's a pretty good indication as to where there 'loyalties' lie.


Eliminating the roster split isn't neccessarily the best idea (since more talent would get held down as result), and so that's why I like the 'concept' of this idea.

Think about the fall-out from PPV's if my idea went into effect.

[The CyNick]

Heyman, you seem to miss the point that Smackdown draws as many if not more viewers than RAW on a regualar basis. And as Ive said a million times, if you do anything to make SD look like a "Sunday Night Heat" type show, they will draw SNH ratings, which aren't great.

Even though its true that RAW will always get special treatment because its been around longer, and mostly because HHH is on that show, SD still gets their own PPVs, their own house shows and they get half billing on the major PPVs. So even though RAW may seem like #1, SD isn't treated as a minor league organization like you are suggesting. They may get treated as the #2 group, but its not to the point that people see it as the minor leagues compared to RAW.

Once they do that (turn it into a B show), then people will turn away from SD in droves and ratings will go down to similar levels to Heat and Velocity. At that point UPN is going to call Vince and say "what the hell is going on?" and will likely cancel SD. Which would cost Vince a lot of money.

Most people on the 'net see Bradshaw as a joke of a champion, but I think he would have got the title even if he was on RAW. You have to understand Vince sees JBL as an extension of himself, so he was going to get pushed to the moon (especially after the Germany incident) regardless of what show he's on.

As for the Diva Search deal, that was originally booked for SD, but they got flack from UPN saying that it was too close to America's Top Model and would create confusion. As a result the concept was moved over to RAW.

But the main point is that you cant just tell the fans "this is a B show", because at that point they will stop watching. And since SD does as good, if not better than RAW, why would they even consider doing that?

Another thing is that any talk of the brand extension ending is very unlikely to happen. Both RAW and SD are drawing decent numbers on TV, they have added extra single brand shows and they have all done reasonably well. And finally, because of the brand extension they have been able to massively increase their international business, which has remained relatively strong while the live event business in NA has been soft. So there are NO plans to get rid of it.

[jindrak]

Heyman, you seem to miss the point that Smackdown draws as many if not more viewers than RAW on a regualar basis. And as Ive said a million times, if you do anything to make SD look like a "Sunday Night Heat" type show, they will draw SNH ratings, which aren't great.

Even though its true that RAW will always get special treatment because its been around longer, and mostly because HHH is on that show, SD still gets their own PPVs, their own house shows and they get half billing on the major PPVs. So even though RAW may seem like #1, SD isn't treated as a minor league organization like you are suggesting. They may get treated as the #2 group, but its not to the point that people see it as the minor leagues compared to RAW.

Once they do that (turn it into a B show), then people will turn away from SD in droves and ratings will go down to similar levels to Heat and Velocity. At that point UPN is going to call Vince and say "what the hell is going on?" and will likely cancel SD. Which would cost Vince a lot of money.

When Smackdown recieved a higher rating a few weeks ago, it was reported that Vince was upset that Raw did'nt do better.

The notion of Vince being upset that Raw didn't do better clearly supports the claim that the WWE prefers Raw over Smackdown.

[The CyNick]

When Smackdown recieved a higher rating a few weeks ago, it was reported that Vince was upset that Raw did'nt do better.

The notion of Vince being upset that Raw didn't do better clearly supports the claim that the WWE prefers Raw over Smackdown.

Which I agreed with.

But, what Heyman was saying is to make SD like a minor league group, which would be suicide.

[Heyman]

Which I agreed with.

But, what Heyman was saying is to make SD like a minor league group, which would be suicide.

I'm not quite saying that.

1) I still proposed that the 'main-event angle' still be carried over to Smackdown (i.e. so if Trips/Benoit are feuding on Raw over the World [one] title), then it could carry over to SD as well (15 minutes of alloted time).


Also - with only a 3rd (less?) of the wrestlers on Raw (all of which would be main-eventers), it's not like Smackdown would be the "minor leagues" or anything. For example - If Raw only had 14 wrestlers (the ones I listed in my original post), then SD would still have Batista, Flair, Kane, Matt Hardy, RVD, Christian, Booker T, etc.


p.s. If more people watch UPN Smackdown, then why not do the INVERSE of what I said? (i.e. put the top main-eventers on Smackdown, make SMACKDOWN be "the place to be", and make Smackdown the 'live' show).

[Astley316]

If you were to diversify the rosters, it be harder for newer talant to develop, one of the postive things about smackdown is it is abillity to push different type of people, On Raw you got the more intense feuds with people like hhh and benoit, while on smackdown you have the more less serious comdey feuds if you would, Raw is the brand where most of the established names are, but that doesn't mean its the better show, because how many of us are sick of seeing the same people run raw, on smackdown eddie, bradshaw, cena, mysterio, big show, kurt, off the top of my head have been given the chance to lead off, while most of raw last year was triple h, buring steiner burying booker, burying nash, semi burying goldberg, raw tried to capture a similar element of smackdowns idea by giving benoit the strap, but it hasn't worked and not through any fault of benoit, but through the fact, that triple h is unable to take a back seat and let others run with the ball

[Heyman]

When Smackdown recieved a higher rating a few weeks ago, it was reported that Vince was upset that Raw did'nt do better.




DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!

Folks - we have a winner. :).

Whether people want to admit it or not, Smackdown is "the minor leagues" to Raw. With Managment already favoring Raw, combined with Triple H's backstage political power, can we really expect any sort of parity to occur between Raw and Smackdown?


Like I said before - Jericho, Benoit, Triple H, The Rock, Matt Hardy, Edge, and Shelton Benjamin have ALL been moved to Raw.

On Smackdown, a "watered down" Booker T and RVD were moved there. Big Show also looked 'average' during his tenure on Raw (and "coincidently", he almost immediately defeated Lesnar to win the title a month after defecting).


More example? When Benoit defected to Raw, he constantly had to refer to the fact that he wanted to face "The Best" (which implied that Triple H.....not Lesnar.....was "the best").



On the day of the Lottery Draft, Raw was made to look like "the faces", while SD was made to look 'heelish'. That first day of Smackdown - Booker T openly called Smackdown the 'minor leagues' (I realize that it was in 'kayfabe', but still....).



I have no problem with the roster split provided that they keep things EQUAL......but why should I, as a fan, have confidence that the WWE will do that?

[Heyman]

Heyman, you seem to miss the point that Smackdown draws as many if not more viewers than RAW on a regualar basis. And as Ive said a million times, if you do anything to make SD look like a "Sunday Night Heat" type show, they will draw SNH ratings, which aren't great.

Even now? Smackdown....in it's current state....is drawing MORE than Raw? As far as SNH Heat ratings are concerned, I disagree. One - we'd still see the two main-eventers of the company....also getting air time on Smackdown. Two - Because people would be 'elevated' to Raw, and 'put down' to Smackdown......those people who were formerly on Raw would be seen as 'big names' (What I'm saying probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense.......but re-read my original post to closely 'know' about my idea).

Even though its true that RAW will always get special treatment because its been around longer, and mostly because HHH is on that show, SD still gets their own PPVs, their own house shows and they get half billing on the major PPVs. So even though RAW may seem like #1, SD isn't treated as a minor league organization like you are suggesting. They may get treated as the #2 group, but its not to the point that people see it as the minor leagues compared to RAW.

Even with a unified roster, the company can still hold 12 PPV's per year. With the idea that I proposed, there can still be a definitive "Smackdown" and "Raw" House Show roster.

If more people 'tune' into Smackdown (I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Smackdown is on UPN......not due to having a 'higher quality' product), then why not implement my idea.......but do the inverse? <font color=white>Have your top 12 main-eventers of the company...and 2 women wrestling on Smackdown.......while everyone else is on Raw. Every two months, two new guys and 1 new chick get "elevated" to Smackdown, while 2 guys and 1 chick go to Raw. The top two main-eventers of the company still appear on both shows. </font>

Once they do that (turn it into a B show), then people will turn away from SD in droves and ratings will go down to similar levels to Heat and Velocity. At that point UPN is going to call Vince and say "what the hell is going on?" and will likely cancel SD. Which would cost Vince a lot of money.

That is true. That's why I think it's a good idea to have the top two main-eventers of the company appear on both shows (according to the idea that I proposed). I don't know for a fact if the two main-eventers alone could captivate the fans' interest (and make them watch/attend the shows), but I think that it would. Furthermore - I also suggest having more "PPV quality" matches on this show (since most of the PPV matches would go the 'A' show).

Most people on the 'net see Bradshaw as a joke of a champion, but I think he would have got the title even if he was on RAW. You have to understand Vince sees JBL as an extension of himself, so he was going to get pushed to the moon (especially after the Germany incident) regardless of what show he's on.

I'll have to disagree on that. With HBK, Triple H, Orton, Jericho, etc. ALL on Raw.....I highly doubt that Bradshaw would have gotten the title. Vince may see JBL as an extension of himself, but still..... The only reason why Bradshaw was pushed as a main-eventer on Smackdown, was because Smackdown needed new stars quickly (since Show, Angle, and Lesnar were all out of action). Unless Raw lost Triple H, HBK, and Benoit for a long period of time, I find it hard to believe that JBL would've won the title there.

As for the Diva Search deal, that was originally booked for SD, but they got flack from UPN saying that it was too close to America's Top Model and would create confusion. As a result the concept was moved over to RAW.

I didn't realize that. That clears things up a bit.

But the main point is that you cant just tell the fans "this is a B show", because at that point they will stop watching. And since SD does as good, if not better than RAW, why would they even consider doing that?

Why "tell" the fans that it's a 'B' show?.......;)

Another thing is that any talk of the brand extension ending is very unlikely to happen. Both RAW and SD are drawing decent numbers on TV, they have added extra single brand shows and they have all done reasonably well. And finally, because of the brand extension they have been able to massively increase their international business, which has remained relatively strong while the live event business in NA has been soft. So there are NO plans to get rid of it.

I guess so. I just wish that Management had equal respect for Raw and Smackdown. It's just frustrating to "know" (if past history is on any indication), that the top guys from Smackdown will probably head to Raw anyways.......(once Smackdown picks up in quality again).



WWE circa 2005.


WWE Managment: Hey Vince - I got an idea!

Vince: What is it?

WWE Managment: Let's send Cena over to Raw. We'll compensate Smackdown's loss of Cena, with Val Venis.

Vince: Sounds like a plan. :cool:

[Heyman]

Why not make Smackdown the "live" show then?

Why not have Raw tapings done on Friday? (and air it on Monday).

Obviously - it would be best to have both shows be live, but......

[Astley316]

can someone explain why they couldn't have both shows live,

[FourFifty]

When Smackdown recieved a higher rating a few weeks ago, it was reported that Vince was upset that Raw did'nt do better.

<font color=cyan>I thought he was upset because Raw's contract with Viacom was about to expire and he wanted Raw to look better so Viacom didn't have the infe------

I'll shut up.

[jindrak]

Why not make Smackdown the "live" show then?

Why not have Raw tapings done on Friday? (and air it on Monday).

Obviously - it would be best to have both shows be live, but......

When watching Smackdown, some portions obviously seem edited. Now, what if Smackdown went live? I'm sure that the show would have a different atmosphere, and an over-run period will definately give the show a "anything can happen" feel. This creates intrigue and gives fans a reason to watch, rather than reading the spoilers.

[Heyman]

When watching Smackdown, some portions obviously seem edited. Now, what if Smackdown went live? I'm sure that the show would have a different atmosphere, and an over-run period will definately give the show a "anything can happen" feel. This creates intrigue and gives fans a reason to watch, rather than reading the spoilers.


Exactly. Also - think of it like this.

If Smackdown's ratings are *already* just as good as Raw's (despite being a 'taped' show and despite Management seemingly wanting Smackdown to be an inferior product....as we are seeing now), then just imagine what the ratings MIGHT be like if Smackdown went live (and the WWE made Smackdown their #1 show......or atleast put it on par with Raw).

[mrslackalack]

I remember when Smackdown had the better brand just two years ago.

[jindrak]

Exactly. Also - think of it like this.

If Smackdown's ratings are *already* just as good as Raw's (despite being a 'taped' show and despite Management seemingly wanting Smackdown to be an inferior product....as we are seeing now), then just imagine what the ratings MIGHT be like if Smackdown went live (and the WWE made Smackdown their #1 show......or atleast put it on par with Raw).

I highly doubt that Smackdown will be made into the #1 show.

Notice how on Raw, J.R refers to Raw as the 'flagship', which indicates Raw is indeed the #1 show of the WWE.

I remember Michael Cole doing the same- Telling viewers that Smackdown was a superior brand, but notice how he hasn't been doing it lately, or at least since the draft.

[Mayo]

can someone explain why they couldn't have both shows live,
Its cheaper to tape a show rather than have it live. Management favours Raw, so they give Smackdown the tape job.

[jindrak]

Its cheaper to tape a show rather than have it live. Management favours Raw, so they give Smackdown the tape job.

During the Monday Night Wars, WCW used the notion of being 'live' to give fans the impression that anything can happen, and that because of it, it was better show than the 'taped' Raw.

Just because Smackdown is dealt with the tape job, doesn't necessarily mean that it is supposedly the 'inferior' brand (i.e refer back to the Monday Night War example). Last year Smackdown was arguably the better of the two shows.

WWE needs to remember WHY they did the brand-split. It was to eventually have two (equal) rival brands, and having those rival brands generate increased PPV and house gate revenue for the OVERALL WWE brand.

[jindrak]

^^^Also to develop new talent and keep things fresh.

[The CyNick]

So many things to disagree with.

First, the Heyman idea:

Even if you have one main event program on the "B show" it will still seem like a B show and people will miss it. On Velocity they promoted Cena, JBL and RVD on different shows, but guess what? It didn't help ratings any. Why? Because people know all the top stars are consistantly on RAW and SD, so they miss the weekend shows. Same would happen under your plan. The guys you listed like Batsita, Flair, Jericho and so on, none of those guys are main eventers, and if they are the key drivers for a show, it will fail.

And with the PPV thing, the WWE wants to increase their PPVs, they are already at 14 for the year and are going to at least 15 next year. So only being able to do 12 would be going backwards and I dont think the WWE would be interested in that. Live events would suffer if you create a touring group with no main eventers on it. Why would people buy tickets to that? I mean you can say whatever you want about the WWE favouring RAW over SD, but SD still has Eddie, Kurt, Taker and Cena to sell tickets. If they were to lose those 4 guys, then I would say you have a point, but they are still on the blue team so.

Just to clear up, SD's numbers are basically on par with RAW. Some weeks RAW will be slightly ahead, other weeks SD will be ahead. Unfortunately for SD, they were drawing about 6 million viewers consistantly before the draft lottery, but now its down below or at 5 million. So the draft lottery basically drove away 1/6 of the SD audience, and only slightly increased the RAW rating.

Another point, GAB did a higher buyrate than Vengeance, so while I agree the WWE favours RAW over SD, the fans clearly dont, at least not to any huge degree.

The live TV thing has been talked about to death. The smart people on here know the right answer, the not-as-smart ones keep asking it (if its your first time asking, my appologies, the rest of you, smarten up!). That said, I think SD will be live on the week of the RAW Taboo Tuesday PPV. Who knows, they might one day make SD live, but I haven't heard that. The problem with going live is that A) it costs more money and B) they would force the TV and office people to go on the road twice a week, rather than only once. This would create an extra day of travel and lessen time in the office. It seems like more trouble than its worth. Which is nothing BTW.

In terms of making RAW inferior to SD? Why do that? Why would you kill off one of the WWE's strongest brands they've built over the last 11 years? Why not just keep going as they are, have main eventers on both shows, and try to make both shows good. That way you have two groups who can promote PPVs, can tour effectively and the WWE can continue to run a large number of international events (create more of that sweet revenue). Yeah RAW will always get special treatment, but thats just the way things are. Obvioiusly the fans dont see a huge difference between the products.

The Bradshaw thing is debatable. I dont think he would have got a title program on RAW because they didn't lose any top talent after Mania. But at the same time, if the Germany-MSNBC incident would have happened, I think Bradshaw would have beat Benoit for the World Title. Vince is a mark for mainstream media coverage and thats why Bradshaw got the title.

You contradicted yourself with the Benoit and Big Show examples. Show was a mid card guy and doing nothing on RAW, he went over to SD and won the WWE Title. But the exact same thing happened with Benoit. He was slightly higher on the card on SD, but he never won the title or anything and then he went to RAW and on his first try beat the so-called unstoppable HHH. So it has went both ways. And if we're going to be really picky about it, Big Show only had the belt for a month and then jobbed to Angle and Brock for the rest of his tenure. But on RAW Benoit is still kicking ass. To me that makes SD look like the stronger product (if we're being all marky about it).

[Dave Youell]

I didn't read a single post in this thread, my answer is no

[Corkscrewed]

LOL.

Well, I don't get RAW, so I'd say no as well. That's my only reason, to be honest.

[Heyman]

FINE - I admit it. Bad idea! :nono:


I also didn't realize that G.A.B got more PPV buyrates than Vengeance. :eek:

From reading reports and everthing however, I just got the feeling that backstage morale was REALLY low on Smackdown, and that attendences for shows were very poor (not just House Shows).

If this is not true however (and Smackdown is in fact, out-drawing Raw at times) - then keeps things the way they are.

However - I'd still like to see Smackdown be utilized better. There is absolutely no reason for guys like Maven and Rodney Mack to be on Raw anymore. There is MUCH more opportunity available for them on Smackdown. Ditto for Val Venis. I also fail to see why the WWE choose not to use Scott Steiner in any capacity (on Smackdown). The guy can't wrestle very well anymore (and is injury prone), but what was Rikishi?

Steiner atleast, is somewhat of a 'big name'.