DISCUSSION - Could a 2.5 hour show work for RAW/Smackdown? (roster re-unification)

[Heyman]

DISCUSSION - Could a 2.5 hour show work for RAW/Smackdown? (roster re-unification)

Perhaps the biggest concern in re-uniting the rosters at this point, is that a lot of current wrestlers in the WWE would not get an adequate amount of television time.


Would an added "half-hour" on each of the 'main shows' (so - an hour more of total wrestling time per week), be the solution?

I don't really know how successful WCW was with having THREE hour shows (during their peak), but I'd argue that THREE hour shows is a bit too long.


Another proponent to this idea, would be to have:


A) Velocity be reserved for the Cruiserweight Division (1 spot reserved on a PPV)

B) Heat be reserved for the Women's Division (1 spot reserved on a PPV).


How's that for "affirmative action" on the WWE's part? :p


So - with all the CW's on Velocity and the women on Heat, this frees up RAW and Smackdown even more.



Could an idea like this ever work?


Higher quality shows, more depth, and more match-ups would be the obvious advantages. The "extra hour" during the week combined with the "Heat/Velocity = Women's/Cruiserweight" idea, would also ensure that everyone gets a decent amount of TV time.



Disadvantages that I can see:


1) Triple H, Undertaker, Angle, and Shawn Michaels would dominate the top spots (right CyNick? :P ;)). On this note however - would this really be THAT detrimental?

For instance - if guys like Jericho, Cena, Guerrero, Orton, etc. still get good TV time (and have good matches), then won't this still contribute to having a HIGHER quality show? (and in the end, making the fans happy?).



Worst case scenerio: Even if guys like Eddie Guerrero and John Cena got "buried" by Triple H (I'd argue that MAYBE they wouldn't.........but I'm just creating the worst case scenerio here), they would still get TV time that would otherwise be alloted to maybe............someone far less 'over' (i.e. Kenzo Suzuki, etc.).


In the end - we would STILL see a HIGHER quality show...........given the amount of DEPTH.


The best case scenerio, is that Triple H, Taker, etc. WON"T be so dominating of both shows (and so guys like Guerrero, Orton, etc. can still be bonafide main-eventers.........and look even MORE impressive amongst the fans, due to the quality of the show being higher).

Even if this doesn't happen initially, you've got to understand that guys like Triple H and Taker won't be around forever. Once they relinquish the top spots if they "retire" (I'm creating a "worst case scenerio" here again), then guys like Orton, Benoit, Guerrero, Big Show, etc. can be elevated to the main-event spot (and they will have a degree of credibility with the fans, because the fans have seen them as main-eventers before).





2) House Shows, International events, etc.: This is another advantage of the roster split......in theory. However - how much money are the WWE actually making with the added House Shows and Specific-brand PPV's right now?

Even though they hold more PPV's per year now (with the roster split), couldn't they still do the same thing WITHOUT the roster split? (i.e. hold more PPV's).


If the answer to that is "yes", then the only problem to address (in re-uniting the rosters) would be less house shows.

Given the EXTREMELY poor attendance at House Shows of late, would the WWE really be losing that much?

With a re-united roster (and more depth to boot), couldn't the WWE have LESS house shows...........but actually make more money? (since more people would attend House Shows with a united roster since the overall quality would be better).

[Mr. Nerfect]

While that all sounds rosy, and it makes a lot of sense, I'd rather they stick out the roster split. Have Heat & Velocity reserved, then have RAW & SmackDown! got for two-and-a-half hours.

I like the idea of the rosters being redrafted to re-instate a freshness. Have Triple H, Guerrero, Cena, Benoit, Batista, Flair, Kane, The Undertaker & The Big Show on one brand, while Angle, Jericho, Michaels, Orton, Edge, Lesnar (if he is making a comeback), The Rock (for his appearances sake), JBL, Christian, Charlie Haas & Shelton Benjamin on the other.

I think having both shows going live, and having things actually happen on Heat & Velocity could be just as effective as ending the roster-split. It is my belief the rosters have been seperated because they are in a time where younger guys and older guys are all trying to dominate, and with one brand it could be messy.

One idea I wouldn't mind happening is unified champions. A WWE Champion, an Intercontinental Champion and WWE Tag Team Champions can all be the end results. Then with Heat you can ahev your Cruiserweight titles and Women's titles.

[Funky Fly]

I haven't read any of what you said, but RAW is already 2 hours and 10 minutes.

[Heyman]

While that all sounds rosy, and it makes a lot of sense, I'd rather they stick out the roster split.


That's cool, and a lot of wrestling "pundits" would tend to lean that way as well.

My question, is why?

Other than the fact that the WWE can create more House Shows with a split roster (and more International events I guess), can you REALLY see the roster split panning out?


It's been what?.....almost THREE years now?

While new stars such as Lesnar, Cena, Guerrero, JBL, Edge, Orton, etc. were created (or elevated), it had MUCH more to do with their gimmicks (as opposed to getting more television time).

It's been THREE years, and I still stand by my original comment on that. Do you REALLY think that it would make THAT much difference if Carlitto Carribbean Cool (or anyone else with a good gimmick in your opinion) got 3 minutes of TV time instead of 5-6?



Your scenerio of having the WWE create a NEW draft/split is good..........but only in theory.


Based on the way that the WWE has conducted itself in the past, can you honestly see the WWE trying to move "established stars" to Smackdown?

I mean - people (me included) talk a LOT about how *insert upper-card RAW wrestler here* should move to Smackdown to "balance things out."

IT WILL NEVER EVVVVVVVVVVVVVER HAPPEN!



Even if Smackdown gets decent ratings and somewhat respectable attendance, etc.......

Why settle for mediocrity?


If Smackdown (or RAW) scores a 3.9 in ratings, gets 7,000 people at their televised show, and gets 4,000 at their House Show.............is this a "success"?.........or is it just "getting by"?


Fuck that!


Why just "get by", when your show can be the greatest fucking thing since sliced bread?



I apologize for having to talk about the subject of the roster split about 55,545,654,767,243,543,765 times, but c'mon already. :foc:


To quote one of my favorite sports-entertainers of all-time (and god bless his soul),

"Enough is enough, and its time for a change".

[Heyman]

I haven't read any of what you said, but RAW is already 2 hours and 10 minutes.


Well if you haven't read any of what I said, then kindly fuck off (smile). onlykidding. :p

So? Make it 2:40 (the "extra minutes" still stay in-tact).

If that's not possible, then cut down the length of matches (as we saw during the days of the "attitude era).



So - instead of having a 2:10 show with longer matches, have 2:30 with shorter matches.

-No wrestler gets a significant loss of TV time.
-Matches are shorter and more "result" oriented (smarks will hate it, but the marks will love it. Marks compose of 90-95% of the fanbase anyways).

[Mr. Nerfect]

You bring up a good point as to why I'd like to see it kept in tact.

I can't explain it, you've got me. Guys like Eddie Guerrero and Chris Jericho can do with a bit of time on RAW and SmackDown!, and occassionally Heat & Velocity (as referees or special appearances or something). You bring up some good points, and the only way I can even defend mine is by using the old "talent gone to waste" idea, which I think is stupid anyway

One benefit of bringing the brands back together is PPVs. No more of those awkward brand exclusive PPVs, and each one can tell a story successfully. Royal Rumble, No Way Out, WrestleMania, Backlash, Judgment Day, Fully Loaded, The Great American Bash, Summerslam, Unforgiven, No Mercy, Survivor Series, Armageddon. Or something to the like (I've always liked the name "Fully Loaded" for some reason). You could even slip in a few special holiday themed PPVs as well. A Christmas themed one with proceeds going to charity (to an extent), and maybe an annual New Year's Revolution event.

You've won me over to your side, but I feel given the effort (which you so won't happen, but I still say COULD if the WWE WANTED to do it) RAW & SmackDown! can carry themselves as seperate brands. Add 30 minutes on to every major show, have Heat, Velocity, Afterburn & Bottom Line feature matches, and use Experience as the sole recap show.

[Kane Knight]

I haven't read any of what you said, but RAW is already 2 hours and 10 minutes.
That's 2.17, not 2.5

[Kane Knight]

-No wrestler gets a significant loss of TV time.
-Matches are shorter and more "result" oriented (smarks will hate it, but the marks will love it. Marks compose of 90-95% of the fanbase anyways).
It's nice in theory, but do you thin kthat they'd reallystick to the formula?

We'd get an extra hour of JBL/HHH a week total, and we'd end up with as few superstars featured.

[Heyman]

It's nice in theory, but do you thin kthat they'd reallystick to the formula?

We'd get an extra hour of JBL/HHH a week total, and we'd end up with as few superstars featured.

In my opinion - it wouldn't be THAT detrimental if a few extra superstars lost too much TV time. So? We see less Charlie Hass, Kenzo Suzuki, Tyson Tomko, and Hurricane?...........big deal! Even IF Triple H and JBL got twice as much TV as everyone else, we'd STILL see Jericho, Guerrero, Benoit, Edge, Cena, Taker, HBK, etc. ALL on television.

No matter who gets TV time (and who doesn't get as much that week), it will be someone of QUALITY. Someone who is 'over'.


In JBL's case for instance - the WWE may actually succeed in making him look like a credible main-eventer (if he was made to look superior to ALL of Triple H, Jericho, Guerrero, Cena, Benoit, etc.etc.etc.).



Here's the way I see it:

Like I said already, a POTENTIAL negative of the rosters being brought back together, is that guys like Guerrero, Cena, and.....Edge? may be somewhat "buried" initially (in light of guys like Triple H, HBK, and Taker all being on the same show). Remember - that's just the WORST CASE SCENERIO however.


Right now on RAW for instance - A guy like Chris Jericho should arguably be a main-eventer, but he's been relegated to the midcards (thanks to the "depth" of RAW).

However - I don't think that ANYONE will dispute the fact that Jericho is one of the "bright spots" of RAW...........and everyone gets "interested" whenever he's on air.

Even if fans no longer see him as a main-event calibre superstar, people still LOVE to see him on their TV sets. People would MUCH rather see a "Chris Jericho" than a Orlando Jordan. The same can be said for Rob Van Dam.


I guess what it would boil down to, is what's more important?

A) Creating more main-eventers? (on a sub-par show)

B) Creating LESS main-eventers (and possibly de-pushing a few wrestlers such as Guerrero, etc.), but having a higher quality show?





Some questions to ponder:



1) If you were an athlete, would you rather be an average football player on a PROFESSIONAL team, or would you rather be a star football player in the "minor leagues" (lots of players of which, are "nobodies")

2) Who would be classified as a "bigger star"? The "star" in the professional leagues (where there is more depth........and due to the perceived "more depth", the #1 star looks even bigger)..............OR the "star" in the minor leagues.


Would a guy like Dave Batista be more "over" if he was the World Champion, or UNDISPUTED champion?

[Mr. Nerfect]

In my opinion - it wouldn't be THAT detrimental if a few extra superstars lost too much TV time. So? We see less Charlie Hass, Kenzo Suzuki, Tyson Tomko, and Hurricane?...........big deal! Even IF Triple H and JBL got twice as much TV as everyone else, we'd STILL see Jericho, Guerrero, Benoit, Edge, Cena, Taker, HBK, etc. ALL on television.

No matter who gets TV time (and who doesn't get as much that week), it will be someone of QUALITY. Someone who is 'over'.


In JBL's case for instance - the WWE may actually succeed in making him look like a credible main-eventer (if he was made to look superior to ALL of Triple H, Jericho, Guerrero, Cena, Benoit, etc.etc.etc.).



Here's the way I see it:

Like I said already, a POTENTIAL negative of the rosters being brought back together, is that guys like Guerrero, Cena, and.....Edge? may be somewhat "buried" initially (in light of guys like Triple H, HBK, and Taker all being on the same show). Remember - that's just the WORST CASE SCENERIO however.


Right now on RAW for instance - A guy like Chris Jericho should arguably be a main-eventer, but he's been relegated to the midcards (thanks to the "depth" of RAW).

However - I don't think that ANYONE will dispute the fact that Jericho is one of the "bright spots" of RAW...........and everyone gets "interested" whenever he's on air.

Even if fans no longer see him as a main-event calibre superstar, people still LOVE to see him on their TV sets. People would MUCH rather see a "Chris Jericho" than a Orlando Jordan. The same can be said for Rob Van Dam.


I guess what it would boil down to, is what's more important?

A) Creating more main-eventers? (on a sub-par show)

B) Creating LESS main-eventers (and possibly de-pushing a few wrestlers such as Guerrero, etc.), but having a higher quality show?





Some questions to ponder:



1) If you were an athlete, would you rather be an average football player on a PROFESSIONAL team, or would you rather be a star football player in the "minor leagues" (lots of players of which, are "nobodies")

2) Who would be classified as a "bigger star"? The "star" in the professional leagues (where there is more depth........and due to the perceived "more depth", the #1 star looks even bigger)..............OR the "star" in the minor leagues.


Would a guy like Dave Batista be more "over" if he was the World Champion, or UNDISPUTED champion?

They're all good points, but with JBL, The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Booker T, Rob Van Dam, Randy Orton and Triple H all on one brand, would someone like Batista ever get a chance. We're either going to see rapid title changes, or less usperstars getting the title Although this boosts credibility, it could also get more people who think RVD should be champion upset.

BTW, Heyman, I am interested to hear your insight into the current PPV scene. That could make a good discussion sometime (if you haven't already done it).

[Heyman]

They're all good points, but with JBL, The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Booker T, Rob Van Dam, Randy Orton and Triple H all on one brand, would someone like Batista ever get a chance.

Things would definitely be HARDER for a guy like Batista (or any other up and coming superstar). Would the glass ceiling be stronger than ever? Yes. Would less main-event stars be created? Yes. For those "rare" stars that DO 'make it' through the glass ceiling, will they be BIGGER and BRIGHTER than ever? You're damn right.

So basically (in terms of "main-eventers" being potentially created), the QUANTITY will be lower, but the QUALITY will be higher. Quality always beats quantity.

In Batista's case, if management felt that he was working hard behind the scenes, etc. and the FANS really started buying into Batista's character, then I truly believe that he'd be pushed accordingly (LOTS of smarks will disagree with me on this. LOTS of posters tend to believe that there would too much backstage politics, etc., but I remain optimistic).

In the end, a "main-event" Batista (with no roster split) would be far more 'over' and 'respected' than a "main-event" Batista (with a roster split), due to the overall depth of the show.


Speaking of "depth", do you ever wonder why RAW has been more successful in creating 'credible' stars of late than Smackdown? Depth. RAW has guys like Jericho, HBK, Benoit, Kane, and........Triple H who gives other guys credibility. All of these guys have great track records (which allows them to give the 'rub' to others).

Jericho --> Has helped Benjamin, Edge, Christian, Batista, and Orton gain credibility.

Triple H --> helped Benjamin, Orton, and Batista. Helped Benoit earn "main-event" status. Even if Benoit goes to the mid-cards now, a victory over Benoit will mean a lot to that particular wrestler (which will give him credibility amongst the fans). See the rippling effect?

HBK --> Helped Orton, Christian, (helped RVD when he was on RAW).

Kane --> Benoit, Snitsky, Batista, etc.

Benoit --> Helped Orton, Batista, and is in the process of adding to Edge.

On Smackdown.........There's too much distance between Angle/Taker/Show/Guerrero/Booker T............and everyone else. Cena is the only one that has "emerged".


Taker --> Put over Lesnar.........no longer in company. Jobbed to JBL, but completely dominated JBL. Limited credibility given to JBL.

Lesnar --> Put over Angle (already established). Jobbed to Guerrero, but win was made to look flukey. Limited credibility given to Guerrero. Put over Benoit, but Benoit defected to RAW.

Angle --> Jobbed to Guerrero, but win looked flukey. Limited credibility given to Guerrero. Got a convincing return victory over Guerrero at Summerslam. Angle put over Edge, but Edge defected to RAW. Put over Lesnar, but Lesnar was already established. Put over Big Show, but he's already established.

Big Show --> Put over John Cena. :y: Lesnar and Angle were also "put over", but they were already established.

Booker T --> Helped add to Cena's track record. :y: Helped Eddie Guerrero. Helped JBL, but still looked too dominant. Not as much credibility given to JBL.



See where I'm going with this?


If it was up to me, Booker T, Kurt Angle, and Big Show would the "equivalent" of Chris Jericho, Shawn Michaels, and Chris Benoit on Smackdown. They would be "established" past champions (who would win most of their matches), but would be used to 'put over' mid-card talent.

-Big Show should job to Luther Reigns in the future. A heel Charlie Hass would be another guy.

-Booker T should 'put over' Orlando Jordan or Carlitto Carribbean Cool (when he gets healthy). A heel RVD would be awesome as well.

-Kurt Angle should put 'over' John Cena and Eddie Guerrero again.

-Undertaker should job CLEANLY (or almost cleanly) to JBL,

Once Guerrero and/or Cena have defeated Angle, then ONE of them should defeat JBL (who because of Taker, is ESTABLISHED.......and looks almost "unbeatable" like Triple H). Anyone who is even ASSOCIATED with JBL, would be 'over' (like HHH did for Orton, Batista, etc.).


I went on a bit of a tangent there, but I hope you see my point:


RAW is creating better stars right now, because they have the APPEARANCE of depth.........since "established main-event" guys like Jericho, Kane, and Benoit are in the mid-cards......putting others over. When HBK returned at Unforgiven, he seemed like he would have played that role as well (i.e. with Christian).

Do you think its just coincidence that a guy like Shelton Benjamin has gained quite a bit of credibility of late? How about Batista? Is it just coincidence that a guy like Eddie Guerrero isn't as "credible" looking as he should be? How about JBL?

Is it just a coincidence that the Eddie Guerrero/JBL feud from this past summer looked like a COMPLETE joke? (in terms of it being "worthy" as a main-event angle).


The point I'm trying to make, is that the more DEPTH there is, the greater the up-and-coming star looks when he cracks through the proverbial "glass ceiling."


If "shit" puts over "shit", then it's still a pile of "shit" in the end. :yes:


BTW, Heyman, I am interested to hear your insight into the current PPV scene. That could make a good discussion sometime (if you haven't already done it).

What exactly would you like me to comment on? (in regards to the PPV scene).

[Mr. Nerfect]

I was just thinking some ideas to make PPVs more exciting and outstanding. I think a PPV like Unforgiven would be much more interesting if it was used as a special event. Maybe have a PPV where all the titles are contested twice? Or maybe have an annual PPV with a Round Robin Challenge style thing going on with the heavyweight title.

Anyway, you bring up an interesting point about the quality, and I really agree with you in a way. It's just a lot of people's favourite wrestlers may be disinigrated in the merging of the rosters. Maybe three main shows would be a better way to go, after a bit of warming up with just RAW & SmackDown!.

Another good point about this is how vulnerable the WWE would be during this time. I don't mean that as a con to rejoining the rosters, but as a pro. TNA have recently jumped leaps and bounds to fight for TV deals and PPV deals. This is the time TNA has to make themselves look on par with the WWE (which could be really diffilicult), but if the WWE changed enough to really change the focus of their shows, it could give TNA the chance to do something big. The WWE is fairly vulnerable now, but TNA is too different right now. The shows layouts seem so different that both appear to be aimed at different audiences.

This gives TNA some more security sure, but it doesn't really do much to compete with the WWE. If the WWE changed back to their "WWE" feel instead of "RAW & SmackDown!" feel, then it would be the same style shows, and would close a few bridges between WWE and TNA. If TNA then moved to Monday night's and had a bit of their show head into WWE RAW's, then it really could rekindle a few competitive Monday Night War flames, and that can only be a good thing.

[Heyman]

HHH, Angle, HBK, and Taker dominating. Mass firings.


I still like this idea, but I'd like to address two major concerns that certain people have. Here are my opinons on these issues:



A) Angle, HHH, HBK, and Taker may dominate the "top spots" for awhile, but you've also got to realize that Angle and Taker are VERY close to retiring....and won't be around for much longer. Before either guy calls it quits as a full-time wrestler, I'm sure that atleast ONE of them will do a significant JOB of sorts.

Even if These 4 men dominate the top spots, the overall quality of the WWE product will still be higher.


B) Mass firings: Who cares?!?!!? If the WWE aren't using certain guys correctly (or these "certain guys" are wrestlers that the fans don't give 2 shits about), then why does it matter if they get cut? Honestly - would it really matter THAT much if guys like Snitksy, Viscera, Heidenreich, Rosie, Hardcore Holly, etc. got axed?


C) Does it really matter if certain guys become "curtain jerkers" even if the overall product of the show is higher? So what if guys like Edge and Batista get delayed in their future main-event pushes? So what if a guy like Eddie gets pushed down the card. They still can make the overall quality of the show better.

The guy that eventually DOES break through Triple H or whomever (Triple H won't be around FOREVER) will go over 10x more than he would if the roster split remained in-tact.


D) Most Wrestlers can still wrestle once per week........just as we saw in 2000/01. The top wrestlers however, can appear on both RAW and Smackdown.

[Heyman]

A RAW/Smackdown "invasion" angle should be the one to end the roster split IMO.


-After Wrestlemania, a new draft takes place.

-Cena, Guerrero, Taker, RVD, Mysterio, and Funaki get drafted to RAW

-Triple H, Orton, Edge, Kane, (Lesnar comes back), and Mohammad Hussan get drafted to Smackdown.


Smackdown invades RAW the next week.

-The entire Smackdown brand becomes heel.
-The entire RAW brand becomes face

[Hired Hitman]

Then that goes for a year untill the next Wrestlemania where the Titles get unified back into the WWE Championship... Yeeeeah.

[Heyman]

Then that goes for a year untill the next Wrestlemania where the Titles get unified back into the WWE Championship... Yeeeeah.

I would have the World titles unified a lot earlier than that (if it was up to me), but oh well. Your idea is cool as well. :cool:


I'd also try and get The Rock to be the sole GM of the WWE.

http://www.tpww.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25717

[Mr. Nerfect]

How is this for an idea? It is probably crap, but anyway...

Why not have RAW and SmackDown! alternate shows? Have a new name created for each brand, then have one of the brands (say RAW) has its talent appear on RAW, SmackDown!, Heat and Velocity for that week. Have the other brand (SmackDown! in this case) do house shows for that week. The following week things are swapped around, so RAW and SmackDown! feature SD! superstars, while RAW goes on a house show tour for the week.

Maybe even have Experience, Bottom Line and Afterburn used in there as well. Maybe as the brand not using RAW and SD!'s shows for the week?

If that doesn't appeal to you, you could have that "live" slot alternate. Every second week have the RAW slot go to SmackDown!, and the SmackDown! slot go to RAW. The Heat and Velocity timeslots could be swapped as well, but I'd leave them as brand exclusive shows where they are.

This sort of gives the brands more of an equal opportunity, and can allow for more time for storylines. Of course PPVs would need to be cut with my first idea, but is that really a bad thing?

[tucsonspeed6]

I read this in the Death of WCW book. It's tough to move from one show length to another. If they added another half hour of programming, they'd probably see their ratings slump a bit, but they'd make more money in advertising. Right now, I don't think the WWE is losing too much money, but with the wrestling business in a slump right now (assuming the business is cyclical) making a change in the show's length could be the driving force to turn the slump into a high, or it could drive business into new lows not seen in years. I'm thinking it'd be the latter.

To tell you the truth, if Vince was given an extra hour per week to give us a product, he'd give us an extra hour of fake boobs throwing pillows at each other, and I'd give my TV an extra bullet to sort through.

[Joe Kerr]

there really is no Womens division so Heat would fail....you could make Heat a tag team Division show bringing in a few more tag teams. Smackdown needs to be live and moved to Spike. Especially with all the censorship on UPN....does anyone even watch any other crap on UPN? Upn wouldnt even show "That 70's Show, The Simpsons , and FREINDS!"...instead they had a screen up saying that the FCC found the show to be offencive and inappropriate for veiwing.....So WWE needs a new station for Smackdown.

A hour and a half would work IF they cut down on the in ring Mic time. they waste 20 minutes every RAW for a HHH victory speech...or the Highlight reel...which I like..Just wrestle.

[Heyman]

To tell you the truth, if Vince was given an extra hour per week to give us a product, he'd give us an extra hour of fake boobs throwing pillows at each other, and I'd give my TV an extra bullet to sort through.

Perhaps you have a point....a good one at that.


So - even if the WWE was *only* a 2 hour show (without the roster split), would that be such a bad thing?


-Does it really matter if a lot of wrestlers (such as Rosie, Viscera, Richards, etc.) get canned? Will most fans care?

-Does it really matter if a guy like Guerrero or Benoit gets further pushed DOWN the depth chart if the rosters comes together?

a) They may not get main-event spots, but they could still entertain the fans with their wrestling....and contribute to a higher quality show (kinda like what Jericho is doing now).

b) NO ONE in the company is drawing anyways. Therefore - does it really mean anything if guys like these get *temporarily* demoted? (I use the word 'temporary', because guys like Angle, HBK, Taker, and Triple H won't be around forever).



-Ratings were at its highest in 99/00
-No Roster Split
-Women's division was practically non-existent
-CW division was practically non-existent
-Shorter matches on TV (except ME's). Longer matches saved for PPV's.


As far as I know, its not like the WWE (back then) were making less money than now due to (arguably) less House Shows, Int'l events, etc. (which are some of the ALLEGED benefits of the roster split).

[Heyman]

there really is no Womens division so Heat would fail....you could make Heat a tag team Division show bringing in a few more tag teams. Smackdown needs to be live and moved to Spike.

Come to think of it, I say FUCK the ideas of

-velocity being reserved for CW's
-Heat being reserved for Women.


Keep the same format for Heat and Velocity as we see now. As we'd see with RAW/Smackdown, the depth for both of those shows would be higher.


Perhaps reserve Heat and Velocity for the ECW alumni? If the WWE want seperate brands, then have Heat and Velocity become ECW.

Raw and SD would be WWE.



Atleast with a format like this, the WWE wouldn't *have to* pretend that they treat both brands equally (like they do with RAW/SD). :-\

[Heyman]

How is this for an idea? It is probably crap, but anyway...

Why not have RAW and SmackDown! alternate shows? Have a new name created for each brand, then have one of the brands (say RAW) has its talent appear on RAW, SmackDown!, Heat and Velocity for that week. Have the other brand (SmackDown! in this case) do house shows for that week. The following week things are swapped around, so RAW and SmackDown! feature SD! superstars, while RAW goes on a house show tour for the week.


It's a nice thought, but here's the problem I see with that (if I understand you correctly).

-RAW/SD are already shown on different networks. Lots of people only get to see 1 brand.

-In a lot of cases, people would have to go 2 weeks without seeing either the "Raw brand" or the "Smackdown brand". As a result, interest for PPV's would probably be pretty low.

[Mr. Nerfect]

It's a nice thought, but here's the problem I see with that (if I understand you correctly).

-RAW/SD are already shown on different networks. Lots of people only get to see 1 brand.

-In a lot of cases, people would have to go 2 weeks without seeing either the "Raw brand" or the "Smackdown brand". As a result, interest for PPV's would probably be pretty low.

Yeah, they're pretty good points.

I still like the idea of each brand getting two major shows a week. It sounds like it could do damage, but with frequent trades, and with some good matches "just for the sport of it". Have a lot of tag teams matches and six-man tags heading into PPVs. With frequent PPVs, you don't need to put matches off for too long.

[Heyman]

I still like the idea of each brand getting two major shows a week.

I guess that could work (in the future when business gets REALLY REALLY good), but for now............I think having 4 major shows per week (2 for each brand) would be disasterous.

One problem with that idea (and the roster split in general), is that the fans don't perceive "Raw" and "Smackdown" to be different 'brands' (like WCW and the WWE for instance).


What the WWE have done with their "roster split", is hurt their overall product............just as the NFL would if they completely split their AFC and NFC.........or if the NBA did the same. Can you imagine how pissed people would be if Kobe's LA Lakers and Shaq's Miami Heat had *NO CHANCE* of facing one another?


Bottom line - The roster split has been a complete failure from day ONE. It's time for it to end.

[The CyNick]

The main problem with bringing the rosters back together is that you'll run out fresh matches in about 4 months, and then they'll be dead.

The way things are set up right now, when the brands run out of fresh matches, they can switch some guys and create a bunch of new matches for the next year. You kill the extension, and you kill off new matches.

Of course then you'd also have the problem of the top guys being HHH, HBK, Taker and Angle. Then they'd play the game of putting each over, and switching heel and face in order to stay on top for the next 5 years. Few, if any young guys would be able break through that glass cieling. Watch WCW to see how this is done.

There's no guarantee that ending the split would increase business in any way. Say they run two shows per night right now, and they do 3,000for each show. In order to make ending the split worth it you have do over 5,000 per night. I just dont see that happening. The thing that usually drives major increases like that is the creation of new stars, and clearly bringing the rosters back together wouldn't do that.

They would also have to cut back on PPVs. The reason is that as it is now, they can promote 2 shows in a month because you've got one show with these guys, and another show with other guys. In theory, people would have a reason to watch both shows, just like they had a reason to watch one WWE PPV and one WCW PPV back in the late 90s and 2000. If you have only one roster, I dont think you can promote one show healdined by HHH vs Randy Orton, and then 2 weeks later go to HHH vs Kurt Angle (with both shows having basically the same undercard) and expect people to pay for both. So gaain, unless a new star is created, and there is another boom, there's no reason to think it would be good for business.

Perfect example was in June of this year. I can recall the exact numbers, but the combined buys for the RAW and SD PPVs that month were close to 500,000. There's no way a single show, even with the combined rosters would do that number, unless it was a Mania or Royal Rumble.

Heyman, you always talk about how SD guys aren't over, or whatever, again thats just your bias, its not really based on any facts. SD generally does better TV numbers than RAW, so even though YOU may feel that RAW has created "better" stars, the numbers dont back it up. The fact of the matter is that RAW hasn't really created ANY news stars who can draw. SD has at least made JBL an equally effective main event draw as what HHH is now, and they have Eddie, although they refuse to use him to his potential.

Making the shows longer is uselss, I dont understand your point with that one. When WCW went from 2 to 3 hours they struggled to fill the show. WWE as it is now, cant make 2 two hour shows that are entertaining, so why add more time?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I still think there are possible ways to create more of a rivalry between brands, but I don't think the WWE seems to want competition between them, which is foolish, IMO.

Anyway, I wouldn't have two major shows start up now, but I'd have Heat and Velocity become major shows in themselves.

Have a World Heavyweight Championship change take place there. Have a house show held before each RAW or SmackDown!, and have them tape Heat and Velocity at a different facility the night after or something.

Can you image the reaction if Rhyno won the World Heavyweight Title on Heat? What if ALL the titles changed hands on Heat? Benoit & Jericho win the World Tag Team Championship from La Resistance, Randy Orton defeats Triple H for the World Heavyweight Championship, Chris Masters defeats Shelton Benjamin for the Intercontinental Championship and Alexis Laree defeats Trish Stratus for the Women's Championship.

On Velocity you could have a Ladder Match for the Cuiserweight Championship.

If the WWE give Heat and Velocity some moments to shine, then I think more guys will get over, giving each guy three hours a week to evolve their characters.

[The CyNick]

I guess that could work (in the future when business gets REALLY REALLY good), but for now............I think having 4 major shows per week (2 for each brand) would be disasterous.

One problem with that idea (and the roster split in general), is that the fans don't perceive "Raw" and "Smackdown" to be different 'brands' (like WCW and the WWE for instance).


What the WWE have done with their "roster split", is hurt their overall product............just as the NFL would if they completely split their AFC and NFC.........or if the NBA did the same. Can you imagine how pissed people would be if Kobe's LA Lakers and Shaq's Miami Heat had *NO CHANCE* of facing one another?


Bottom line - The roster split has been a complete failure from day ONE. It's time for it to end.

But the NFL and MLB are basically like that.

In the NFL there's no guarantee that any specific NFC team would face a specific AFC until the Super Bowl. For wrestling, the Super Bowl is Mania. Now, it is a little different in that the champions dont face each other, because they cant. But it is the same in the sense that the only time guys from RAW can face guys from SD are at the "Super Bowl". So you have that same anticipation.

Same thing with MLB. Talk to a lot of older fans, and they say that they hate inter-league play. They liked it better when the only time AL teams played NL teams was at the World Series. Why? Because it only happens once a year,a nd therefore seems special.

As for you Kobe-Shaq example, if I could "book" the NBA, I would love to be able to not have them play each other all year and then build it up as the NBA Finals. Imagine how good that would do if people had to wait the whole year to see them face each other.

[The CyNick]

I still think there are possible ways to create more of a rivalry between brands, but I don't think the WWE seems to want competition between them, which is foolish, IMO.

Anyway, I wouldn't have two major shows start up now, but I'd have Heat and Velocity become major shows in themselves.

Have a World Heavyweight Championship change take place there. Have a house show held before each RAW or SmackDown!, and have them tape Heat and Velocity at a different facility the night after or something.

Can you image the reaction if Rhyno won the World Heavyweight Title on Heat? What if ALL the titles changed hands on Heat? Benoit & Jericho win the World Tag Team Championship from La Resistance, Randy Orton defeats Triple H for the World Heavyweight Championship, Chris Masters defeats Shelton Benjamin for the Intercontinental Championship and Alexis Laree defeats Trish Stratus for the Women's Championship.

On Velocity you could have a Ladder Match for the Cuiserweight Championship.

If the WWE give Heat and Velocity some moments to shine, then I think more guys will get over, giving each guy three hours a week to evolve their characters.

Title changes dont matter for very much.

RAW has title changes every now and then, but it doesn't do anything for their numbers.

The ONLY way to make those secondary shows do good numbers is to have quality shows and have storyline advance every week. Unless that happens, people will go out fot heir way NOT to watch.

[Heyman]

The main problem with bringing the rosters back together is that you'll run out fresh matches in about 4 months, and then they'll be dead.

I think it would be longer than 4 months, but I agree. After an extended period of time, there would be some re-hashed feuds. Just a few things however.

1) How many "fresh matches" are we seeing right now?

2) How may awesome feuds did we see through 2000/2001? Feuds like Rock/HHH, Jericho/Benoit, Austin/Angle, etc. were done at several different times, but the fans were ALWAYS interested.......due to the awesomeness of the feud. With that in mind, would it really matter if certain feuds were re-hashed?

The way things are set up right now, when the brands run out of fresh matches, they can switch some guys and create a bunch of new matches for the next year.

That's great in theory, but Management has way too much bias towards RAW.

If last year is any indication, it seems that the WWE are unwilling to move top-tier superstars to Smackdown (unless they've been jobbed to death like RVD and Booker T).

You more than anybody, should know that Triple H won't allow top-tier superstars to go to Smackdown.........since Triple H wants "his" show to be far superior ;).

In the end, what you get is a bunch of crap getting traded.

Seriously - how many significant "fresh feuds" have the Dudleys, Jindrak, Rhyno, Spike Dudley, Taijiri, Dupree, Nidia, etc. had? Same shit, different pile. In the end, no one still gives a rats ass.



Of course then you'd also have the problem of the top guys being HHH, HBK, Taker and Angle. Then they'd play the game of putting each over, and switching heel and face in order to stay on top for the next 5 years. Few, if any young guys would be able break through that glass cieling. Watch WCW to see how this is done.

-I highly doubt that Angle and Taker will be around for THAT long. I'd even argue the same for Triple H and HBK.

Let me ask you this. Back in 2000 when Triple H and The Rock dominated the main-event spot,

A) Who "won" most of the head-to-head matches? Triple H or The Rock

B) Did guys like Kurt Angle, Jericho, and Benoit have no significance in the year 2000 as a result of being "below" Triple H?

C) Did other guys on the show have no significance because they had no chance of main-eventing?


The point I'm trying to make, is that Triple H dominated most of 2000 as well. In the end, 2000 was still a tremendous year for the WWE. As much as Triple H got the "better" of The Rock, The Rock still drew huge for the company.

As much as Benoit, Angle, and Jericho were 'below' Triple H, they were still way over with the fans.........and often served as great sideshows for the main-event storylines.


The thing that usually drives major increases like that is the creation of new stars, and clearly bringing the rosters back together wouldn't do that.

True, but like you said in past threads: How many stars have been created within the last few years? Like you said - NO ONE (other than Guerrero maybe) is drawing any numbers.

Isn't it better for the WWE to create QUALITY show(s) instead of attempting to create new stars that no one seemingly cares about?

I disagree that "no new stars" would be created. If someone is 'over' enough, they'll get pushed fairly. Triple H or not.



They would also have to cut back on PPVs. The reason is that as it is now, they can promote 2 shows in a month because you've got one show with these guys, and another show with other guys. In theory, people would have a reason to watch both shows, just like they had a reason to watch one WWE PPV and one WCW PPV back in the late 90s and 2000. If you have only one roster, I dont think you can promote one show healdined by HHH vs Randy Orton, and then 2 weeks later go to HHH vs Kurt Angle (with both shows having basically the same undercard) and expect people to pay for both. So gaain, unless a new star is created, and there is another boom, there's no reason to think it would be good for business.


I don't know about that. Let's say the WWE re-united their rosters, but still decided to have a PPV every 3 weeks (on average).

-Basically....they would have SIX shows to build a PPV.

-With the way things are now (i.e. 1 show per week), that translates into 6 weeks (which as far as I know, isn't too far from what the distance is right now between brand-extended PPV's).


Heyman, you always talk about how SD guys aren't over, or whatever, again thats just your bias, its not really based on any facts. SD generally does better TV numbers than RAW, so even though YOU may feel that RAW has created "better" stars, the numbers dont back it up. The fact of the matter is that RAW hasn't really created ANY news stars who can draw. SD has at least made JBL an equally effective main event draw as what HHH is now, and they have Eddie, although they refuse to use him to his potential.

I honestly can't argue that. Call it bias or whatever, but I see what I see. Like I said in the other thread, it actually does AMAZE me that Smackdown's ratings are on par with Raw's.

In my opinion, RAW is light years ahead of Smackdown. Every one I talk to in real life, feels the same way.

Perhaps if RAW was on UPN, they're ratings would be twice as high? :?:

I don't "hate" Smackdown or anything. It's just from my point of view, it looks a lot like WCW did in its final days.



Making the shows longer is uselss, I dont understand your point with that one. When WCW went from 2 to 3 hours they struggled to fill the show. WWE as it is now, cant make 2 two hour shows that are entertaining, so why add more time?

My logic for making the show 2.5 hours (or 2:35-2:40 with the added main-event time or whatever), is that it would allow all of the current wrestlers to get some decent TV time.

THREE hours (plus the run-over time) is a bit excessive IMO.

Maybe 2:30 is as well (it's debatable I guess), but I don't know.

If having 2.5 hours isn't possible however, then I'd still have a 2 hour show with no roster split......and just release the pieces of POO such as Rosie, Viscera, etc.



As far as House Shows and Int'l events are concerned, is there no way that they can still do just as many? :?:

[Mr. Nerfect]

Title changes dont matter for very much.

RAW has title changes every now and then, but it doesn't do anything for their numbers.

The ONLY way to make those secondary shows do good numbers is to have quality shows and have storyline advance every week. Unless that happens, people will go out fot heir way NOT to watch.

I can't argue with that, but I think fans will be more inclined to watch if a World Championship changed hands on a sub-show. Storyline advancements are a must, though.

I am quite a big fan of the roster split, but I can see where Heyman is coming from. Guerrero would be just as over going for an Intercontinental Championship in the WWE as he would by going for the WWE Championship on SmackDown!.

If we did end the roster split, this is how I'd do things:

Monday: RAW (2.5 hours)
Tuesday: Metal (1.5 hours)
Wednesday: Nitro (2.5 hours)
Thursday: SmackDown! (2.5 hours)
Friday: Thunder (1.5 hours)
Saturday: Velocity (2 hours)
Sunday: Heat (2 hours)

-This makes 14.5 hours a week. WrestleMania, Summerslam and Survivor Series are juiced up to five hours, while all the others are juiced up to four.

-This is about 43.5-50 hours of wrestling leading into a PPV. That is around two days of tention between the feuding guys.

This might sound like overkill, but I really think it would be worth it in the long run. Start off with the major three shows being where all the storylines are, while the other four shows just provide decent matches. Then slowly work your up with the others, and make storylines more prominent.

Make sure you put them all on cable. I'm not too sure of TV over in America, but I think cable would be the safer bet. Get all your show shown in all regions where RAW and/or SmackDown! are currently shown, as they slowly become more important.

[Heyman]

But the NFL and MLB are basically like that.

In the NFL there's no guarantee that any specific NFC team would face a specific AFC until the Super Bowl. For wrestling, the Super Bowl is Mania. Now, it is a little different in that the champions dont face each other, because they cant. But it is the same in the sense that the only time guys from RAW can face guys from SD are at the "Super Bowl". So you have that same anticipation.

Good point, and I agree with that. :y:


Same thing with MLB. Talk to a lot of older fans, and they say that they hate inter-league play. They liked it better when the only time AL teams played NL teams was at the World Series. Why? Because it only happens once a year,a nd therefore seems special.

Maybe, but have the RATINGS reflected this? From what I know, interpromotional games often have higher ratings (i.e. when the two New York teams play, when the two Chicago teams play, and when the Jays used to play the Expos :()

As for you Kobe-Shaq example, if I could "book" the NBA, I would love to be able to not have them play each other all year and then build it up as the NBA Finals. Imagine how good that would do if people had to wait the whole year to see them face each other.

Maybe, but let me ask you this?


-Let's say Shaq's Heat (Eastern Conference) defeated Kobe's Lakers (Western Conference).


A) Would people stop tuning in to the Western Conference because it is now seen as "the weaker conference?" My answer to that would be 'no'.


However - some people on here tend to think that if the WWE did something like that (i.e. World Champ *always* faces the WWE champ at Wrestlemania), then the LOSER would make his brand look inferior.

I disagree with that.

If the WWE are hell bent on keeping their roster split, then I'd suggest having the TWO world champions face off against one another at Wrestlemania. That way - there is only *ONE* real "winner" for that particular Wrestlemania......and the main-event match-up actually means more.

Instead of the World/WWE title(s) being on the line, maybe the winner could win a huge trophy, along with a $1,000,000 (not real obviously, but storyline).

[Aussie Skier]

I think having both shows going live, and having things actually happen on Heat & Velocity could be just as effective as ending the roster-split.


both shows cant go live unfortunatly, unless they are on monday and Tuesday night. The logistics of it are too great for the benefit it will recieve.


As for my opinion. I see no problem with the roster split.
I personally think its the best thing the WWE has done for a long time, because we get exposure to guys like Cena, Orton :( , Eddie G, Chris Benoit etc...

I think your prediction of a worst case scenario, with HHH, Taker, HBK (not so much now maybe), Angle, Big show etc... holding the top positions would occur, and would be detrimental in the longer run.


Also, imagine if they did end the roster split. WHat sort of message is that saying to everyone. "We tried this roster split, and we failed."
Firstly, i dont think the roster split has failed, I persaonlly think its brilliant, and secondly, why is there a need for such drastic changes?

[The CyNick]

The difference with Rock-HHH in 2000 vs HHH-anyone now, is that Rock dominated HHH on TV every week (just about anyway). Sure he may have lost from time to time (and really the only times he lost there was massive amounts of interference), but on TV he was portrayed as being above HHH.

The way they do things now is that they'll build up a face, have him get the title from HHH, but then HHH will be positioned as the bigger star, and its uilt up like its just a matter of time beofre HHH gets the belt back. This was done with HBK, Goldberg, benoit and Orton.

So no new stars get created using that method. And they never will be as long as HHH keeps playing the game like that.

Did Benoit and Jericho and co. have a role in 2000? Sure, but it was a role that was far beneath what they were capable of. Then when they finally decided to put those guys in main events, the fans didn't accept it i n part because they had been positioned for so long as mid carders.

With RAW v SD we can all have our opinions, but the only thing to really go by is ratings. And the ratings show SD consistantly beats RAW week after week. And thats even with HHH doing things to make RAW seem like the superior show. My take on that is that a lot of people think like me, and are just sick of HHH in that top spot.

I woudl bet a lot of money that HHH will be around 10 years from now, never mind 5 years from now.

More thoughts in a few, I gotta eat.