Tell me why..... [Archive]

FourFifty

08-05-2007, 07:49 PM

some people want to see the brand split end?

Do you really want to see story lines rushed three times a week?
Do you really want to see one champion three times a week?
Do you really want to see John Cena/Dancin' Dave Batista three times a week?
Snitsky/Umaga/Khali/Mark Henry/Moster of the month squash someone three times a week?
Do you really want to hear about Mr. Peanut's wedding three times a week?

I can't think of one reason why people would enjoy the brand split. It would mean less wrestlers would make it to the main event scene, more people getting held down, and more of the same crap every single week. Raw has their titles, SmackDown has theirs, and ECW has its title. If anything I'd like to see the brand split become stronger. I'd just like to see the PPV's once a month, with the big four (wrestlemania, royal rumble, summerslam, survior series) tri-branded and then give each brand 3 ppvs each (that is if ECW could get the roster to support that). It'll give time for the brands to make better story lines, more time for fans to warm up to wrestlers before a PPV.

I'm pretty set in my ways when it comes to the brands, so can someone tell me why ending the brand split would be a good idea?

IC Champion

08-05-2007, 07:54 PM

All I know is that they have to much talent to cram one to roster, it would be a huge culsterfuck each week, unless they plan to release half of their roster.

Jordan

08-05-2007, 07:56 PM

It won't be changing anytime soon, it makes double the money and offers double the jobs.

Kane Knight

08-05-2007, 08:07 PM

Outsider

08-05-2007, 08:15 PM

I wouldn't mind seeing WWE release a lot of guys, the trouble is the ones they would release....

Mr. Nerfect

08-05-2007, 08:15 PM

I never got the job argument. They would still have the same amount of time to fill each week, they'd just have a bigger pool of talent to choose from when writing the shows.

I guess I can see why some releases would be inevitable, seeing as there would be a few guys who work multiple shows every week, but is that really such a bad thing? I mean, not to sound malicious, but would anyone lose any sleep if Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Sylvan and Balls Mahoney were released? It could help smooth out the edges a bit, and allow the WWE's talent pool to be a lot crisper. Some guys might actually get sent back to OVW/FCW for some much needed seasoning.

There are plenty of reasons for and against ending the brand split. I want to see it end for several main reasons:

1) We'd likely see better shows all around, with the World Championship moving around a lot more than it has been. While one can propose that the WWE would just keep the belt on John Cena, and triple his exposure, I think that the three show-schedule would wear him down a lot more, and we'd get the belt shifting to make sure Cena doesn't crumble under the pressure.

If it makes winning the top Championship a more prestigious accomplishment, and weeds out the one show a week Champions from the three show a week Champions, it might be worth it.

2) The shows would likely increase in general quality. Especially SmackDown!, which is hurting at present. It would also allow for the divisions to be filled up. Tag teams and mid-carders would be able to benefit quite a large bit, because they aren't hurt by the size and shallowness of the WWE rosters.

3) It's something different. Call me impatient, but I get bored with the WWE product very easily. Keeping it the same is not going to cure my boredom. At least ending the draft will pique my interest for a few weeks. Then I'd probably be calling for another change, because the WWE will fuck it up.

Let's face it, they're currently not doing the split right, but the question is whether or not they can do anything right. I'd be all for separate rosters if the WWE put a little effort into establishing them as independently able to function. The three brands are pretty much "WWE" these days, and they have been pretty adament about making sure that they are all as shitty as each other. Remember when Paul Heyman got in trouble because he was listening in on a RAW meeting, and they were paranoid he was getting too competitive? Hell, they fired him because he was putting on good television.

Re-unifying the rosters won't fix everything, but it might fix some things. I'm willing to give it a shot, because I know the current rut the WWE is in is not going to fix itself.

Jordan

08-05-2007, 08:16 PM

Jordan

08-05-2007, 08:21 PM

I would love the split to be over as a viewer. But at the same time, I don't want to watch a rushed Raw with Khali, Batista, Cena, Orton, Triple H, Kennedy, Booker, etc... there just isn't enough time. And I don't want to spend the time that it would take (three hours) to get all the storylines over.
You can't have two main babyfaces unless the brand is split. Right now thats Cena and Batisa. One of them would suffer if the split was over. Plus it would suck watching Raw waiting for the possibility that say MVP might show up but he doesn't because he wasn't written in this week so you have to then watch Smackdown.

I would love to see ECW stay a single brand and have Raw and Smackdown just become "WWE" again. I just don't know that with the number of wrestlers they have now if it would work to well. It may just end up being like Nitro and Thunder and that would suck a lot.

FourFifty

08-05-2007, 08:34 PM

Yes, I do. Those are the only things that can happen and those are the only reasons to possibly want the brand split to end.

Now that we're done talking contrived discussions, I'd like you to answer why you watch wrestling. Do you like supporting people who will eventually kill their families than then themselves? Do you like watching necrophilia angles and John Cena? Do you like some other stupid, contrived, limited and dishonest thing I'm too lazy to waste my time on making this point?

Just how many necrophilia angles have we had in the past few years? How many wrestlers have committed a double murder-suicide? The answer to both questions is "I can only recall one event of this happening." Thankfully they were separate events.

As of Cena, no, I don't like him, but it's not X-Pac heat or a Conway pop (whichever you prefer). I'm looking forward to him dropping the title. While he has been pushed down our pikes I've gotten sick of it to the point where I want to see him hurt (the wrestler, not the person mind you). I’ll admit I mark out every time Cena is about to drop the title.

But now for the big question- why do I watch wrestling....
It's part of who I am. It's part of my friends, and part of my family. If you were raised in a house where football and baseball were on every possible chance, and your friends were into it also, there's a good chance you'd be a fan.
While many members of my family and a few of my friends have stopped watching I keep watching. I'm willing to sit through a lot of crap to find something awesome. My older brother is a hardcore Raider's fan. We share the same theory for who a fan really is. A fan will stick with it even when it's not cool to do it just because they are a fan. I'm not going to jump off the bandwagon just because it's no longer cool. I still enjoy it, and just because other people do not enjoy doesn’t give me any reason to stop.

It's also part of what I want to do. No, I don't want to be a wrestler, I want to be a performer. I want to put up a front and have people buy my humbug. There's an actor in me who strives for an audience. It's the only reason why I haven't quit my current job. It gives me a chance to bullshit people, and it's my platform for running for city council in a few years. Just to bullshit people. I’d like to believe that I’ve learned a lot when it comes to how to talk to people and bullshit people by watching wrestling. Be it how to slowly build up an explosive tirade, or how to diffuse people with humor.

So KK, here's a question for you- I see you on the wrestling board quite often, and you're sig talks about wrestling. You seem to know what's going on, but how much into wrestling are you?

Kane Knight

08-05-2007, 08:46 PM

I am think im about to stop watching because there are SO MANY nercrophilla angles, also I just can't stand watching SO MANY guys kill their families. Honestly, this post you have made makes no sense. I don't even know who you are talking to but that is a weak ass arguement.

:lol:

I was responding to an idiotic strawman with an idiotic strawman. You were so clever you saw right through my guise, completely missing the point I spelled out.

Kane Knight

08-05-2007, 08:47 PM

On a side note, I expect Jordan to be dumb. He can't help it. But Fo Fiddy?

Pepsi Man

08-05-2007, 08:48 PM

How come whenever I read Alienoid's posts, I get the feeling he looks at the television shows as all there is to the main WWE schedule?

FourFifty

08-05-2007, 08:50 PM

I understood you pointing out Benoit and Katie Vick was a joke, no, I'm not down there with Jordan. I just couldn't find anything funny to respond with and tried to end it there.

IC Champion

08-05-2007, 08:53 PM

This thread sucks....

Soma Joe is the man.

Mr. Nerfect

08-05-2007, 08:57 PM

How come whenever I read Alienoid's posts, I get the feeling he looks at the television shows as all there is to the main WWE schedule?

Why would house shows be changed by this? If anything, they will be what stays mostly the same, as the WWE used to run "A" and "B" type house shows, didn't they?

Pepsi Man

08-05-2007, 09:05 PM

Why would house shows be changed by this? If anything, they will be what stays mostly the same, as the WWE used to run "A" and "B" type house shows, didn't they?
Long ago, sure. Do you really see them running a house show on Monday or Tuesday night, though, if there's only one brand? Also, by talking about things ilke "While one can propose that the WWE would just keep the belt on John Cena, and triple his exposure, I think that the three show-schedule would wear him down a lot more...", you're implying that Cena and others don't work the exact same number of events now as they would if this brand split end were to occur.

FourFifty

08-05-2007, 09:12 PM

After reading this thread I'd like to point out that no one has given me a reason why people want to see the brand split end.

IC said there are too many wrestlers to fit on one roster.
Jordan said it won't happen anytime soon.
Then KK's answer....
Yes, I do. Those are the only things that can happen and those are the only reasons to possibly want the brand split to end.
What reasons are they? My questions about seeing the same thing three times a week? Seriously, I'm lost here.
Outsider talked about how it would mean a lot of wrestlers would be let go.
Alienoid talked about how he never got the job answer.
I asked KK a question
Pepsi Man made fun of Alienoid, and they started going back and forth about house shows.
IC said Soma Joe is the man, and that's it.

I have yet to get one reason why ending the brand split would be a good idea.

So to sum up this post, no one has given me an answer...

Pepsi Man

08-05-2007, 09:28 PM

Pepsi Man made fun of Alienoid, and they started going back and forth about house shows.
For the record, as it pertains to this, I was not attempting to make fun of Alienoid; I was legitimately trying to understand him.

As for the topic onhand, I honestly like the fact that there are more match possibilities with one brand than three, and also how, assuming the extra titles are merged/retired/whatever, it would make the titles more "important", with less of them available, storyline wise. There would be no more of this, "I can't beat Cena and win the WWE Title. Oh well. I'll just go to SmackDown!." or *guy can barely beat lower midcarders on Raw* *NEW ECW World Champion!!!!!!!!!!111*

FourFifty

08-05-2007, 09:31 PM

Pepsi Man, albeit I don't like that reason, thank you for giving me one reason.

Jordan

08-05-2007, 09:45 PM

:lol:

I was responding to an idiotic strawman with an idiotic strawman. You were so clever you saw right through my guise, completely missing the point I spelled out.

Yeah... your just not funny.

St. Jimmy

08-06-2007, 01:02 AM

Why to end the Brand Split: You could turn 3 absolute shit shows, into 3 Mediocre shows each week.

How?: Feature the same 5-6 great people on each show each week.

FourFifty

08-06-2007, 01:09 AM

Do you really think that many egos can share one brand, even with 8 shows a week? With how close knit Triple H is with Vince it'll be "The Triple H Show- every Monday, Tuesday, and Friday!"
And what would you do with all the titles?
Just shift the rosters around a little, shift the writing staff around, pick up a few people here and there, and then you can turn all three shows around.

blueskies

08-06-2007, 03:50 AM

The way that I see it.. if the three brand would merge into one huge roster.. That'll give the championship more meaning.. because the champion would have overcame the odds of defeating the 5-8 possible main eventers.

And w/ more than 1 main eventer chasing the championship.. it'll build for a stronger storyline, imo.

Tommy Gunn

08-06-2007, 05:37 AM

I enjoy the brand split, but ECW needs to be cancelled right away, and send their roster to Smackdown.

If the brand split did come to an end, it'd make for a brilliant PPV of title unification matches.

Orton vs. Bats
MVP vs. Umaga
Candice vs. Hornswoggle
Deuce & Domino vs. Cade & Murdoch

The fallout of the brand split would be aweful though, having to see Lashley, Cena, and Bats on every show.

Hanso Amore

08-06-2007, 07:37 AM

Kane Knight

08-06-2007, 09:05 AM

Tell me why you like the roster split. Do you like three sets of main eventers on your screen instead of one? Do you like watching three times the bad storylines? Do you really want to see nonsensical rearrangements when someone is injured, which happens every week now? Do you want to see three times the hasbeens on TV?

Kane Knight

08-06-2007, 09:20 AM

See, as I'm seeing it, the roster split ending would b at worst, a lateral move. The idea was great, because it offered the chance for new people to shine. Instead, we planned a long Undertaker run before he was shattered. Thus far, few stars have been made, and Orton, Cena, and Edge were all going to be pushed regardless. You have a bigger undercard, but that means little, since even being midcard champion doesn't even guarantee you TV time (Nor does being a TT champ). You still have Trips and Michaels on top of the show, when they're not injured, champ or not. None of what the roster split was supposed to do has been done. On top of that, you now have two world titles and a third ME title. You have Two sets of Tag Team titles and two midcard titles. You've dilluted the talent pool (Because let's face it, mostly they've just hired more of the same), and cheapened the titles.

FourFifty

08-06-2007, 09:24 AM

I like three different main events, and three different sets of titles. I seriously believe that if it was just one roster too many people would get lost in the shuffle. With one roster I don't think there would be room for Umaga, Kennedy, Booker T, Carltio, Regal, the entire cw roster, and more.
With the egos that drive the industry I think if the brand split ended we'd see five hours of the same show. I like Raw because I don't have to worry about Mr. Peanut's wedding plans. I like SmackDown because I don't have to hear about Cena (unless he's on the Raw Rebound). With one roster I'd get twice as much Cena, and twice as much Mr. Peanut.

I don't buy the "it won't be the same thing three times a week" argument from anyone. If it's all one brand then they would have the same head writer. If all the shows were just merged into one clusterfuck of a roster egos would bury the mid/undercard. If anything we'd see main event stars taking all the titles.

With the injured wrestlers, right now it sucks, and it has been a bad year, but it's not like this happens every day. Cracking a joke at the industry or not, bringing that up (along with Katie Vick and Benoit) really makes your arguments look weak.

Now before I answer any more questiong from KK, how much into wrestling are you?

addy2hotty

08-06-2007, 09:25 AM

If I'm honest, I've never liked the roster split. I've never really watched both SD and Raw since it started. WWE/WWF has never really been the same since.

As far as i'm concerned, end it. I couldn't give a toss if certain wrestlers 'dont make it' - if they deserve to - they will. Rather than being the headliners when really they shouldn't be (Morrison/Punk/Lashley).

Kane Knight

08-06-2007, 09:40 AM

I like three different main events, and three different sets of titles. I seriously believe that if it was just one roster too many people would get lost in the shuffle. With one roster I don't think there would be room for Umaga, Kennedy, Booker T, Carltio, Regal, the entire cw roster, and more.

So you like watching three sets of hasbeens hold down talent? Sweet. You like meaningless undercards? Go you. You like Dishonest, slanted questions? From the first post, evidently.

There was room for people like those for years without a roster split. Why would now be any different, especially with three shows, none of them treated like Heat? That's five hours of first run entertainment, and somehow, they'd be lost in the shuffle? If anything, these guys are currently the "next generation."

Regal was lost in the shuffle several times during the Roster split, and the fact that you bring up the Cruiserwight Division makes me wonder what kind of crack your mom smoked. Even Booker T, a Five time, five time, Five time WCW champion was lost at points. With two different brands of talent. Carlito's yoyoed, as has Benjamin, RVD (Admittedly, his own fault), Masters, etc. This isn't the fault of a brand split, or "Not enough time," it's a factor of WWE's booking.

Evil Vito

08-06-2007, 10:53 AM

<font color=goldenrod>If the split ended, Raw would still be the main show obviously, and Smackdown would be the secondary show. ECW by all means should be re-named Velocity or something because it would probably be used as a means of getting the undercard guys on TV.

One big positive I can see is having to be more selective with who gets used. I mean each show now has a hoss that just kills everything (Snitsky on Raw, Big Titty V on ECW, Mizark on Smackdown), but surely you wouldn't have 3 of essentially the same segment on TV each show, would you?

The thing that is hard to picture though, is now that there are three sets of main eventers/upper midcarders...having to cram them all onto one roster now. Seemingly, some guys will lose their status as upper midcarders because they'd have to be used exclusively in the midcard.

A good example would be MVP. I could see them keeping him as US Champion...but the thing is, the US Title would probably serve the same purpose as the European Title: to be a midcard belt. Because there is no way they would have the US Title be the 2nd belt over the IC Title...JUST because the US Title was a WCW belt.

Similarly, when they unify the world titles...even if World Heavyweight Champion Batista or ECW Champion CM Punk won the match, you know they'd just inexplicably have him carry around the WWE Title while they probably will just put the World Heavyweight and ECW Titles away never to be seen again.</font>

Hanso Amore

08-06-2007, 11:02 AM

Unifying the US and IC belt and having 5 guys chasing that is better than just a few. People would care more about the IC/US combo as it would seem more important, instead of being the number 4 or 5 belt behind the 3 world titles, the US/IC Unified title would be the number 2, and guys like MVP, HArdy, Punk, Nitro Umaga and the other Hardy could all chase it, ahving a few different segments with the mid card guys a week on different shows. Then the World Title would be able to have fresher fued, like in 2000 when Austin, taker, kane, Foley, HHH, Rock, Angle all were around the title in a few month period. Instead of Batista Vs Edge for 4 months. Tag Team would make a come back, because instead of 2 shitty divisions, the top teams would have a few segments a week (instead of splitting time on Raw/Smackdown the division would be a whole) With The Rednecks/Londrick/Throwbacks/Majors/Hillbillies/Cryme Time/WGTT all working around it. it would be just like the Attitude era, which if I remember, was better.

If you dont think there is enough room on one Roster, ask yourself, How did they do it in 1999 with like 6 or 7 Hall of Famers (as opposed to like 2 now) and they had a better mid card then. With less time a week.

They have plenty of time to fill a whole roster in the week (Possibly 6 hours)

It would be great.

Kane Knight

08-06-2007, 11:05 AM

I somehow doubt ECW will be merged in with the other two. At least, not initially.

Mr. Nerfect

08-06-2007, 11:31 AM

Long ago, sure. Do you really see them running a house show on Monday or Tuesday night, though, if there's only one brand? Also, by talking about things ilke "While one can propose that the WWE would just keep the belt on John Cena, and triple his exposure, I think that the three show-schedule would wear him down a lot more...", you're implying that Cena and others don't work the exact same number of events now as they would if this brand split end were to occur.

They wouldn't run house shows on Monday or Tuesday, I'll grant you that much. They could move the shows, or just cut them out entirely.

The WWE Champion would obviously appear on all three shows. He's your money maker, and hence should be on every show. As it stands right now, Cena would appear on RAW and RAW brand house shows. If the brand split were to end, Cena would appear on RAW, ECW, SmackDown! and most house shows.

Mr. Nerfect

08-06-2007, 11:43 AM

Just because they would have one brand doesnt mean everyone will be on 3 times a week. Remember when Smackdown started? Undercard guys were seen at different times, and some stroys only got shown once a week, but the Main stories carried over.

Thank you. You and KK have said what I wanted to say: There won't be too many people getting lost in the shuffle, and most of that has to do with booking, and not time. The WWE will have the exact same time to present storylines a week. Logically the same talent can be used. They just wouldn't be tied down to a brand, and the writers can use whichever talent fits the show best.

Guys like Mark Henry would probably be moved to the back burner, as there are like five unbeatable monsters being pushed at the moment. The WWE would keep Khali, Snitsky has got some guys in the back pushing for him to go further, but Big Daddy V and Mark Henry might find themselves sitting in the back a lot more. Unfortunately, some talented guys might be forced to take backstage roles, or just flat-out released. Tommy Dreamer would probably go back to OVW, Stevie Richards will probably become a trainer or road agent, etc. Those things could work out better, because then they could focus on helping young talent, instead of filling holes in the roster because young guys aren't ready, and because injuries have left a brand looking weak.

KK described it best when he called it a lateral move, at least.

KingofOldSchool

08-06-2007, 11:50 AM

You can unite the brands, split the brands, etc. all you want. In the end it doesn't mean shit if the booking is absolute shit.

IC Champion

08-06-2007, 11:55 AM

I think if they didnt relay on olders guys like HHH, Taker, HBK and even the ones with no track record like Batista hurts the product cause for 1, they are old are more likley to be injured like now with all the fossils on the shelf, the second thing is, how much longer can you expect them to be around, and when they do go who picks up where they left off?

Also, who wants to see Batista week after week chasing the title, when he has no charisma, no mic skills, very little entertainment value, and his work in the ring isnt any better really, and yet, this is Smackdown's #1 face for over 2 years now, sure he gets pops and he has a few fans, but he isn't bring in any new viewers, or going to generate any interest outside of wrestling, hell even inside of wrestling.

KingofOldSchool

08-06-2007, 12:01 PM

No one in the company is bringing in new viewers, it's not just Batista.

Kane Knight

08-06-2007, 12:09 PM

You can unite the brands, split the brands, etc. all you want. In the end it doesn't mean shit if the booking is absolute shit.

It means some things. For example, the roster is no longer going to be lopsided. The only way you hurt for ME stars is if everyone drops dead. And some days, I kinda hope for that. :shifty:

Anyway, it does make a difference. It just doesn't make the difference good writing would make. But then, when you have to devote energy to making strar on a brand for the sake of an artificial divide, it detracts from energhy you could be devoting elsewhere.

IC Champion

08-06-2007, 12:10 PM

No one in the company is bringing in new viewers, it's not just Batista.
Batista was just an example, but yes it pretty much applys to most wrestlers in the company.

BigDaddyCool

08-06-2007, 01:45 PM

I always liked the brand split.

Hanso Amore

08-06-2007, 01:52 PM

Think about this. If ECW merged in, Instead of Seeing a kevin Thorn or big Daddy V squash match, you would get to see Shelton Benjamin, Londrick, Finlay, Chavo or whomever else got lost in the big show shuffle instead. I would rather see that.

Yes there might be some casualties, but honestly, guys Like Umaga would get lost in the mix, but he was never that over, and the only reason he is over at all, is because he was shoved down our throats in main event fueds, and never took off like he should of. Guys like that are only on because they put them out there, not because fans pay to see them. It would only make it better for guys like Hardy and Carlito anyway. Guys like Umaga don't last, how long can his character go anyways. He is not the future. The Wild Samoan mad man gets old...fast.