"Switch" week...

[Xero]

Yeah, I know the brand extension doesn't matter and guys are free to go wherever, but I think it'd be cool if they did a week where they held Monday Night SmackDown! and Friday Night RAW. Basically the setups for the shows would be the opposite brand with graphics and everything, with that brand's talent and storylines being the focus.

Especially with the SyFy move coming up, I think it'd be a good idea to get SmackDown! some exposure and expose the SD audience to RAW.

I'd imagine the one thing keeping this back would be WWE being afraid to hurt the ratings, but if they built it up for a few weeks it could work pretty well.

In fact, I think it'd be cool if they did this into Bragging Rights, and it would fit the gimmick.

Thoughts?

[Anybody Thrilla]

If they did it around Bragging Rights, definitely. Otherwise, I dunno.

[Kane Knight]

I don't think it would work in WWE. most of the dominant stars wouldn't like being subs....Oh, wrong "switch."

[Poit]

I like the idea.

[Nicky Fives]

I love the idea.....

[VSG]

Well it might just happen this week :P

[dronepool]

I like it.

[Kane Knight]

Well it might just happen this week :P

I wouldn't count on it, honestly.

[Team Sheep]

Would be awesome. I've imagined this happening in the past actually. Gives me a boner.

[Joesgonnakillyou]

I just don't really see the point, what would it acheive?

[VSG]

I wouldn't count on it, honestly.

For sure the Raw guys are in trouble while SM! will be on US soil soon if not already. Whatever Vince decides, this week will be very interesting..

[Kane Knight]

For sure the Raw guys are in trouble while SM! will be on US soil soon if not already. Whatever Vince decides, this week will be very interesting..

The simpler solution, though certainly not ideal from a fan perspective, is to put on a clip show or similar. And while it might not directly apply to you, wishing for something does not make it more viable.

Lot of people on TPDub seem to think otherwise. It's not their fault; it seems to be a common condition in our culture. It seems to be even stronger in sports (and sports entertainment) fans.

If they do switch, great. I get to see Smackdown wrestlers in HD for once, instead of as blurry blocks. Regardless of what I want, need, or wish, I stand by "don't hold your breath."

Or as Noid would put it, "Kane Knight thinks it will never, ever, ever happen!"

[VSG]

Its not just the matter of being simpler, they have not had the run-in to Extreme Rules required yet. I am still of the opinion that clips and replays will be a bad move as far as buys for the ppv go.

[Hanso Amore]

Its not a bad idea. Create Synergy and for people like me that don't watch smackdown they can show me why I should be watching.

[Kane Knight]

And while it might be, that doesn't mean they won't go the simpler route. This is WWE. You can pretend they share your sensibilities or you can be realistic and assume they don't.q

[Xero]

You seem to ignore the fact that WWE has a major arena booked for RAW and a responsibility for new content on the network. They can't just up and cancel that when they have an entire roster at the ready.

[VSG]

I am sure unforeseen events are part of such contracts, I know they are for minor league events let alone national tv.

[VSG]

Its not a bad idea. Create Synergy and for people like me that don't watch smackdown they can show me why I should be watching.

Wait a sec!

[Kane Knight]

You seem to ignore the fact that WWE has a major arena booked for RAW and a responsibility for new content on the network. They can't just up and cancel that when they have an entire roster at the ready.

You seem to forget what happened when say, Chris Benoit died.

You seem to think that Vince and WWE have the business savvy and limited imagination of a 15 year old posting shitty photoshop images on the internet.

I'm not ignoring that they have an arena booked or contractual obligations, but I'm not treating them as cast in stone because I'm not, you know, retarded. This is exactly the sort of thing that contracts exempt.

[Xero]

They have an entire roster that has no commitment that night, and the entire roster is within 20 minutes of the arena. You honestly think they'd refund and lose out on ALL that money to run a recap show instead of just inserting some SD matches between remote RAW interviews?

WWE lost a lot on the Benoit RAW. It would be fucking stupid business-wise to shut them out when they don't have to.

[The Gold Standard]

It seems highly likely that it will be Monday Night Raw Presents Smackdown!

[Kane Knight]

It seems highly likely that it will be Monday Night Raw Presents Smackdown!

Especially with no mention or promotion of it....

[dronepool]

Especially with no mention or promotion of it....

"Anything can happen here in the WWE universe"

Let them prove it.

[Kane Knight]

Well, Cena did job to a Volcano....

[Xero]

Just put Darren Young in White Face.

[owenbrown]

I don't think it would work in WWE. most of the dominant stars wouldn't like being subs....Oh, wrong "switch."

lol

Well, Cena did job to a Volcano....

waitaminute...everyone knows Cena never jobs he "overcomes the odds". He'd probably no-sell the volcano anyway

[The Gold Standard]

Especially with no mention or promotion of it....

It is extreme circumstances. They can do what they want. It would be a nice surprise anyway.

Why are you so against this idea?

[tjmidnight420]

Hey guys I just thought of something:
For the sake of this post, lets just put shit aside and say that they do put Smackdown! on tomorrow night. I wonder what Vince and Co. would think if it drew quite a bit more viewers than Raw does on average? I'm still of the opinion that it's the better brand, so is that too much of a stretch? What do you think the reaction would be if it drew higher ratings than, say, the Stone Cold guest host show?

[The Gold Standard]

I think it is the better show. However, I think it wouldn't do anything. Vince would just see it as a Raw getting more ratings because it is a special show. IMO.

[Xero]

It won't.

[The Gold Standard]

It won't.

I am pretty sure anyone would want to watch Smackdown before TNA. Especially with the shitty ending Lockdown had tonight.

[Xero]

I think that the RAW, and especially Cena fans, would tune out. I do honestly believe there's at least a 1 difference between the RAW and SD fans.

It would technically be the better show, but without a proper build well in advanced I can't see it getting better than an average RAW.

[The Gold Standard]

Alright I guess you are right. However, with the proper build, I think it could get a better rating.

[Xero]

I completely agree.

[south776]

Moreso than any other factor is the fact that this is the go home show right before a PPV. There is a zero percent chance they would show a clip show.

[tjmidnight420]

I think it is the better show. However, I think it wouldn't do anything. Vince would just see it as a Raw getting more ratings because it is a special show. IMO.

Thanks for your take, Gold. That was exactly what I was asking. :y:

[The Gold Standard]

Moreso than any other factor is the fact that this is the go home show right before a PPV. There is a zero percent chance they would show a clip show.

Did not even think about that. Makes it even more of a chance SD is the show that is on.

Funny thing is, this is all a moot point if the Raw superstars get back on time.

[Kane Knight]

It is extreme circumstances. They can do what they want. It would be a nice surprise anyway.

Why are you so against this idea?

Don't be stupid.

I'm not sure why people mistake pragmatism for opposition, but I've already explained that if it happens, cool.

Saying that it's probable, or "highly likely" in your case flies in the face of what's going on.

It's "highly likely" that WWE would advertise such a drastic change, especially on their website. It's "Highly likely" that WWE would go the more efficent route (from their perspective). It's "highly likely" WWE would choose to impact one show instead of potentially two.

There is almost no reason for them to do otherwise, except for "I want it to happen" or "I'm too thick to understand contractual agreements, so WWE legal must be as well!"

This in no way means I'm "against" the idea. This also in no way means I think it can't happen, won't happen, or is in any other practical way impossible. If probability favoring one result over another was conclusive, there would be no such thing as gambling and Bah Gawd, I was born and baptised into the Boston sports scene. If rooting for the Sox against 80 years of loss doesn't prove I'll hope against the odds, nothing will.

Or, as Noid (and evidently you) would put it, "Kane Knight hates the idea and guarantees it will never ever happen."

[Mr. Nerfect]

Or as Noid would put it, "Kane Knight thinks it will never, ever, ever happen!"

LOL, why would I put it like that? That doesn't mention Val Venis.

I have thought about something like a one-week roster switch before, actually. I think it would be an interesting experiment. Creatively, I'd love it -- but would it achieve anything business-wise? It might give the guys going to SmackDown! some bigger stars to cheer, and it might give the SmackDown! guys some more exposure, I guess. It'd be the WWE product supporting itself in no really massive way.

But creatively is how the idea becomes really interesting. Do the writing teams remain the same? It'd be interesting to see Michael Hayes either book the RAW guys in the SmackDown! slot or the SmackDown! guys in the RAW slot. I believe that the RAW roster has just as much talent as the SmackDown! roster (although RAW does not have the abs of John Morrison), so I'd be really intrigued to see how they are used under Michael Hayes' book.

[The Gold Standard]

Don't be stupid.

I'm not sure why people mistake pragmatism for opposition, but I've already explained that if it happens, cool.

Saying that it's probable, or "highly likely" in your case flies in the face of what's going on.

It's "highly likely" that WWE would advertise such a drastic change, especially on their website. It's "Highly likely" that WWE would go the more efficent route (from their perspective). It's "highly likely" WWE would choose to impact one show instead of potentially two.

There is almost no reason for them to do otherwise, except for "I want it to happen" or "I'm too thick to understand contractual agreements, so WWE legal must be as well!"

This in no way means I'm "against" the idea. This also in no way means I think it can't happen, won't happen, or is in any other practical way impossible. If probability favoring one result over another was conclusive, there would be no such thing as gambling and Bah Gawd, I was born and baptised into the Boston sports scene. If rooting for the Sox against 80 years of loss doesn't prove I'll hope against the odds, nothing will.

Or, as Noid (and evidently you) would put it, "Kane Knight hates the idea and guarantees it will never ever happen."

This is something you can't really advertise because it is a special case, however, I see your point and I just saw on wwe.com they are advertising it now as Smackdown invading Raw this week. So, it is being advertised.

Maybe the reason I came to the conclusion about your opinion was because you are a Sox fan and I am a Yankees fan, so we can't get along lol. Just kidding.

[Xero]

So it's confirmed that SD is taking over RAW.