If the brand-split ended and it was only RAW & PPVs...

[Johnny Vegas]

Would that help with the ratings you think? If so, how? If not, why not? WWE ratings actually depend on what angle is going on throughout the main event scene, but do you think that the brand split ending would force the "best" on RAW and the PPVs? House shows don't count to me because i can't really go to any where i live.

[Destor]

I know this is going to be hard to believe but just trust me. I want to help save Eddie Geuerro. I have a time machine that will allow me to go back in time. What I need from you is to tell me who I can contact that will believe me enough to help save Eddie from his tragic passing. Before you flame me, give me the benefit of the doubt.

[FourFifty]

If you're on drugs, stop right now.
If you're not on drugs, you need to start now.
Seriously, that idea is too stupid to talk about.

[GD]

I would really love to see a solo WWE brand but that would severely affect the new talents and that is what I am against. Lots of talents in the wwe are not getting ppv exposure. Evan Bourne really shocked the fuck out of me with an extremely decent match at cyber sunday.Established wwe talents occupy majority of the ppv and hence guys like mvp, cody rhodes, ted, manu, kendrick, benjamin, carlito, primo and many others are not showcased on ppvs.

[Jeritron]

Well it would put more talent on one show, and it would cause them to prioritize with pushes and spots. The tag division, IC division and the midcard would all be strengthened. There'd be one title, one "brand" and more would go into the creative importance of the one "federation".
Therefore, I feel quality of Raw itself would improve. Would it improve the promotion? That's debatable, and may really depend on whether you prefer brand extension or not.
Personally, I'd prefer the promotion under one tent and the focus directed in that way. It's my belief that this is superior to two seperate mediocre shows that detract from eachother.
Some people would prefer 4 hours of television a week with as many wrestlers and titles as possible, and different "leagues".
I'd just like a better wrestling show, and kayfabe to mean more.

So, from where I stand, the product would be improved. Therefore, ratings would likely improve. The only problem is even if the ratings doubled (which they likely still wouldn't), it would be a wash. They'd be losing one show and 2 hours of self promotion, and sponsors.
In terms of business and ratings it wouldn't help.

But that really is none of my concern, since I'm a viewer and don't dellude myself into caring further than that. I only should care about the product, and what would make it more watchable to me.
So, I'd be happy if this happened.

[Xero]

There's no doubt the quality would be improved and ratings, in the short term, would improve, but the midcard and below would be destroyed. In five years there wouldn't be enough new talent to fill the void of current talent who leave an active role for one reason or another. There's no way WWE can condense everything to one show.

It's not the lack of undercard talent that's the problem, it's the abundance of high card talent.

[Jeritron]

Well they couldn't condense everything or you'd literally have main eventers without room to fit on the card. They'd have to cut the fat.
That means, future endeavors for established names. That's just not going to happen.
But this is all hypothetical.

As of right now, it'd be hard to do. A couple years ago, it would have been much easier. They'd need to use half established talent, and half up and coming talent.

[Destor]

The real problem they would run inot is the ego's being crushed. They have so much main event talent that by making just one brand obviously some of their current top guys would find themselves fueding over the IC title, and guys like Batista just aren't going to dig that.

If you asked me what would happen in this scenrio my response would be simple: TNA would have A LOT of top talent.

[Jeritron]

You'd literally have to release draws to make the show work. Not Droz, like they already did.

Basically, you could improve the show. You'd also be improving the competitions show though.

[Destor]

Not even that, top draws would be leaving you. It would be a TERRIBLE move to go to one show.

[Jeritron]

It would given everything. But I still think WWE would be better off if it wasn't brand split. Basically they're in a bed that has to be slept in now. I agree completely that they can't go back overnight.

[Destor]

They should have never done it to begin with, no doubt. But the situation remains.

[Jeritron]

The only way it could be solved, that I can think of, is one of two things.

A) For some reason tons of their talent retire, or diminshes for various reasons and they're in a prime position where merging the shows makes sense and wouldn't result in any significant losses or depushes. Very unlikely.

B) Another rival promotion slowly becomes big enough that it's stealing established talent and getting the good indy guys. Pretty much like WCW in 1996.
This would leave WWE weakened and ending brand extension would be logical, and probably even neccesary.

That's about it though. As is, it's not happening.

[parkmania]

Vince is actually smart by keeping the brand extension going at this point.

By ending the split, as has been said by others, WWE would have to "future endeavor" approximately half of its talent. That would mean that those names would be available to go to TNA, ROH, or any other organization. That then strengthens the drawing power of those other organizations, and makes them more of a threat to WWE's power base. By keeping all these workers under contract, Vince is making a good business decision.

[NeanderCarl]

WWE ratings actually depend on what angle is going on throughout the main event scene

Vince? Is that you?

(They don't, by the way)

[NeanderCarl]

I think the brand split can be a confusing concept for new viewers and lowers the accessibility factor of the company.

The WWE could blatantly still keep the same number of guys under contract that they have now. I think at some point during the 80s, they had around 200+ wrestlers on the books and would run 3 touring groups concurrently. And that was without three first-run, competitive match orientated shows per week. They had a couple of one hour shows mainly featuring squash matches (therefore only one "star" per match), yet guys still stayed over, got TV time (and it seemed like a special occasion when they did) and they meant something.

Even if merging the brands meant a bunch of going-nowhere midcarders get released, then so what? They were never going to make it without a change of scenary anyway, it would probably be the best thing for their future prospects.

As for "stars" (in the current sense of the word) getting released and going to TNA, well that's a good thing too. Either it reinforces TNA's reputation as a second rate company full of WWE cast-offs, or it provides WWE some genuine competition and gives the business a kick up the arse. Either way benefits the McMahons.

[NeanderCarl]

Plus, if they didn't feature, say, Batista EVERY SINGLE WEEK on Raw, then a bigger deal could be made when he did actually wrestle a match. You know, maybe it would draw a rating or a PPV buy.

Hulk Hogan was always busy during his heyday out on the road with WWE, but when do you ever remember him wrestling on Superstars or Prime Time? I know I very rarely remember seeing it. Having your top guys very rarely wrestle on free TV gives the impression they are a bigger deal (you have to PAY to see THIS guy). Maybe in the modern era (both in wrestling and ratings-obsessed TV land) not ever having Bats or Cena or Trips wrestle on TV is impractical... but if they only showed up every couple of weeks, it allows them to draw feuds and storylines out longer, promote their appearances as big-deals before hand and makes their appearances more "unmissable" for their fans.

[Johnny Vegas]

When i meant ratings depend on the angle of the main event scene, i.e. Austin/Vince, Rock/Austin, Who hit Stone Cold. I mean, people aren't going to tune in strictly for cruiserweight matches and IC title bouts, though they do help to get the people to the next level. I mean HHH/Steiner saw ratings drop. Why? It was the main event scene and it WASN'T interesting. I mean, no punchline dude. If a guy is popular enough to gather raings, he WILL be in the main event scene.

[NeanderCarl]

If a guy is popular enough to gather raings, he WILL be in the main event scene.

Build a time machine, go back to 2001, and have a word with Rob Van Dam.

[Johnny Vegas]

If he was that popular, then the ratings would have shown it. He was there for a while. Now even though he may have been used poorly, if he is THAT popular, it wouldn't have matter, right?

[Kane Knight]

I know this isn't quite the main point, but I think one of the best things that could come out of the brand split ending is that talent would have a lot more time to heal. You don't need to have the same like, four main eventers on every show, month after month. I know this won't directly affect ratings, but it might still have an effect in a couple of ways. One, you can keep the ME scene fresher without calling up jobbers.

The other is that people have time to heal, and there will be fewer guys getting injured at bad times. That means less scrambling and you "best" guys on tap.

For the most part, though, ratings aren't going to be the big issue with a change.

Also, JV, you're being really naive in your assumptions.

[Xero]

If he was that popular, then the ratings would have shown it. He was there for a while. Now even though he may have been used poorly, if he is THAT popular, it wouldn't have matter, right?

People love The Rock. If they brought him back, never had him promo and had him jobbing in five minute squashes to the likes of Snitsky would fans still watch for him?

[Johnny Vegas]

But RVD wasn't known for his promos. Now the jobbing in five minutes, ok.

All i'm saying is when the WWE/F was at its peak, its because people like The Rock, Austin, Foley, Angle, HHH and such were in such ENTERTAINING angles and fueds. Take the HHH/Angle/Steph angle. That was gold. The nWo. Platinum. And it was the "main event" scene and the ratings reflected the angles. The "higher power", WCW/WWE/ECW angle. These were all ANGLES/STORYLINES. I'm not saying that people that aren't in the main event aren't contributing or don't matter, but the main event is why people buy tickets and sit there for 2+ hours.

lol You guys are getting a little too in-depth with what i was trying to say.

[Xero]

There's a difference between claiming the wrestler only matters...

if he is THAT popular, it wouldn't have matter, right?

And claiming the angle is what matters...

[Johnny Vegas]

lol

You guys are the ones bringing in examples of RVD and The Rock. I was actually being somewhat sarcastic with that comment. But it is the angle that is tunning people in. A wrestler's popularity definitely has some affect on who the fans want to tune in to see. But that can only go so far if let's say that there were no type of storylines, angles, drama, etc. in this age. I don't think the casual fans would stay if they saw JUST wrestling in and out, no matter how popular the person/wrestler is. I just think people outside of die-hard fans determine if the ratings are going to go to that next level. And they want to see the extra shit outside of the wrestling...which sucks sometimes in a way, but i guess thats why they call it WWE...well, thats not really the reason but, ya know.