No, I save it for people who are especially stupid, like the twats who think it's necessary to point out, in an instance of speculation, that it's "your opinion." That's obvious, unneccessary, and stupid. If that's your only argument, then you don't have an argument. Of course it's my opinion, that's understood by the intelligent folks.

Except every argument you can make about the roster split is true of the roster unified. I love how you sneak in that , "well, not everyone will give it a chance..." but that's just bullshit. You're basically backing up an unfounded, dishonest (perhaps unintentionally) point of view by trying to pin the blame on the other guy.

Trust me. The same was true for the people who said the roster split was a good idea. They, amazingly, managed to make similar statements to you that SUPPORTED the roster split. Cena/Umaga is not because of a roster issue, it's because WWE is pushing Umaga. We've had talentless fucks and old hasbeens suck up the shows when they were together AND when they were split, so that's a pointless argument. The right wrestlers who will shine? You'll see Cena/Umaga on two shows, because to the WWE, they are the right wrestlers.

Really, all your points are silly and myopic. Like they'd do anything different. We've seen that's not really the case.

Oh, right, but I'm sure this time it'll all work out.

lol like someone stated before, everyone argument or fact stated against yours is silly, immature, stupid, etc. Instead of bashing people, why not have a civilized debate/discussion. I forgot, this is KK we're talking about lol.

Anyway, other than shove Hulk Hogan, The Rock, or another big name down our throats, i propose that is the right solution for this time. Umaga is being pushed because he is the right wrestler...Yea, for a dull roster. The roster split was thought to be a smart move during that time, but as we can see, that is one reason for the loss of viewers. lol i mean seriously, i think ending the roster split is a legit reason, as i stated above. I am not repeating myself. Seeing as everyone gets mad when you do this, i can't, because all i have to do it look at Chavo Classic's sig :cool:

I bet you it will bring better ratings and more revenue than it the WWE is gaining now. I would bet money on that. (waiting for criticism of post)

How long ago did the roster split happen? And it's just now affecting the ratings? I doubt it. The shitty product is a much more realistic explanation. Combining the rosters isn't going to accomplish anything more than mucking things up even further. More talent will get buried if Cena, Umaga, DX, etc. appear on both shows, which they inevitably will.

Who will get buried that shouldn't be? Realistically speaking. If we are going to talk about people getting buried, we should use KK's opinion in that that, historically, wrestlers getting buried have been in wrestling for years.

The thing is KK you act like your opinion is the only one that matters and bash everyone elses as retarded or whatever. So i felt I had to point it out, call me names if you must, if it makes you feel any better.

It's not so much who they have on the roster now (because a lot of them do need to be buried), but the time that they will allow themselves to build completely new stars. If the old faces are busy trying to make waves on Mondays and Fridays, that leaves a lot less time for the undercard to grow and improve. I see it causing the WWE to stagnate even further, which is the last thing that they need.

3 years, and its been a problem since after the first year i would say. They've lost around a million viewers during that time, so its obviously not working anymore.Your point about wrestlers getting buried ridiculous though, wrestlers get buried regardless of whether there's a roster split or not. Plus it would force them to work a lot harder than they're now, and now there's ECW, anyone important who gets lost in the shuffle could be sent there.

As much as i hate good talent being buried and 'old' faces being on the screen, you have maintain a level of "We are the best company" quality. If that means that you have to have familiar faces mainstreaming for a while, then so be it. I do not want to see Triple H burying a GOOD contender for the main event status, but i do believe that the dead weight will be obviously displayed. I know right now, Triple H is probably telling Vince "see what happens when the title is off of me", but even he can't boost the ratings by himself.

I just think that ending the roster split will make people "get on the grind" and try their best to be on the show. One thing that the WWE needs to do better in the future if they do end the roster split is to LISTEN TO THE FANS' REACTION(S). If Cena is getting booed, time to make him a heel. However, if a heel is getting cheers DOES NOT mean that you have to turn him. For every legit heel, there has to be a legit face.

Again, with the little conspiracies.

Sorry you're tapped out in terms of an actual argument, so you have to resort to the "Well everyone who disagrees with you is..."

Sorry. doesn't work that way. It doesn't take much to see that, either.

Umaga is the right wrestler for a dull roster or for a roster where Vince is in charge. The two are one and the same.

The problem is, you're making excuses. People like you have gotten themselves all worked up, making excuses for the product. This detracts from the real issue, which is lack of creativity. You're still being an enabler here, because you act like "oh, well things would improve if..."

...Except we have so much evidence to the contrary.

Vince and creative chose to bring Umaga in, and push him to the moon. This would not have changed with a unified roster, nor will it change if the roster was unified. It's pure fantasy to claim otherwise.

And I know. This is all part of the KK Konspiracy, where everybody is (insert whatever it is)....You keep believing that, it's all you really need to tell yourself, but the emperor has no clothes, my friend.

It's worth noting that WWE has botched Orton. They've botched Cena. They've botched potentially the biggest things in pro wrestling this time. They've had some potentially large stars that have basically fallen to the flaws of the WWE machine. To say that the problem is with a divided roster is to basically ignore the fact that they cannot handle their talent, and have squandered the talent that they have to work with. The lackluster rosters are due to that, not to some far-fetched ideal.

The same is true with ECW. What did they start to do when the ratings weren't up to par? Yup. They emphasised the part of the program that was shittiest.

Occam's Razor.

I simply don't see where the fresh ideas are going to come from. End the roster split and you are just making more time for the Raw feuds. Can you honestly believe that Kendrick & London would get any decent TV time? That Chavo Guerrero would have any place on the 2 shows? Going back to one roster/2 shows would put it back to how it was originally. 2 shows with the same feuds, just more drawn out. Just because you have a larger roster doesn't neccessarily mean (in the eyes of the writers) that it's going to be any better. In fact, it would be worse. Seeing Orton/Edge/Cryme Time/Cena twice a week, out of HAVING to watch both shows simply to stay with storylines doesn't attract me at all. You wouldn't be left with new ideas, just Raw twice a week. Which is, at the moment, a show of rehashed ideas and poor writing for the newer ones.

But with each post, you are coming more and more round to my way of thinking. Raw isn't the best that it can be at all, it's a million miles away. I can't see how you can still justify your stance by basically saying that a Cryme Time/DX skit and one 'feud' make it a good show. I still don't even class the IC title matches as a 'feud'. Next week is a ladder match, that after 2 matches/2 title changes in 2 weeks. They are running out of ideas for this feud, and the only emotion shown in it was several months ago when Jeff Hardy looked at a wall of drying paint. After a program on and off for those several months and 3 title changes between the pair, suddenly, according to you, it's just heating up. Something wrong in that.

If I was writing the Nitro/Hardy program, I would have announced 3 weeks ago that they were having a best-of-5 series. Including the Survivor Series match (where the one eliminated first would lose), and culminating in the ladder match the Monday after the SS with Hardy going over. This gives it a slight emotional edge, and could even start the threads for Nitros next feud, as HBK could have eliminated him at Survivor Series, leading him to align with Edge & Orton. Instead we have a pointless run of matches which have the same old thing every week.

The matches you list are all well and good, but the amount of people involved, can you really see it happening in 4 hours of time? Especially when you include your obligatory DX skits, Cryme Time rehashes, Vince McMahon promos, Marine trailers and Masterlock challenges?

Just as I could never see a roster split working, now it's done, I can't see it ever being undone. Hell, they had to 'recreate' ECW to move some 'dead weights' to, simply to get them to earn their wage.

Sounds like some sort of slasher movie.

Obviously wrestlers are getting buried either way; that's the nature of the business. But you can limit the amount of talent that is wasted by putting more of them on TV. The roster split affords them the ability to do that. As much as I was and am still opposed to it, the WWE is in pretty deep with this roster split business and fixing it is going to be much more difficult than simply combining them together again.

I'm sure they could fit them all into a 2 hour show, and send the rest who get left out to ecw, especially when they will have both raw and smackdown to use them on, ending the roster split will mean less squash matches, that's for sure. I just think you're just exaggerating to make your point seem logical tbh. It worked back in the day, so why can't it work now? Think about it for a bit.

I could be wrong on this one and am far too lazy to research the numbers, but I'm fairly sure that WWE employs more in-ring talent now than they did in the past. So obviously somebody's going to have to lose TV time if the rosters are combined. And shoving them onto ECW won't do much good. They've already got more people on that roster than they utilize.

But this time it'll be different.

No, seriously, for the most part you're right. Compared the the amount of programming, this is more talent than they would otherwise employ. Once people are on both shows again, the TV time is reduced, and the need for wrestlers is reduced.

People will lose TV time, and it'll be to an extra DX segment, an extra Undertaker or Batista segment, or an extra Cena/Choomaga segment. It's totally naïve to think otherwise.

If they gave ECW a 2 hour time slot aswell then it wouldn't be a problem. But regardless of how many wrestlers they employ these days, there's a lot of them that i don't give a shit about and certainly wouldn't miss if they lost their tv time. They could always bring back stables aswell, that would help deal with the problem.

OMG this is such a stupid arguement. Anyone who's been a wrestling fan for 10 years or more, can see that things in wwe are more terrible than they've ever been.

Yeah, what Fignuts said. This is easily the worst the WWE has ever been.

Or, more likely, they could bury and/or fire most of the people who are neither Cena nor DX.

CM Punk sucks */heel heat*

i haven't tapped out of an argument, i am just not going to repeat myself, nor continue to debate with someone who critcizes another because he or she disagrees with him. And i am not resorting to anything, merely stating the OBVIOUS lol. Conspiracies? I call them opinions and ways i think the show could improve if the roster split ended. And i am amazed that you know for certain that Umaga was going to be pushed regardless. You never told me you worked for the WWE.

Like i stated before, the WWE in my opinion has done decently with what they have. This is certainly NOT the worse the WWE has seen. I can't even begin to bring back countless rants and arguments concerning 2002.

Again, I'm not criticising you because I disagree with you.

I am criticising you because of the actual content of your argument.

And because you seem to dense to comprehend the difference.

I know it's easy to cwy about the big bad kk, and shed widdle teaws, but honestly, you then have to ignore anyone I disagree with without condemning. And yes, I know you will play the "but there's nobody on that list" card.

...Why? Because it's easier for you to be full of shit than to actually come up with a reasonable argument.

Wow. It was pretty clear I was talking about something else. Do you NEED to make things up just to have something to come back with?

AWWW SNAP! Ya got me...By arbitrarily making it sound like my comments on your statements about me were really about your opinions on WWE and the roster split.

ok Kane Knight

last weeks smackdown was one of the best in quite awhile, the regal match was very good, plus mvp did not look as awful as before

What does that have to do with anything?

Yes, it did fair pretty well. And it'll probably be the best show for a long time to come. The problem is that odds say it will be crap the next time around. Anytime the WWE does a good job on a show, they turn right around and completely fuck it up. They continue to get worse and worse, and every once and a blue moon they manage to put out a good show.

It's been on a downward spiral for years now, and it's most likely not going to get any better in the long haul. Why am I so negative about it? Because I've watched it for years, and it's never been looking as bad as it does right now. Unless something drastically changes (No, I don't count hiring more talentless bimbos as a drastic change OR something good for the product), then it will continue to slowly snuff out. And I don't see anything that will cause WWE to take a turn for the better coming for a long time...if even at all.

Kane Knight is like this old man that snaps if you try to talk to him. Solution? Don't.

Or just take him head on, and don't take what he says personally. I've lost a few arguments with him since joining up here, and been called a few choice names. But who gives a fuck? We've agreed on a few other things, and it all evens out.

But, oh yeah, fuck KK.:shifty:

I still haven't really had a disagreement with KK. You guys must be doing something wrong.

Oh, yeah, I know, I've agreed with KK on many occasions, too. But to be called a fucking retard out of nowhere is something I'd expect from a noob, not him.

Being a masshole, you should probably be used to it. :p

But seriously, what most people seem to be intelligent enough to get is that this is not a serious word for me. In fact, my use of it on this board directly ties to sledge's little blowup in 5 forums at once. You're "special," so I'll explain this for you. Most people get it, after they see me bust out "retard" in one thread, and then go back to normal discussion, even with the same person. Hmmm...It's almost like...

Nah. Obviously, I'm just snapping at people. There's no other explanation.

In your case, you're a hypocrite. There's a pretty good chance you're just not smart enough to see why, and that's why you seem to be whining about me. I ignored your remarks towards me for a long time, and only really started saying anything back after you had the balls to whine about me like a hypocrite. In your case, if you want, I can mean it when I call you "retarded." Will it make you feel better?

Very well then. I'll help you nail yourself to a cross like the fucking martyr you are.

Are you STUPID? This is the internet...SERIOUS business! Of course you have to take it personally!

Fucking retard. :roll:

I AM NOT A RETARD. :mad:

Talk about hook, line, sinker, the lake, the bait shop, and the small boat!

:rofl:

LOL, yeah, KK, it's not the use of the word "retard" that bothers me. But of course if you had an ounce of intelligence in that worthless little brain of yours, you would've figured that out by now. (See what I did there? I pulled a KK!)

It's not the word that bothers me, it's the fact that you feel the need to resort to name-calling to get your point across. Quite sad, really.