TV Title
 

I think that the Tag Team Title unification has been pretty successful. It allows for wrestlers to get a lot of exposure on both Raw and Smackdown.

The same could be done with the Intercontinental and US Titles but, I think a new Television Title would be a better idea. Attach the gimmick that the wrestler would have to defend his title on every Raw, Smackdown and Superstars episode.

Give it to a guy like R-Truth who you're never going to give a giant push but, who is incredibly over and you got yourself a People's champ situation.

Proposed TV Champs:
R-Truth
Bryan Danielson
Primo
Cody Rhodes
Evan Bourne
Zack Ryder
Yoshi

Give 'em 4-5 month reigns interupted by 3-4 week heel reigns with guys like Miz, Kozlov and Dolph to shake things up. Pretty straight-forward formula.

It would be great for a TV Title division but they are already flooded with championship belts. And half those championship lost credibility. If they wouldn't of added the US belt and the Divas belt I would of loved to see the TV and even the return of the cruisherweight title.

If there really are too many belts, the US and Intercontinental titles could be unified. They're open-weight belts after all (unlike the X-Cruiserweight Title in TNA)

I like the idea of a TV title. Personally I don't see it taking credibility from any other belts, and even if it does it isn't like WWE would really care if they could make a good story with it to entertain people. I mean shoot, the guest hosts take credibility away from wrestling all the time but still gets them viewers. I just don't know if a TV title would net them more viewers though since they can't come up with interesting stories about the lower belts for the most part anyways. I'd personally still like it though.

It might sell them more merchandise.

Nah
 

I disagree. WCW had alot of belts but they built decent storylines around them.

So I like a lot of belts.

They should bring back the Hardcore Title, Crusierweight title, European Titles and defend them on each program.

Everytime I think of the European Title, I think of Al Snow and Steven Regal brawling it out and the whole Censorship angle.

They don't even need real storylines. They could mimic RVD's title reign in ECW. He just wrestled all-comers and enjoyed his success. Not that difficult to pull off with a fan-favorite who knows how to wrestle.

:y:

I like this idea. :y:

I wouldn't mind seeing a unification b/w the US and the IC titles. Could you imagine WWE introducing a WWE Universe Championship instead of naming it the TV title? That would be random.

Uh... Okay? :shifty:

I like the TV Title as well... I also miss the European Championship belt... Someone ahad a good idea to bring that back a little while ago...

That was a joke buddy.

The Naked Mideon Championship: a gold fanny pack. Can only be defended in Tuxedo Matches.

Adam Evans can wear it!

Here's how I would make room for the TV title in WWE...

Unify both World Heavyweight Championships and unify both Womens' Championships, like they did with the Tag Team Championships, and change their style of booking and hiring talent to really raise the value of the titles and introduce a TV title then.

Are there really enough transvestites in wrestling to merit it?

no jobbers allowed

And reffed by Big Dick Johnson

I would like to see the US and IC titles unified. I just think it's stupid as hell to have so many belts that there isn't room on the card to defend them at major PPVs like the Rumble, but I'm suppposed to give a shit that someone's the champion.

Plus by adding a t.v. title you can give guys like Evan Bourne, Cody, Primo, Zack Ryder, and Kofi (when he's pissed Randy off and Randy wants to punish him), and Shelton when he returns (for the 11 month downtime between those MITB Wrestlemania matches) a chance to have exposure and establish themselves as more than enhancement talent to the fans.

I am ALL for unifying the World Heavyweight Champ & WWE champ belts... Though I am probably in the minority...

Well, at least, there's someone that agrees with me.

I love the idea, but having a TV Title match on every show doesn't really work for me..... make the stip that they have to defend it on 2 out of 3 shows a week and I would be fine with it..... having a 2 minute match on Raw between Zack Ryder & Primo would most certainly seemed rushed, where as if they had say a 10-minute match on Superstars, it would be much more effective

<font color=goldenrod>I like this idea. Only change I'd make is keep it strictly Raw and SmackDown only. If you make the champ defend the belt on all three shows every week, they'd have to pull a doubleheader every Tuesday. That can definitely take its toll.</font>

Match Specific Championships - Belts to determine who actually is the champion of the ladder match, Hell in a Cell, Inferno match, etc. One title is unified when when the General Manager schedules Buff Bagwell to meet Igor Warowitz in the Pole Championship match.

i agree with bringin back the tv title but it should only be defended twice a week varying between the 3 shows. it would give the lower and mid card wrestlers something to do instead of just bein seen standing backstage.

The IC and US title were unified at one point however since raw and smackdown are seperate brands they kinda had to seperate however if they do bring the TV title back then they might once again unify them

There are enough belts if they were to go that route they should simply unify the US and IC championships and sub it with this perhaps and have defended on both shows like you said.

I marked out for the 24/7 hardcore belt. Which they could bring back something similar. Crash Holly in the arcade=lol

TOO MANY TITLES ALREADY!?!

What im really waiting for ex. say team up the IC and US or WWE and WHC as like a stable (sorta like the Two-man Power Trip)

Do the Texas Bullrope, Four Corners, etc. matches all count as one?

No. The Texas Bullrope is different from the Brahma Bullrope. They're entirely different ropes. One is even a chain.

They had a title kind of like the one you're describing. It was called the ECW Title. And it didn't really work to build new stars.

A new TV Title could be cool, but probably for all of about 2 months before the creative team forgets about it and it loses all meaning. New titles are only effective if the superstars winning them are built up strong. Remember when Chris Benoit and Booker T had that best of 7 series over the TV Title back in WCW? That's how you build a division and build new stars. When's the last time we had a seriously good mid-card/lower-card feud that featured good matches? MVP/Matt? Umaga/Jeff? And even those guys were upper mid-carders.

I'm all about giving the lower card a bigger push and more prestige on the card, but I don't think a title is going to be the thing that makes this happen.

I've thought about something like this for a while. I can see so many benefits to the idea. I think I first started liking it when The Miz and John Morrison were showing up on whatever show they wanted to because of some situation they were in. I think it was because they were World Tag Team Champions on RAW while being part of ECW, but there was the talent exchange between ECW and SmackDown!? I can't really remember. But basically the idea was that they got so much exposure from it, and really earned their stripes.

Something like a TV Title would serve the exact same purpose. A guy who holds it gets to appear on both RAW and SmackDown! until he loses the title. I don't think credibility of the title would be a problem. I've never really bought that "too many championships ruin things." I think it depends how the titles are booked. For example, I think SmackDown! could introduce a tertiary title and still get away with it, because the IC Title is treated with respect and gets high placing, so there is that lower-card/mid-card availability there for guys like JTG, Shad Gaspard or even a Dolph Ziggler or Cody Rhodes.

A TV Title wouldn't really run into the problem of being treated like shit, because it would come built-in with the concept that it MUST be defended. That means the champion is always wrestling, and if they're a good worker, that will work. More so than the other titles, I think it would work as a belt closer to a "legitimate" sports title. Just because a guy who is TV Champion for a long time would have been defending the title twice a week, giving them a streak. The storylines don't really need to be deep, either. The booking is simple -- "I want to be TV Champion. Now I am TV Champion. See you more often as I keep my title."

I don't think it would place lowly compared to other titles, either. I think it would be in a world of its own. The exposure would almost be the point, and the WWE is only going to give that to someone they have faith in, or really want to get over. The perfect TV Champion, in my mind, is The Miz. It would suit him so perfectly. Then you would also get guys getting it so they could appear on both shows and help out. Chris Jericho, John Morrison, CM Punk (spreading the Straight-Edge message), R-Truth and Kofi Kingston come to mind. None of them is in a weak position. Evan Bourne could be the champion, and work longer matches on SmackDown! while still being the piece of advertisement they have him as on RAW, and even he would not make a bad champion.

But if they did this, they should absolutely keep the US and IC Titles separate, or else what is the point? Being TV Champion should be about getting that special priviledge to appear on both brands as a singles star. I also think that the title should only be defended on RAW and SmackDown!, though. Leave Superstars and NXT out of it. It'd also be great if PPV were included. It'd confirm a good opener for those events, at least.

this is an old dead topic, but i never understood what the distinction of a "television" title is. females compete for a women's championship, lighter guys compete for a cruiserweight championship, bigger guys for a heavyweight, no rules matches for the hardcore title... but what the hell does being champion of "tv" mean?

I'm all for a tv champion but the champ should get a tv guide and a remote control not a belt

If it is true that the WWE is going to unify all their titles by Wrestlemania, then why not add a TV title. I mean it makes the most sense in that they won't always have title matches on TV but instead reserve them for the PPV making it that much more meaningful.

If they built the TV title as something as prestigious as the WWE title but only defended on TV then maybe it could be taken seriously, but if it's something like the Hardcore title then it doesn't mean shit. It's all how it's booked.

I liked the TV title because it gave certain wrestlers that you weren't of that they could hold a match at a PPV the chance prove themself.

The Intercontinental Title CAN'T disappear, that's all I know. I'm all for not having so many titles, but the IC can't disappear. Too much history. At one point, the feuds for the IC Title were hotter than those for the WWE Title.

I like the idea of having the IC title as cusp main event title where as the TV title is strictly a mid-card title.

WWE Undisputed Championship
WWE Intercontinental
WWE Tag Team
WWE Womens

That's all there needs to be, the champions can appear on any show, they get double exposure and then the titles can actually mean something. Being champion means you get to be on both Raw and Smackdown! any time you want, double the pay, double the exposure. It sells itself.

I pose a counter claim to the TV title: the WWE Superstars championship. Only people who are on WWE superstars regularly can compete for it. It can only be defend on WWE Superstars on WGN America or on a PPV.

So, it gives the lower card guys a chance to be a champion and get some exposure on TV and on ppv as a piss break match.

You're right, but with the way the WWE books champions wouldn't it make sense to have a title that can only be defended on TV and have the other titles keep their prestige.

They're wondering why PPV sales are so low now-a-days. Well it's because they're giving all these matches for free on TV that they are missing out on the importance of the match. Why would someone order the PPV when they just saw the match a week earlier for free on TV?

I see a lot of people complaining that they have title matches on TV that tarnish the reputation of the title. I myself don't really care but I do understand why people think it's blasphemy to have a WWE title match for free, and you know, I can see where they're coming from but it just doesn't bother me as much. So to have a title that is only defended on TV will not only help wrestlers become a champ, but it will help fans get a title defense on TV without tarnishing a major title.

That's exactly how it should be. Like the 90's (early to mid 90's). Four titles, and that was it. That way, more time can be given to the feuds that involve each belt.

Also, before, anytime wrestlers had a feud, it was over the Title. One guy was the Champion, and another guy (or guys) went after him, because THEY wanted to have a shot at becoming Champion. Now, for the longest time, anytime wrestlers feud, it's something personal, there's an issue between them, and if one of them just HAPPENS to be the Champion, well, they'll wrestle for the Title, but the centerpiece of the feud is NOT the Title, the spotlight isn't on the belt and on each individual's quest to become Champion.

They should put the spotlight on the Titles once again.

Let's just agree that for every title to become relevant and for every storyline to mean something then the WWE needs to get rid of a lot of pay per views i.e. everyone but Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam and Survivor Series.

The reason why stories back then worked so well was because they didn't have to defend their title every month at every pay per view.

But the one thing missing back then was TV time and that is something now-a-days that is so important. They need to promote their PPVs and Raw and Smackdown are the prime resources so having a TV title would not only help wrestlers who don't make it to PPV's grow, but would help produce storylines.

The TV title would be great in many ways. Its matches would have a time limit of 10-15 minutes. It can do well for heel champions, retaining the title by the skin of their teeth by going the entire time limit, forcing a draw.

Plus, in the old WCW days, the TV title had amazing feuds, such as the Sting-Great Muta feud in 1989, Steve Austin's feuds with Barry Windham and Ricky Steamboat in 1992 and the triangle feuds Booker T had in the first half of 1998, first with Rick Martel and Perry Saturn, and then with Chris Benoit and Fit Finlay.

The TV title isn't needed anymore because the concept is outdated. The TV title was originally there to put a champion on TV and not waste the world champion on TV and instead leave them for live/big shows. They don't care about that anymore.

Keep the World, IC, Tag and Women's. If you REALLY want another, just leave the US title alone. There's no reason to bring the TV title into the mix, especially when you have a perfectly good title (US) with recent history behind it.

Also, saying the TV title had amazing feuds is completely moot because it's all about the writing. They could do amazing feuds for the IC title now but they don't.

But you don't think by having a TV title that they would help create something meaninful to being a champion because now-a-days it means nothing to be champ because it changes hands so many times without the year. With a TV champ it would help make the champ legit, rather than having all these interm champs and actually create legacies and competitors.

The reason why the IC title had so many great feuds was because back then it meant something to have because it meant you were great and on that level of becoming the WWE champ, but now-a-days it means shit. In todays WWE you'll never see a IC vs WWE title match like you did back in the day.

I'm not saying the WWE should just re-create what they did back in the day, but do something inventive based on what had happened back in the day.

Don't look to the past and re-create, but look to the past as inspiration.

What's the point in creating a new title just so it could be booked well when you can do the same thing with a title that's already there?

It means nothing to be champ so let's add another championship.

First they need to stop the brand separation, and just go back to the ol' days, three belts (or four if you read the last part), world, ic, tag, and those champions are traveling from brand to brand, thus making the belt/person seem that much more important already.

The TV title and the IC belt are kind of the same exact thing, usually goes to the wrestler that can tear the house down day in and day out, the work horse of the roster (i.e. more frequent matches on tv), so they need to just rebuild the IC belt to where it was from when it started until about '99ish or so.

...and MAYBE if they wanted a mid card belt, then they would take the US title and turn that into a mid card title.

Obviously the US and TV Title are for the workhorses of Raw and Smackedown!, represented by Bryan and Ziggler. If you add a TV Title, what is the point of the IC/US Title?

If WWE promoted the Intercontinental or US Champions as dangers top challengers for the WWE Championship or World Hvy. Weight Championship then they would be much more useful. The IC Title was a promotional tool to set up a future title contender, usually. Sometimes it is a mid card staple, now it is verging between the two.

They are giving Bryan and Ziggler great matches often on TV, carrying the work load night in and night out. However, the do not really promote them as well as say an Orton, Sheamus or Barrett even.

MY final opinion is this. They could use the US or IC Title to main event the TV shows a lot more, instead of the World titles. Use these titles on TV and the World Titles on PPV's only (except rare occasions). Simple.

Yeah, and the U.S. and Intercontinental Champions should be the automatic #1 contender to its respective brand's World title.

The Intercontinental Title should go back to being what it was: the Title WWE gave to those who they believed were "WWE Championship Material", so they could see if they REALLY were going to be able to Main Event, connect with the fans, etc.

Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Diesel, Shawn Michaels, Austin, Rock, Triple H, Edge, Jericho, Edge, Orton...as well as many more, I'm sure, were IC Champions before they won the WWE Title.

And what happens when the current IC Champ wins the World Title? They vacate the IC strap? Run as a double champ? I think that scenario is very short-sighted.

Whilst the IC Title should be a "stepping-stone" to the Main Event, it shouldn't be a direct shot at the champ. In fact, has it ever been used in that way!?

I also don't like the idea of cross-brand champions with the brand "split" still in place.

Let's say the World Champ starts a fued on Raw, what happens over on Smackdown? There's a reason they added a 2nd World Title, remember when they had a single World Champ? IIRC we had HHH v Jericho, HHH v Hogan and Hogan v Taker in a short time span and it all came off as very convoluted with Number One Contenders on each brand, etc.

If the titles get unified then the brands need to too. Then you have the problem of fitting such a huge roster into the show. Whilst you have the same amount of TV time, you have to carry fueds over to the next 2 hours of TV. You have a MASSIVE Main Event talent pool and thus less chance of people moving up. It's a tricky situation to handle.

If they did merge the world titles realistically you wouldn't have the champ appearing on both shows. You'd just make the IC or US (tag team?) title your main feud until someone from that brand won the title or the champ started feuding with someone from the show.

Then people would complain that you have one show with no "main event focus".

Say you put Miz in a fued with Orton for 3 months, no World Title fued on Smackdown for 3 months!? C'mon, I mean, we know it's the "B Show" but that's ridiculous. They do want people to watch ALL of their shows, right?

Even if you bring the fued over to SmackDown - so that the main fued gets to go cross brand - it completely smashes the brand split (which I guess is pretty much non-existent now anyways) to the point where they might as well just end it.

Noid posted the ultimate end of thread post and you people ruined it.

FOR SHAME!