There Might Be A Single World Title Again
 

There are said to have been discussions among at least one or two people within WWE creative about the idea of building up to a single world title and champion who would headline every PPV and defend against wrestlers on both brands reports The Wrestling Observer Newsletter. The reason this has been discussed is that back in the time when titles were over with wrestling fans they knew who "the champ" was as there was only one top guy. This doesn't happen now with two separate world champions on two separate brands.

Since the creation of two world titles, one for each television show, many feel the company essentially created two Intercontinental champions instead of two credible world champions. The basis for this is that in the 1980s the Intercontinental title was used to main event house shows and drew well, but on its own wasn't going to sellout major arenas. While some title matches in the brand era have drawn well, most haven't meant a thing when looking at PPV buyrates. The general feeling is that the generation of wrestling fans today no longer see the world title as fans may have 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. Instead they see it as a prop and nothing more.

It should be noted that when this idea was brought up to Vince McMahon he was said to be completely negative on the idea. So it doesn't appear there are any plans to go in this direction anytime soon.


http://www.wrestleview.com/news08/1229895504.shtml

I can see Batista always challenging when the Champ has to face someone from RAW. Him and his 326,458,521 rematch clauses.

As long as there's a roster split, a shared title is dumb.

Brilliant. Then we can make the ECW title the big belt.

<font color=goldenrod>Good, I liked how it was when the split first happened with a champion that floats between shows.</font>

NWA: It worked for them in a similar situation. They had hundreds of "territories" back in the day with their own champions, then the NWA World Championship which was shared between them. I say you have that between 3 brands and it could work out nicely.

I don't see how having a shared title is dumb. It accomplishes several things. Firstly, it does give you a definitive top guy. Also, I am sick of Triple H being called a "twelve-time WWE Champion" or "twelve-time World Heavyweight Champion" depending on which title he is going for. No, he's a seven-time WWE Champion and five-time World Heavyweight Champion. If the belts were unified, there would be a WWE World Heavyweight Champion, and Triple H can call himself a twelve-time that. It also smooths out the resume of guys like The Undertaker, Chris Jericho, Edge, John Cena and Shawn Michaels -- people who have held both "World Titles."

The only problem it leaves schematically is that you historically have to note the history of the World Heavyweight Championship and WWE Championship being separate, so people can understand that there were two sort of "twin" titles to go between the brands. As it stands, though, the line between the WHT and WWE Title is already blurred, though.

Another positive of it, is that it moves up the priority of all the other singles championships. The ECW Title is no longer the "third belt," but a special sort of niche belt for the ECW brand to wield as its own. It'd technically be the second highest belt in the company, I assume. The Intercontinental Championship and United States Championship would then also gain more status, as when a SmackDown! guy is challenging for the WWE World Title, logically an IC Title match should get high play on RAW.

It would also make for a big PPV event. The crowning of a WWE World Heavyweight Champion would make for an event that your average wrestling fan "can't miss." Yes, it's a one-off payday, but it could work out to be very momentous for the WWE when John Cena wins that title. And yes, you know it's going to be him that does it.

JT, don't use history and logic when arguing with KK. That would be dumb.

I'm not arguing, I'm merely giving my opinion. If KK disagrees, than that's his thing. I've learned from history though that pure arguements between forum members on these issues are pointless, and try to not go further than 1-2 posts now if it gets negative.

That would be wise, considering you won't likely hear the end of it, even when not applicable. But, if you disagree with KK, he perceives it as arguing with him. Because I've come in and said that, you won't get an earful, but you could have expected some kind of sarcastic comment in your direction.

I'll take the brunt of it now, because I'm good that way.

The WWE has really dug themselves into a shit hole over the years with this mess of a roster split. It will take a long time coming, if ever, before any title in the company has any credibility.

Hope they make the World Champion represent all the 3 brands whereas have the Intercontinental, United States and ECW Champions exclusive to their brands.

That is an intriguing idea with potential. And I wouldn't spit on the product right away if it happened. But, I tend to lean toward this....

And I'll elaborate as to why.

Each brand has it's own audience. A portion will be universal, but many only watch "the good one", whichever that may be in their eyes. With a champion of each brand, as opposed to a champion of the company, the selective audience can enjoy their program without having the other shows thrown in their faces.

The counter argument would involve the Rebound segments, as well as the inability of the creative teams to work with the wrestlers on their rosters and the illegitimate necessity of cross brand promotions. But that would happen, regardless of the top title situation. In fact, most of that happens due to the limited number of of tag titles. This has been going on for years, making the "Draft" the most impotent thing in WWE history and probably the warm-up to try to make the pitch for a floating Champ to Vince, anyway.

I suppose, if they cut down to one Top Title, they should cut to one Tag Title, as well. That would only make sense. Then your floater champs would kind of make sense. Then the Divas "title" goes away and we get a floater Womens champ that we can not watch on every show.

And then, we get to the point where we eliminate the brands entirely, making it one show, three times a week. Then "the good one" is gone, as well as, arguably, 2/3 of the roster.

I wanted this since they made 2 world titles.

I think you'll find the ratio actually favours KK as the one who takes a pot shot first, most of the time. I've started more and more often, and don't claim innocence, but why should the onus be solely on me to drop things?

Afterlife is spot on with his Chicken vs. Egg comment. Only, the round one thing is probably a few hundred behind on the count...

If they do it, they're still going to need a top title per brand ANYWAY. It also means one brand loses a world title feud for months at a time. There's really no reason to do this as long as the split is intact as there are wrestlers showing up on either brand whenever they like anyway.

And before we get into it, ending the brand split is impossible with the size of the WWE's roster.

Yes. Note "back in the day" and "had" in your own statement. We're not talking about the territory days, any more than we're talking about the Attitude Era, the Monday Night Wars, or any other piece of history. It didn't work too well the first time (at least, if you count ratings, buyrates, and fan interest).

In essence, this is only superficially a "similar situation." It's similar in the sense that there's a proposal that would make a multi-brand title and there was once a territorial system in NWA.

Despite Noid's comments, this isn't disregarding your statement or history or logic. Hell, part of history is understanding that if the basic findamentals change, so does the outcome. Applying logic requires one look at the history in question, and how things might have changed since them. In fact, in the spirit of keeping things logical....I'm just going to start ignoring Noid.

So if you want to carry on, feel free. :D

Would you not agree then that it would do the WWE more good to either shit or get off the pot with the brand extension, and actually make the shows completely different programs with different feels and a less connected feel? Otherwise it does feel like there are two champions between two shows, instead of one champion for one show?

Also, I'd like to throw out there that I can actually see the WWE running a test for this with the Tag Team Titles. John Morrison & The Miz have "officially" taken the belts over to ECW with their latest win, and are still being included in their roles on SmackDown!. How long do you think it will be before we see John Morrison & The Miz bump into Carito & Primo Colon backstage, and we see a match for both sets of titles?

worst idea in this thread

So what makes you the expert in the change the business has taken? I'm honestly not trying to start anything with this, but that does seem like a "straw-man" argument to me. You haven't addressed why having one title between the shows is a stupid idea, and merely said that it's a different era, and that your view over history needs to take into account these "changes." Then you've shoved the ball back into JT's face.

Why is it a stupid idea? The ball is still in your court.

I think it's better than two or three world titles. I'd be all for this. Pretty pumped at the notion of it happening to be honest.

I'll admit, I didn't read all of KK's post. I just saw him talking about history and the NWA, and zoned out. But it's kind of funny that KK is saying that history is not always a good indicator, and then uses certain bits of history that he chooses to pick out as evidence to support his point. And no, that's not me dissing evidence or history. I am still on the side of that, but the differences between then and now should be noted just as well as the differences he pointed out.

First of all, "the last time it was done" was at the very start of the brand split. There had not been three World Champions between three shows. There was one between two. There was also one Women's Champion between both shows and one set of Tag Team Titles between the shows. There was no US Champion, and things were generally out of balance. It is a different lay-up, and it made people question why there was a brand split at all.

Having one World Champion between two different shows, otherwise with their own title hierarchy is actually a lot different. We're almost seven years on from that moment, which is when Jim Cornette, who knows a lot more about the business than any of us here, suggests that angles can be safely re-tried.

My question still stands, but is a little modified: Why is it a stupid idea NOW?

The biggest problem here is the feuds. Everything else is secondary. If you do this you can have up to and over four months without the title on a brand, which is completely unacceptable in this day and age. Likewise to shortening feuds to one or two months.

Yes, you can elevate the midcard title, but what's the point when you already have two top-tier titles?

This also kills WrestleMania's main event entirely for one brand.

LOL at you jumping to KK's side.

I still maintain that the last time the WWE did it, you cannot argue that the buyrates went down because there was one champion between two shows. The whole concept of the roster being divided roughly in half confused the crap out of people.

Yes, a practice run first would probably work best, but that's what the WWE could do with John Morrison & The Miz with the Tag Team Titles. I also wouldn't put it past them to do that first. Perhaps with the Money in the Bank winner next year winning both their home brand's title, and then going over to the other one and winning that one.

Sure, one title between two shows means that RAW will miss out one month while SmackDown! gets the next month, but just how well are stories built up in today's landscape? Not very well at all. If you're worried about RAW vs. SmackDown! vs. Champion matches, we've pretty much got Triple Threat Matches happening every PPV main event at the moment, anyway.

And that was just one thing mentioned.

I think they actually need to either end the roster split or keep individual titles. I don't think they can viably negatiate it, especially because it's it's WWE, but not exaclusively. Even if there's a secondary title (IC, US) which serves as the main title per brand, it's still a secondary title. I don't see WWE as able to support title control over 2-3 brands, as they really couldn't before.

If you're pumped, fine, but I can't help but think of it as "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

I think the idea would be to elevate the IC Title and US Title back to the status where they could main event house shows and get a decent draw, and tht they feel that the WWE and World Heavyweight Titles aren't top tier enough.

I've also felt the whole concept of a WrestleMania main event has lost so much meaning over the years. Two titles matches at WrestleMania? It's just not special. The Royal Rumble has suffered, because the idea used to be that one guy would get to go on and main event WrestleMania. Now the Rumble winner doesn't even get to do that some years.

In fact, the Rumble winner hasn't headlined a Mania since 2005. The Rumble winner would be from one brand, and they would get the title shot. Maybe even have the Rumble winner shift between both brands, to really hype the WrestleMania main event?

It never confused me, but I know for a fact others got confused. You had the Tag Team Titles floating, the Women's Title floating, the Undisputed Title floating and the IC Title pretty much changing brands every time a combination of Rob Van Dam, Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit wrestled.

Maybe not as far as PPV buys and ratings go, but in testing a crowd reaction, they would work out pretty nicely. If their heat intensifies, the crowd responds to a set of dominant champions.

I'm not saying Triple Threats should happen, I'm just saying that they already do. We have gotten like three Triple Threats at "WrestleMania main events" since the brand extension.

I think it would actually strengthen the one WrestleMania main event. It'll allow it to define the PPV, and give the era a battle to hang its hat on. The Royal Rumble will begin to mean more again, and one title doesn't look watery as fuck by going on in the middle of the show.

Because they tried it before and to be perfectly honest, it was terrible. It made for breif entertaining viewing when the GM's were arguing over the Champion - but that was mainly because of the two GMs and their storylines at that time. Vickie Guerrero and Steph arguing over the Champion? Nah thanks. One high pitched voiced bitch per show thanks.

Too many top guys/egos now. You really think Dancing Dave or Trips are going to take a backstep and feud over the US title or something instead of the big/spinny belts. Never going to happen.

Enough people round here bang on about how the roster split created stars. Batista, Cena erm....yeah. Those two. One title and many of the youngsters/deserving guys get lost in the shuffle as Cena vs Batista part 8902932 takes place. Where would Orton go? Would be subjected to the overused already '8 man battle royal'/tournament to face John Cena every Monday after the PPV?

Punk, Kennedy, MVP, Christian, Regal - upper midcarders that could step up to main event would have little or no chance of doing so anymore. You want to see promising stars leave or start to phone it in - then this is the way of doing it. I'd imagine that talent morale would drop through the floor at the thought of this. Hell, Christian left because he was told he'd be midcard for life in a two title situation...where would the others go?

Say Batista off Raw is facing Cena for the Undisputed Title at a PPV. What happens on SD during that build up? Cena turns up and beats MVP, Carlito, Jeff Hardy in that three weeks whilst on Raw they build their feud. Batista might 'invade' SD and attack him a couple of times. Not much for SD viewers to buy into that month. Then the next month it happens on Raw. One cross brand title will not work on a brand split. It would make one show a month boring, unless every PPV has a triple threat match as the main event.

This idea only has any way of working (imo) if you had the brands working as one against each other. But then, you are back to the ego problem, the big star problem and you are pretty much getting rid of the brand split.

I don't get this whole "it didn't work last time" thing. Yeah, it was clunky last time, but who says it'd play out exactly the same? You actually have supporting titles now, and a belt floating between both brands would be far more special.

The egos, you might have a point with, but guys like Jeff Hardy got a crack at the title then. It may drive home the point of ECW being more of a "younger wrestler league," but guys would ultimately get built-up more. Sure, Triple H has an ego, but he's not WWE Champion right now, is he? He's learned to bow-out from time-to-time. And a guy like Mr. Kennedy could get as much mileage out of headlining house shows and main eventing PPVs for one brand as IC Champion as he could being World Heavyweight Champion in a two-man act.

Back to ignoring after this, I swear. But I'm curious as to why you think ascribing things to me when I clearly said otherwise, then using "I am ignorant" as a defense was a good idea.

Things would go much smoother if you read what I had to say before bitching me out.

Merry Christmas.

The thing is, it's the way the titles being booked that makes them look weak, not the titles themselves. Just combing the titles isn't going to magically make the booking better. In fact, I believe with good booking this problem of the two titles looking weak would disappear.

I didn't bitch you out, bitch. Maybe you should have read the bit about me not bitching you out. Again...KK...bitch.

Booking better could put the WWE through another boom period and find that star with potential and turn them into a cash generating giant. Great booking would be fantastic, but the thing with the US and IC Titles is that the WWE isn't booking them properly, and they're probably not about to unless given a reason.

Did I say something about ending the brand split? Where did I say that?

True, but again, is the WWE really going to do this? The World Heavyweight Championship has changed hands how many times in how many months? Unifying the World Titles would at least freshen the product up, have one guy stand tall for at least one moment, and would probably have the WWE go "fuck, we better do it right this time."

Well, you'd hope so, anyway.

Getting unifying the mainevent titles doesn't elevate the lower midcard.

Didn't say you did. But the only way to unify the world titles without leaving a brand out of ppvs and making it pointless to watch for a month or longer is by ending the brand split. I was arguing why the brand split is needed. These points are all connected.

I'd also like to say a lot of the argument seems to assume a fair and equitable split. I doubt that's ever going to be the case with a single shared title. Imagine Triple H or John Cena holding the title for a protracted period. It's easy if you try.

It's also going to lead to the same four challengers across multiple brands. This is most probable. I know if you slap on rose-colored glasses, it's easy to disregard that the roster split was supposed to fix the main event scene, and it really didn't. It's easy to pretend they won't push the same guys on both brands, but they've done that on and off during the roster split, and there's ample reason to believe they will do it again if they have a single big belt.

There's no real reasoning that dictates it'll be any more fair than the usual round of WWE booking, save for wishful thinking.

Unifying the titles would logically create a vacuum that would need to be filled by elevating the IC Title/US Title, which shouldn't be counted as the "lower card."

I completely disagree on the point about the brand split ending.

Of course John Cena or Triple H would hold the belt for elongated periods of time. That goes on now. You switch over to the other show and it's happening there, too. The thing is, you still have ECW and the WWE is creating enough stars in guys like Jeff Hardy to warrant shifting things up and putting the title on him.

And then there's the full pressure of the champion having to carry the shows. If ratings go down because Cena or Triple H are boring as champion, then the WWE would be forced to make some changes.

It may not happen right away, but I think things would become slightly more diplomatic over time, out of necessity. But I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's only guess work you can do in this situation.

I just had to look up who was US Champ, I couldn't remember if it was still Shelton Benjamin. Simple fact is, the damage is done to those titles. The vast majority of fans don't give a shit about them anymore. When was the last time Regal defended the IC title ffs? He sits around at ringside doing nothing every week? The characters involved with certainly the IC scene (I dont know about SD) are so poorly booked, and given 20 minutes a week to build that scene. If they had any sense, they'd give the IC title to Cody Rhodes TONIGHT, so at least it got seen on screen for a larger amount of time on Raw.

It's all a fabulous idea, elevating the midcard titles - but to what? Can you honestly see the likes of Trips and the rest feuding over it? Orton vs Batista at Wrestlemania for the IC title? Never. Going. To. Happen.

I don't see what your top paragraph has to do with anything, really. Cena and Batista are champions all the time. Triple H hasn't been champion for two whole months? Really? How long was he champion before then?

Also, I explained why it could conceivably become more diplomatic. The WWE is in crunch time, and if they put all their eggs in one basket, and it doesn't work, it's time to get a new basket. There is shared responsibility in the current WWE landscape, so Triple H failing as champion means we could see it just two months later.

And my point is that the US Title and IC Title shouldn't be lower card titles. Not that they aren't. Although, I would definitely argue that William Regal, CM Punk and Shelton Benjamin are not lower card wrestlers.

If it's never going to happen, then it won't happen, and it renders this whole conversation moot. Would it be so bad if it did happen? Also, Regal has been sick, which is why he hasn't been wrestling.

And if the damage has been done to the US and IC Titles, then couldn't one make a case for the damage already being done to all the other titles?

Well, they're not. But taking what you said as if it were fact, and that they presently are, then why is that a good thing?

Excuse me while I branch off topic for a second..

Noid, although I have watched BDC and KK rip into with a smile why are you seriously jumping on every and I mean EVERY post they make in this thread? Do you want them to rip you a new asshole? Do you cum in your pants when you go to your User CP and see they have just replied to a post you made?

I'm discussing the topic with them? This is the most civil they have been, and it's quite refreshing to actually discuss wrestling with them.

Kane Knight... BDC... please stop this cease fire now. He is using words like "civil" and "refreshing" :mad:

Nazis.

This thread and discussion are officially over now, right?

You're welcome, Lux. :D

I've said that many times, and consistently. When they started constaly having guys from other shows do "guest spots", the facade of brands became limp at best. It destroys the scenario, and then things like cross brand matches at ppvs, which should be huge, end up being absolutely nothing special. I've also stated the draft should only be done every 3-5 years.

The Tag Titles situation further blurs that messy line. It suggests that anyone from ECW can just go wherever he wants for a tag title shot, because ECW isn't "real". Same with the US title being on ECW with Benjamin for so long. It shows that you don't need to belong to a roster to be eligible for the rosters prize. It makes no sense, and looks really haphazard.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY HITLER!!!!!

Someone please summarize this entire thread for me, I don't feel like reading. D:

Yes but put a little more emotion into it, he thinks you guys care enough about him to not be "as" cruel as you have been.

:cool:

What's this "it would freshen up storylines" and "lower titles will become relevant" bullshit coming off of? Logic? Past experience? Or did we just make it up?

Because really, it smells like bullshit to me. Unifying the titles wouldn't be enough incentive for WWE to do any of that, to be honest.

It's really no different from how things worked in 2002, until HHH was handed the World belt.
I think it could work nicely. It'd be a return to titles meaning something. It'd not only make the WWE title mean more as the lone top belt, but it'd in turn help the IC and US championships.
They should do the same with the Tag Team titles too.

I don't see how it's a bad thing at all. It's better than the current state of things, and although it's not as good as one singular brand/promotion, it is a step in the right direction. It seems to be happening slowly.
First, it was the sharing of talent and rosters more generously from brand to brand.
Then the PPVs being merged.
Now, the titles.
It's only a matter of time before it all ends up under one tent again, if these steps continue.

Even if 2 brands having access to one world title is a bit of a clusterfuck, it's LESS of a clusterfuck than 3 world champions running around at PPVs and supershows.
If they're going to have tri-brand ppvs, which they have to do to business and talent depth, there needs to be one world title and less shared importance on the card.

If the champion is going to be on all the shows, so will his compettitors. There'll be interweaving fueds.
Main events will be far better. The pool of challengers will increase, and matchups will be less repetitive.
I think it's a great idea on all counts.

The title situation and the distribution of power and prestige regarding belt holders and status is a big mess, no matter what discourses we all take.
Some of us might mock the ECW title, and others might defend it. Some may prefer the Raw belt to the Smackdown belt, or the WWE belt to the Big Gold belt.
Everyone has an opinion on the current setup with titles, but the bottom line is it's confusing and controversial at the very least. I think no matter how you slice it, it's flawed as it is.

I say, simplify, and restore meaning to THE world chamiponship. Whether it's defended on one universal brand, or two coexisting brands is really just another can of worms. Making some progress with this problem is better than none at all.

You'd have the IC title on RAW, the US Title on SmackDown, and I guess bring back the TV title for ECW?

Just about the unified champion "killing ratings and buyrates", what have the ratings and buyrates been doing since WWE had two champions? GOING DOWN! I figured KK would know this since he hates wrestling, doesn't watch wrestling, but keeps track of the real ratings that he can't provide a source for.

With all the group fueds, and triple threats they book around the world titles as it is, it wouldn't be hard to consistently involve both brands in the world title hunt.

There'd also be no shame in one of the shows taking short breaks from direct world title fueding. Often times, the shows focus on non-title fueds as it is.
It's not like main event fueds over the past few years have been over the world title exclusively.
Look at this past summerslam, Edge-Taker and Cena-Batista took priority over all three world titles. It's not rare.

It's not confusing to me or you, but it can be to the casual fans and new fans.
Also, it creates discrepency over who "the champion" is, and what the championship means. It's too much.
It's just a mess to have three world champions. It's an oxymoron. The goal of being a champion is to be the top dog, not part of the top 3 dogs.
It's flawed.

Do you realize how many times I've watched Wrestlemania or Raw with people who say "so wait, who's the champion?" and when I explain it, find it completely absurd?

That's not the reason I'm arguing for simplified world title status, but rather just an example. It's problems go much deeper than that.

It's also ridiculous to call one title WWE championship, as if the other show wasn't part of the WWE.
In addition, the other is called the world championship, as if the other title wasn't world status.
The only world title that has a logical name is the ECW world championship, believe it or not.

If it's WWE, there should be one WWE champion. As it is, there's a Raw Champion, and a Smackdown champion. The WWE champion is a false title.
Unless they want to call Smackdown or Raw by a different name, like WCW or some other promotion operate outside of WWE, the WWE Title should speak for the whole company.

Those are weight classes and deal with a real sport, as far as we know.
That system is derived from boxing to begin with, as well.

Wrestling is different. Unless they want to set up weight classes and function like a legitimate ring fighting sport, it's a terrible comparison.

I think one title would be a good thing.

Oh, well then UFC has a problem too. Just because UFC has that problem, doesn't absolve WWE. That's what you call an appeal to an innapropriate authority BDC. It's a completely irrelevant argument.
If UFC jumped off a bridge, should WWE too?

Jeritron, BDC is talking about the whole mess in the UFC with the Heavyweight title. When Couture walked out, they crowned an interim champion until Couture returned to fight. Couture lost the "real" title to Lesnar who will now face the winner of Mir and some other guy for the "interim" championship. The winner of Lesnar vs Interim Champion will be the undisputed Heavyweight champion. It is hard to understand how there can be 2 heavyweight champions when one is the "real world title" and the other is just a "part time title".

Sounds like HBM and Razor Ramon. Enjoy that controversy, but it really doesn't have relevance here. It's also an isolated incident, correct? If so, that's not a case of analagous title systems, but a temporary problem in one.

I see what you're getting at by citing that, but them having title confusion doesn't clarify any problems in this debate. It's really another issue altogether.

They do it quite a bit in every division any time Dana White gets his panties in a bunch and wants to act like he is Zeus of MMA

So is that stuff a work or not? I don't follow it, but some of my friends who do are becoming increasingly suspicious that it's at least semi-worked

Indeed.

I've speculated that it is, but it really just depends on who you ask.

If its on TV there is a 50% chance it can be a work.

It is becoming what boxing has become. The championship matches and big main events aren't about finding out who is the best fighter at a certain weight class, instead it is about who can draw more money. Brock Lesnar got a title fight after only 3 fights with a 2-1 record (1-1 in UFC). While I understand business, for a company whose whole marketing angle is that they are the only legit combat sport in the world, it seems a little questionable. Especially considering the reason Couture left was because he wanted to fight one of the best fighters in the world (no dispute about that), but Dana White wouldn't do it because he wouldn't draw flies on shit in the US.

How would it not? If there's one world title, there are more contenders and thus less repetition in the matchups. They'd have to make a strong effort.
It's speculation, but it's based in logic.

Also, with less titles the IC and US titles would account for more. There'd be less room in the main event for as many talents to be used at once.

There is past experience to base this of off. Did you watch wrestling in 2002, or in any of the years prior to that?