Thread: DISCUSSION - Would an "old school" vs. "New Blood" angle in the WWE be a good idea?
View Single Post
Old 07-02-2009, 04:18 PM   #38
Heyman
Father of Hinduship
 
Heyman's Avatar
 
Posts: 21,083
Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan View Post
I just thought of this in the "make a stable" topic but it is more appropriate in this one...

The more I think about it, the more I hate the idea of an Old School vs. New School stable because it just seems lazy. It's fighting the fact that people feel that the same guys have been main eventing for too long by making it into a storyline where they continue to just be in the main event. In the long run, nothing really changes and it's just a lazy way of trying to appease people.
I definitely see your point, but here was what I was thinking:

1) HAVE the 'New Blood' vs. 'Old School' angle. However - make both sides look good (i.e. victories on both sides).

2) Have the 'New Blood' stable, in its entirety, become the new RAW brand (i.e. have them defeat Old School for the right sfor RAW.....after 2-4 months of feuding).

3) The 'Old School' and 'New Blood' eventually have their own brands (Smackdown and RAW respectively), and from there on out, the WWE never sees anymore 'lottery drafts.' From here on out, the only way people can move to a different show is if they are traded.

4) Although the 2-4 month blow-out feud between the two stables is now over, there can still be a 'cold war' between the two brands (i.e. tensions at joint PPV's, occassional backstage attacks, King of the Ring rivalries, Survivor Series 5 on 5 formats, etc.).


Here is what is ultimately achieved with my plan:

A) Each brand finally develops their own distinct IDENTITY...something that is truly lacking in the WWE right now. RAW becomes stacked with 'new guys'....guys that have plenty of opportunity to grow, whereas Smackdown becomes stacked with the oldschool. This arrangement is also smart from a business standpoint, since it allows new stars to be created (i.e. feuding with one another...bringing out the best in each other), while also having no 'glass ceiling' in front.

Main thing achieved: Brand identities; a perfect environment for new stars being created.

B) As it relates to the New Blood/Old School feud, no side has to look 'weak'.


Ultimately - I think it's a great, systematic way for the WWE to create new stars. RAW can always be the place where new guys, with promise, can rise within the ranks by having top notch feuds with fellow emerging stars (think: Rock vs. HHH...1998).

Interbrand feuds on occassion can also allow for said rising star to 'go over' an 'oldschool guy' from Smackdown.
Heyman is offline   Reply With Quote