Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The CyNick
Having only one champion can still work. In fact it was working in 2002, the last really good PPV number the WWE did was Brock challenging for the Undiputed title against Rock, since the split the PPV numbers have went south (except for Mania and Rumble, but even those numbers haven't been as good as they were).
The whole idea behind having one champion is that you hopefully create one champion that means something, whereas now they pretty much have two titles that mean nothing.
In terms of confusion I dont really buy that theory. All you have to do is keep the champ on one show in months where there is a brand specific PPV. So, for example in February he would be working on SD, then in April for the next RAW only PPV he will be on RAW. Nothing confusing. If anything it helps some storylines drag out longer, because say something starts on SD between the champ and a SD guy, but then he goes over to RAW on a brand specific PPV month, that gives you a month to tell the fans that the guy on SD wants to kick the champs ass. Then when he finally comes back to SD the fued should be pretty hot.
That said I dont think they plan on going back to one champ anytime soon, but I can see how it would be beneficial to the company.
|
You said that the last really good PPV number that WWE did was SummerSlam 2002, but that is partly because there hasn't been a PPV since then that has been anywhere near that good. SummerSlam 2002 was obviously going to be an awesome PPV just by looking at the lineup they had. And having only one champ didn't work out in 2002 IMO. The Champ would have a PPV match with someone on one show coming up, and if he's fueding with someone from the other show then this fued isn't taken seriously. Remember when Undertaker fueded with Jeff hardy while he had a Title fued on Smackdown at the same time? Everyone knew that Hardy wouldn't win the title because Undertaker's main fued was with whoever he was fighting on SD at the time (don't remember who, Rock and Angle maybe?)
Having one champ to make the belt seem more credible wouldn't work if the WWE keeps making mistakes like they are making now. Having 2 champs a show can make the belt seem credible if the WWE does a better job of planning out storylines and what not. IMO the problem with belts seeming less credible is because of lousy booking and storytelling, not because there is one belt per show.
If a champ is only appearing on SD during one month, and RAW the next month it won't work out. When the WWE has a PPV with both brands, what then? Having one champ on both shows doesn't work when the WWE is telling us that both shows are two completely different brands that are completely seperate. If the champ is supposed to defend the title on SD one month and only appear on that show during the month, then who's gonna want to watch RAW? Plus CyNick, if a champ is going to fued with one show a month, and not appear on the other show during this time, then it kinda seems pointless to have him be capable of appearing on both shows if he would be just doing one show at a time anyway wouldn't it?
So I gotta say again that as long as WWE keeps the rosters spilt, having two champs would be the best idea IMO.