Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BasicThuganomics
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.
|
Wrestlemania XIX was a better show than that Summerslam show, and it did a poor number (for a Mania). SS 02 was built around Brock and Rock in an athletic competition for the top prize in the sport, the result was a big buyrate. After this PPV they split the titles, and most of the PPVs have done poor numbers in comparison.
Having one undisputed champ makes that guy more credible than having two separate champions. There's no denying that, thats just simple common sense. Thats why in say football they dont stop the playoffs after the AFC and NFC Championships, they have a Super Bowl to determine the Undisputed Champ.
In terms of booking there are a ton of different things that can be done. The idea I mentioned would be just one of many options. I mean if it was a babyface champion it might be a good idea to let him defend it on both shows, regardless of who has the PPV. That way the guy seems like a hero for defending it so often.
In terms of the champ taking on fueds from both shows, I can see how it would be tough to buy say a guy on RAW beating the champ during the same month when the champ is building up to a SD only PPV fued with someone from SD. However, if the shows are supposed to be completely separate that shouldn't be a problem. What happens on RAW has no impact on what happens on SD, unless there is an injury to the champ for example, which could impact his title defense, or of course a title switch.
But like I said I think the best way is to have the Undisputed Champ switch shows every month. In terms of the big 4 PPVs, the way I would handle that is to say that if a SD guy is the champ then the SD guys get to challenge for the title on the major PPVs. This makes sense since it would be a reward to the show who the champion belongs to. Then for the guys on RAW they would want to work extra hard to win the title on RAW only shows.
In terms of what to do when the champ isn't on one show for a month, well thats where the IC/US titles come into play. When the Undisputed Champ is on the other show, the secondary title becomes the main focus for all the guys on the roster. This would elevate the secondary titles and the people who hold them.
Another benefit is that the Rumble would become even more meaningful especially for the brand who doesn't own the booking rights to the champion. So in my scenario the guys from RAW would be working extra hard to not only get a shot at the champ at Mania, but also because they have no backup option if they lose. The way it works now, say if Kurt Angle were to win the Rumble, the RAW guys dont really care because there will be some deal on RAW to determine who fights for the World title at Mania. With my scenario its all or nothing at the Rumble, which makes the match more meaningful.