Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The CyNick
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.
|
OK, SummerSlam 2002 was not just built around the main event of Brock vs. Rock. That was one of the best cards for a PPV that we have seen in a long time. HBK/HHH, Rey vs. Kurt, RVD vs Benoit and so many other great matches that took place that night. Decline in PPV buyrates can also be because of the general decline in viewers that has been happening ever since 2001. WMXIX was a better show though perhaps, but my point is still that there hasn't been very many PPV's recently that are nearly as good as SS2002 was.
Having one champ is going to make the guy holding it more credible than 2 champs, But I am saying that having one champ will not matter if HHH is still holding down guys on both shows, and the title isn't booked properly. WWE is still capable of making two champs be credible if they would stop doing stupid things with whoever is champ. (like having Sparkplugg be the #1 contender for example)
As, for having the champ appear on one show a month. This seems like a really bad idea to me personally. Whatever show the champ is not on is not going to be taken as seriously while there is no Heavyweight Champion. CyNick, you don't actually think that fans will want to watch a show when there is no true champion representing that show do you? I like your idea of highlighting secondary titles while the Champ is away on the other show. But the WWE is more than capable of doing that now, and it still doesn't happen.
I don't think your idea is all that bad. But I think that with two seperate shows, having two champs would be better if the WWE would just do a better job of making the titles seem more valuable.