[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight It's nice in theory, but do you thin kthat they'd reallystick to the formula? We'd get an extra hour of JBL/HHH a week total, and we'd end up with as few superstars featured.

In my opinion - it wouldn't be THAT detrimental if a few extra superstars lost too much TV time. So? We see less Charlie Hass, Kenzo Suzuki, Tyson Tomko, and Hurricane?...........big deal! Even IF Triple H and JBL got twice as much TV as everyone else, we'd STILL see Jericho, Guerrero, Benoit, Edge, Cena, Taker, HBK, etc. ALL on television.

No matter who gets TV time (and who doesn't get as much that week), it will be someone of QUALITY. Someone who is 'over'.


In JBL's case for instance - the WWE may actually succeed in making him look like a credible main-eventer (if he was made to look superior to ALL of Triple H, Jericho, Guerrero, Cena, Benoit, etc.etc.etc.).



Here's the way I see it:

Like I said already, a POTENTIAL negative of the rosters being brought back together, is that guys like Guerrero, Cena, and.....Edge? may be somewhat "buried" initially (in light of guys like Triple H, HBK, and Taker all being on the same show). Remember - that's just the WORST CASE SCENERIO however.


Right now on RAW for instance - A guy like Chris Jericho should arguably be a main-eventer, but he's been relegated to the midcards (thanks to the "depth" of RAW).

However - I don't think that ANYONE will dispute the fact that Jericho is one of the "bright spots" of RAW...........and everyone gets "interested" whenever he's on air.

Even if fans no longer see him as a main-event calibre superstar, people still LOVE to see him on their TV sets. People would MUCH rather see a "Chris Jericho" than a Orlando Jordan. The same can be said for Rob Van Dam.


I guess what it would boil down to, is what's more important?

A) Creating more main-eventers? (on a sub-par show)

B) Creating LESS main-eventers (and possibly de-pushing a few wrestlers such as Guerrero, etc.), but having a higher quality show?





Some questions to ponder:



1) If you were an athlete, would you rather be an average football player on a PROFESSIONAL team, or would you rather be a star football player in the "minor leagues" (lots of players of which, are "nobodies")

2) Who would be classified as a "bigger star"? The "star" in the professional leagues (where there is more depth........and due to the perceived "more depth", the #1 star looks even bigger)..............OR the "star" in the minor leagues.


Would a guy like Dave Batista be more "over" if he was the World Champion, or UNDISPUTED champion?