[Heyman]

Originally Posted by The CyNick The main problem with bringing the rosters back together is that you'll run out fresh matches in about 4 months, and then they'll be dead.

I think it would be longer than 4 months, but I agree. After an extended period of time, there would be some re-hashed feuds. Just a few things however.

1) How many "fresh matches" are we seeing right now?

2) How may awesome feuds did we see through 2000/2001? Feuds like Rock/HHH, Jericho/Benoit, Austin/Angle, etc. were done at several different times, but the fans were ALWAYS interested.......due to the awesomeness of the feud. With that in mind, would it really matter if certain feuds were re-hashed?

The way things are set up right now, when the brands run out of fresh matches, they can switch some guys and create a bunch of new matches for the next year.

That's great in theory, but Management has way too much bias towards RAW.

If last year is any indication, it seems that the WWE are unwilling to move top-tier superstars to Smackdown (unless they've been jobbed to death like RVD and Booker T).

You more than anybody, should know that Triple H won't allow top-tier superstars to go to Smackdown.........since Triple H wants "his" show to be far superior .

In the end, what you get is a bunch of crap getting traded.

Seriously - how many significant "fresh feuds" have the Dudleys, Jindrak, Rhyno, Spike Dudley, Taijiri, Dupree, Nidia, etc. had? Same shit, different pile. In the end, no one still gives a rats ass.

Of course then you'd also have the problem of the top guys being HHH, HBK, Taker and Angle. Then they'd play the game of putting each over, and switching heel and face in order to stay on top for the next 5 years. Few, if any young guys would be able break through that glass cieling. Watch WCW to see how this is done.

-I highly doubt that Angle and Taker will be around for THAT long. I'd even argue the same for Triple H and HBK.

Let me ask you this. Back in 2000 when Triple H and The Rock dominated the main-event spot,

A) Who "won" most of the head-to-head matches? Triple H or The Rock

B) Did guys like Kurt Angle, Jericho, and Benoit have no significance in the year 2000 as a result of being "below" Triple H?

C) Did other guys on the show have no significance because they had no chance of main-eventing?


The point I'm trying to make, is that Triple H dominated most of 2000 as well. In the end, 2000 was still a tremendous year for the WWE. As much as Triple H got the "better" of The Rock, The Rock still drew huge for the company.

As much as Benoit, Angle, and Jericho were 'below' Triple H, they were still way over with the fans.........and often served as great sideshows for the main-event storylines.

The thing that usually drives major increases like that is the creation of new stars, and clearly bringing the rosters back together wouldn't do that.

True, but like you said in past threads: How many stars have been created within the last few years? Like you said - NO ONE (other than Guerrero maybe) is drawing any numbers.

Isn't it better for the WWE to create QUALITY show(s) instead of attempting to create new stars that no one seemingly cares about?

I disagree that "no new stars" would be created. If someone is 'over' enough, they'll get pushed fairly. Triple H or not.

They would also have to cut back on PPVs. The reason is that as it is now, they can promote 2 shows in a month because you've got one show with these guys, and another show with other guys. In theory, people would have a reason to watch both shows, just like they had a reason to watch one WWE PPV and one WCW PPV back in the late 90s and 2000. If you have only one roster, I dont think you can promote one show healdined by HHH vs Randy Orton, and then 2 weeks later go to HHH vs Kurt Angle (with both shows having basically the same undercard) and expect people to pay for both. So gaain, unless a new star is created, and there is another boom, there's no reason to think it would be good for business.

I don't know about that. Let's say the WWE re-united their rosters, but still decided to have a PPV every 3 weeks (on average).

-Basically....they would have SIX shows to build a PPV.

-With the way things are now (i.e. 1 show per week), that translates into 6 weeks (which as far as I know, isn't too far from what the distance is right now between brand-extended PPV's).

Heyman, you always talk about how SD guys aren't over, or whatever, again thats just your bias, its not really based on any facts. SD generally does better TV numbers than RAW, so even though YOU may feel that RAW has created "better" stars, the numbers dont back it up. The fact of the matter is that RAW hasn't really created ANY news stars who can draw. SD has at least made JBL an equally effective main event draw as what HHH is now, and they have Eddie, although they refuse to use him to his potential.

I honestly can't argue that. Call it bias or whatever, but I see what I see. Like I said in the other thread, it actually does AMAZE me that Smackdown's ratings are on par with Raw's.

In my opinion, RAW is light years ahead of Smackdown. Every one I talk to in real life, feels the same way.

Perhaps if RAW was on UPN, they're ratings would be twice as high?

I don't "hate" Smackdown or anything. It's just from my point of view, it looks a lot like WCW did in its final days.

Making the shows longer is uselss, I dont understand your point with that one. When WCW went from 2 to 3 hours they struggled to fill the show. WWE as it is now, cant make 2 two hour shows that are entertaining, so why add more time?

My logic for making the show 2.5 hours (or 2:35-2:40 with the added main-event time or whatever), is that it would allow all of the current wrestlers to get some decent TV time.

THREE hours (plus the run-over time) is a bit excessive IMO.

Maybe 2:30 is as well (it's debatable I guess), but I don't know.

If having 2.5 hours isn't possible however, then I'd still have a 2 hour show with no roster split......and just release the pieces of POO such as Rosie, Viscera, etc.



As far as House Shows and Int'l events are concerned, is there no way that they can still do just as many?