|
The Monday Night Wars was a fairly successful time in the history of the business, each group had their own set of champion. Football leagues is Europe are each wildly successful and have their own champions, while still participating in joint events. Nobody gets confused that say Man City is the champion of England while Barca is the champion of Spain. Those respective countries leagues still do pretty well I would say. I didn't hear a lot of complaints when Pride had world champions while UFC had their own. All these things do is create water cooler talk about who is better. The nature of WWE allows them to create this type of talk but then deliver on "dream matches" as they see fit.
I don't think having multiple world champions is an issue. To me if you have a brand split, each brand needs champions. The going back and forth just doesn't work from a storytelling point of view our a scheduling point of view. It's easy to say oh just have John work Friday to Monday one month, and then Saturday to Tuesday the next. But for those talents, and for the people who need to advertise them ahead of time, it's a nightmare. At best what they could do is say each champ is on a brand six months at a time. This would give them a chance to start and finish storylines, and scheduling would be easier. But that's a long time for one brand to go without a champion.
If anything, maybe they consider doing something at Mania where its champion vs champion for all the titles. The winner either gets an additional belt, or just some type of trophy. And it just becomes another accolade to brag about. But each respective title stays with their brand. That gives it a little more of a sports feel, where its like Mania is the Super Bowl where the NFC champ battles the AFC champ. Problem there is it hurts The Rumble, because if it's champ vs champ at Mania, how do you get the Rumble winner in the championship match? Maybe one solution would be to rotate SDL and RAW title has to be defended at the Rumble, like what Roman had to do.
|