Different rosters

**AdrianM** · 03-13-2007, 09:46 PM

Ok, personally I really like having two (or three) separate WWE brands. I'm not eactl sure why, I guess I just like to see all the wrestlers getting increased exposure (which wouldn't happen) if there was just the WWE.

So, my question is, why do people dislike the wwe having 3 separate rosters?

**Dorkchop** · 03-13-2007, 11:20 PM

Having three title belts makes each world heavyweight championship belt mean less. Especially when guys like Bobby Lashley are champ and very green.

Would Austin's first heavy weight title victory mean as much had there been three belts to go after (not to mention his chase for it)? No. Same goes for tag teams.. then again the tag division is shit now... and, for the most part, has been ass since the roster split. Though there have been a few good months of tag team goodness.

I like having three rosters in WWE because it does allow a lot of guys tv time who normally wouldn't. But at the same time there are a lot of guys who shouldn't be on tv, or as big as they are (due to three rosters). A guy like Mark Henry in no way what so ever should have been main eventing ppvs.

**M-A-G** · 03-14-2007, 12:01 AM

Thank you.

**The One** · 03-14-2007, 01:25 AM

I dislike the brand extension because it gives dull undeserving people TV time. I honestly don't think I would want to see even one full brand roster's worth of wrestlers on TV now a days...

Plus aside from Superman's belt buckle, not a single title has meaning anymore...

**tucsonspeed6** · 03-14-2007, 10:54 AM

Lately I've been viewing the brand split like a failed ideology. As an idea on paper, it sounds really great. And with the right company doing the brand split, it could make the wrestling industry better as a whole. The original reason for the brand split was to have more time for the large roster. As a single roster, they were spenind too much time on the main even story, but very little on the mid and lower cards. When the WWE split the rosters, however, they still focused the shows on the main event, and over inflated the individual rosters of each show until the problems they solved with the brand split re-emerged, now across two independent shows that only showed once a week. I think the brand split is a great idea, but I also think that the WWE's brand split failed completely in its purpose. Chalk it up to poor management.

(Also, there were 2 titles out when Austin won his championship. The WCW Heavyweight championship was out at the time as well. It doesn't take an insider to figure out that if two shows say that their champion is the best on Earth, that one of them obviously isn't.)

**addy2hotty** · 03-14-2007, 10:59 AM

It's just a sure-fire way to make more money. More performers = more t-shirts sold. More belts = more belt replicas sold. More DVDs made. More house shows.

**The One** · 03-14-2007, 03:29 PM

Except WWE hasn't made all that much money off of it. They are so watered down in the talent pool that people are tunning away in droves because they are board to tears...

**Theo Dious** · 03-14-2007, 03:49 PM

I like having seperate rosters because before the split the main events of Raw and Smackdown would be, if not identical, eerily similar.

**Mercury Bullet** · 03-14-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by addy2hotty

It's just a sure-fire way to make more money. More performers = more t-shirts sold. More belts = more belt replicas sold. More DVDs made. More house shows.

'Nuff said.

**Mercury Bullet** · 03-14-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One

Except WWE hasn't made all that much money off of it. They are so watered down in the talent pool that people are tunning away in droves because they are board to tears...

It hasn't necessarily worked, but money was/is the reasoning behind it.

**Londoner** · 03-14-2007, 04:04 PM

Different rosters has only started to interest me ever since they started having all those wretslers switch shows, i think they're realising that the roster split is not working and need to do something different, i have a hopeful feeling that after wrestlemania Vince will announce the end of the roster split, I can't stand most of the wrestlers that would lose their jobs anyway.

**Innovator** · 03-14-2007, 04:10 PM

Undisputed Champ, thats what we need

**FourFifty** · 03-14-2007, 11:34 PM

Albeit I see the anti-roster-split viewpoint, I think the roster split is a good idea, however they need to keep it split. During this time of year they always blur the roster split. They need to keep the shows as their own brands. I hated the MNM/Hardyz fued because Jeff and Nitro were on one show, while Matt and Meurcry were on another.
When they blur the lines too much it makes the roster split pointless. As hyped up as I am for JBL's match on Raw it doesn't have a point. Also, having Ashley and Melina on MizTV was pointless for SmackDown.

The brands should seldom cross paths, making it more dramatic when they do. As of three titles, if the WWE wants go give them value, here's what they have to do.
ECW- Give creative control to Paul Heyman or Tommy Dreamer. Have Lashley drop the title to an ECW "Original" (every time the WWE uses that term, an orpahn dies), and try to sign Raven. Don't put titles on over built musscle men. Make ECW look like ECW, and not the godforsaken train wreck that it has become.
SmackDown- Batista vs The Undertaker, have The Undertaker win, but make it a good back and forth match where The Undertaker seems to just pull a second wind that lasts him long enough to just barley win the title. Same with the re-match that's bound to happen. Keep The Undertaker on TV more often, have him wrestle more often, and cut more promos. In other words Vince needs to allow The Undertaker to take his wang out of Shane's butt and get on the road with everyone else. Build up younger guys to ALMOST beat The Undertaker, until one of them does, cleanly, and then keep the title on that guy for a looong time.
Raw- Shoot Cena.... Wait, no.... even better... Have Chris Benoit shoot Cena.

03-13-2007, 09:46 PM	#1
AdrianM aka Aussie_Skier Posts: 526	Different rosters Ok, personally I really like having two (or three) separate WWE brands. I'm not eactl sure why, I guess I just like to see all the wrestlers getting increased exposure (which wouldn't happen) if there was just the WWE. So, my question is, why do people dislike the wwe having 3 separate rosters?

03-13-2007, 11:20 PM	#2
Dorkchop facebook.com/bloquemen Posts: 5,452	Having three title belts makes each world heavyweight championship belt mean less. Especially when guys like Bobby Lashley are champ and very green. Would Austin's first heavy weight title victory mean as much had there been three belts to go after (not to mention his chase for it)? No. Same goes for tag teams.. then again the tag division is shit now... and, for the most part, has been ass since the roster split. Though there have been a few good months of tag team goodness. I like having three rosters in WWE because it does allow a lot of guys tv time who normally wouldn't. But at the same time there are a lot of guys who shouldn't be on tv, or as big as they are (due to three rosters). A guy like Mark Henry in no way what so ever should have been main eventing ppvs. Last edited by Dorkchop; 03-14-2007 at 12:52 AM.

03-14-2007, 12:01 AM	#3
M-A-G Higher. Further. Faster. Posts: 21,105	Thank you.

03-14-2007, 01:25 AM	#4
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	I dislike the brand extension because it gives dull undeserving people TV time. I honestly don't think I would want to see even one full brand roster's worth of wrestlers on TV now a days... Plus aside from Superman's belt buckle, not a single title has meaning anymore...

03-14-2007, 10:54 AM	#5
tucsonspeed6 Banned WWE on 1/1/07 Posts: 2,141	Lately I've been viewing the brand split like a failed ideology. As an idea on paper, it sounds really great. And with the right company doing the brand split, it could make the wrestling industry better as a whole. The original reason for the brand split was to have more time for the large roster. As a single roster, they were spenind too much time on the main even story, but very little on the mid and lower cards. When the WWE split the rosters, however, they still focused the shows on the main event, and over inflated the individual rosters of each show until the problems they solved with the brand split re-emerged, now across two independent shows that only showed once a week. I think the brand split is a great idea, but I also think that the WWE's brand split failed completely in its purpose. Chalk it up to poor management. (Also, there were 2 titles out when Austin won his championship. The WCW Heavyweight championship was out at the time as well. It doesn't take an insider to figure out that if two shows say that their champion is the best on Earth, that one of them obviously isn't.)

03-14-2007, 10:59 AM	#6
addy2hotty yes. yes. yes. Posts: 2,753	It's just a sure-fire way to make more money. More performers = more t-shirts sold. More belts = more belt replicas sold. More DVDs made. More house shows.

03-14-2007, 03:29 PM	#7
The One Boss Posts: 17,611	Except WWE hasn't made all that much money off of it. They are so watered down in the talent pool that people are tunning away in droves because they are board to tears...

03-14-2007, 03:49 PM	#8
Theo Dious EATER OF HOT POCKETS Posts: 14,340	I like having seperate rosters because before the split the main events of Raw and Smackdown would be, if not identical, eerily similar.

03-14-2007, 04:04 PM	#11
Londoner One Of A Kind Posts: 22,178	Different rosters has only started to interest me ever since they started having all those wretslers switch shows, i think they're realising that the roster split is not working and need to do something different, i have a hopeful feeling that after wrestlemania Vince will announce the end of the roster split, I can't stand most of the wrestlers that would lose their jobs anyway.

03-14-2007, 04:10 PM	#12
Innovator Inno Knows. Posts: 43,710	Undisputed Champ, thats what we need

03-14-2007, 11:34 PM	#13
FourFifty As over as Crystal Pepsi Posts: 21,639	Albeit I see the anti-roster-split viewpoint, I think the roster split is a good idea, however they need to keep it split. During this time of year they always blur the roster split. They need to keep the shows as their own brands. I hated the MNM/Hardyz fued because Jeff and Nitro were on one show, while Matt and Meurcry were on another. When they blur the lines too much it makes the roster split pointless. As hyped up as I am for JBL's match on Raw it doesn't have a point. Also, having Ashley and Melina on MizTV was pointless for SmackDown. The brands should seldom cross paths, making it more dramatic when they do. As of three titles, if the WWE wants go give them value, here's what they have to do. ECW- Give creative control to Paul Heyman or Tommy Dreamer. Have Lashley drop the title to an ECW "Original" (every time the WWE uses that term, an orpahn dies), and try to sign Raven. Don't put titles on over built musscle men. Make ECW look like ECW, and not the godforsaken train wreck that it has become. SmackDown- Batista vs The Undertaker, have The Undertaker win, but make it a good back and forth match where The Undertaker seems to just pull a second wind that lasts him long enough to just barley win the title. Same with the re-match that's bound to happen. Keep The Undertaker on TV more often, have him wrestle more often, and cut more promos. In other words Vince needs to allow The Undertaker to take his wang out of Shane's butt and get on the road with everyone else. Build up younger guys to ALMOST beat The Undertaker, until one of them does, cleanly, and then keep the title on that guy for a looong time. Raw- Shoot Cena.... Wait, no.... even better... Have Chris Benoit shoot Cena.