DISCUSSION - Could a 2.5 hour show work for RAW/Smackdown? (roster re-unification)

[Heyman]

DISCUSSION - Could a 2.5 hour show work for RAW/Smackdown? (roster re-unification)

Perhaps the biggest concern in re-uniting the rosters at this point, is that a lot of current wrestlers in the WWE would not get an adequate amount of television time.


Would an added "half-hour" on each of the 'main shows' (so - an hour more of total wrestling time per week), be the solution?

I don't really know how successful WCW was with having THREE hour shows (during their peak), but I'd argue that THREE hour shows is a bit too long.


Another proponent to this idea, would be to have:


A) Velocity be reserved for the Cruiserweight Division (1 spot reserved on a PPV)

B) Heat be reserved for the Women's Division (1 spot reserved on a PPV).


How's that for "affirmative action" on the WWE's part?


So - with all the CW's on Velocity and the women on Heat, this frees up RAW and Smackdown even more.



Could an idea like this ever work?


Higher quality shows, more depth, and more match-ups would be the obvious advantages. The "extra hour" during the week combined with the "Heat/Velocity = Women's/Cruiserweight" idea, would also ensure that everyone gets a decent amount of TV time.



Disadvantages that I can see:


1) Triple H, Undertaker, Angle, and Shawn Michaels would dominate the top spots (right CyNick? :P ). On this note however - would this really be THAT detrimental?

For instance - if guys like Jericho, Cena, Guerrero, Orton, etc. still get good TV time (and have good matches), then won't this still contribute to having a HIGHER quality show? (and in the end, making the fans happy?).



Worst case scenerio: Even if guys like Eddie Guerrero and John Cena got "buried" by Triple H (I'd argue that MAYBE they wouldn't.........but I'm just creating the worst case scenerio here), they would still get TV time that would otherwise be alloted to maybe............someone far less 'over' (i.e. Kenzo Suzuki, etc.).


In the end - we would STILL see a HIGHER quality show...........given the amount of DEPTH.


The best case scenerio, is that Triple H, Taker, etc. WON"T be so dominating of both shows (and so guys like Guerrero, Orton, etc. can still be bonafide main-eventers.........and look even MORE impressive amongst the fans, due to the quality of the show being higher).

Even if this doesn't happen initially, you've got to understand that guys like Triple H and Taker won't be around forever. Once they relinquish the top spots if they "retire" (I'm creating a "worst case scenerio" here again), then guys like Orton, Benoit, Guerrero, Big Show, etc. can be elevated to the main-event spot (and they will have a degree of credibility with the fans, because the fans have seen them as main-eventers before).





2) House Shows, International events, etc.: This is another advantage of the roster split......in theory. However - how much money are the WWE actually making with the added House Shows and Specific-brand PPV's right now?

Even though they hold more PPV's per year now (with the roster split), couldn't they still do the same thing WITHOUT the roster split? (i.e. hold more PPV's).


If the answer to that is "yes", then the only problem to address (in re-uniting the rosters) would be less house shows.

Given the EXTREMELY poor attendance at House Shows of late, would the WWE really be losing that much?

With a re-united roster (and more depth to boot), couldn't the WWE have LESS house shows...........but actually make more money? (since more people would attend House Shows with a united roster since the overall quality would be better).