![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Quark is Less Impressed.
Posts: 38,371
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can't get that "Everything's all right" song out of my head because I've been replaying Saints Row.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Embracing the deception..
Posts: 1,227
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There are a lot of good points on both sides. I think WWE needs to use BALANCE to build the talent. Everyone says that RAW is loaded with the most talent, but Smackdown is more of a wrestling oriented show. Think about this. Which brand provided the most main events (the last match of the night) at the PPVs after the brand split AND the PPV merging (remember that we used to have brand specific PPVs)?
RAW has. Which brings the next point. To further build angles and to give wrestlers more face time, they may need to go back to brand PPVs and have Champs float on both shows. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Feeling Oof-y
Posts: 17,151
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All I knows is...Raw and SD! need better shampoo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
TPWW's #3 Peep
Posts: 20,903
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I wouldn't mind seeing brand-only PPV's again. Even if it's just one per show per year. It gives all the younger, smaller guys a chance to get on a PPV and show what they've got.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Embracing the deception..
Posts: 1,227
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quote:
I know that Elimination Chamber, and Money in the Bank were kinda popular, but they need to keep it on the HUGE events. Throw in a Cyber Sunday, or Bragging Rights to have us vote on dream Raw vs. Smackdown type matches. That way you can have superstars float from show to show to better flesh out inter promotional angles and start some new ones so they can come full circle if somebody gets drafted to another show. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Feeling Oof-y
Posts: 17,151
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think the brand specific PPVs were considered all that successful were they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Out Of Step
Posts: 12,059
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The buyrates dipped i think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
"Ask him!"
Posts: 10,075
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The brand-specific PPV's were nixed because the buyrates were in fact dipping and frankly they just weren't that good. You had matches taking place on PPV that had no right to be on a $40 show - RAW undercard matches and Velocity main events that nobody really wanted to see. It makes more sense to utilize your top talent for PPV events - multiple main events with multiple top drawing superstars means more buyrates.
Nobody wanted to see Bubba Ray Dudley in a semi-main event on a RAW brand PPV. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Feeling Oof-y
Posts: 17,151
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As I thought.
|
|
|
|