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).

[Mr. Nerfect]

While that all sounds rosy, and it makes a lot of sense, I'd rather they stick out the roster split. Have Heat & Velocity reserved, then have RAW & SmackDown! got for two-and-a-half hours.

I like the idea of the rosters being redrafted to re-instate a freshness. Have Triple H, Guerrero, Cena, Benoit, Batista, Flair, Kane, The Undertaker & The Big Show on one brand, while Angle, Jericho, Michaels, Orton, Edge, Lesnar (if he is making a comeback), The Rock (for his appearances sake), JBL, Christian, Charlie Haas & Shelton Benjamin on the other.

I think having both shows going live, and having things actually happen on Heat & Velocity could be just as effective as ending the roster-split. It is my belief the rosters have been seperated because they are in a time where younger guys and older guys are all trying to dominate, and with one brand it could be messy.

One idea I wouldn't mind happening is unified champions. A WWE Champion, an Intercontinental Champion and WWE Tag Team Champions can all be the end results. Then with Heat you can ahev your Cruiserweight titles and Women's titles.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Alienoid06 While that all sounds rosy, and it makes a lot of sense, I'd rather they stick out the roster split.

That's cool, and a lot of wrestling "pundits" would tend to lean that way as well.

My question, is why?

Other than the fact that the WWE can create more House Shows with a split roster (and more International events I guess), can you REALLY see the roster split panning out?


It's been what?.....almost THREE years now?

While new stars such as Lesnar, Cena, Guerrero, JBL, Edge, Orton, etc. were created (or elevated), it had MUCH more to do with their gimmicks (as opposed to getting more television time).

It's been THREE years, and I still stand by my original comment on that. Do you REALLY think that it would make THAT much difference if Carlitto Carribbean Cool (or anyone else with a good gimmick in your opinion) got 3 minutes of TV time instead of 5-6?



Your scenerio of having the WWE create a NEW draft/split is good..........but only in theory.


Based on the way that the WWE has conducted itself in the past, can you honestly see the WWE trying to move "established stars" to Smackdown?

I mean - people (me included) talk a LOT about how *insert upper-card RAW wrestler here* should move to Smackdown to "balance things out."

IT WILL NEVER EVVVVVVVVVVVVVER HAPPEN!



Even if Smackdown gets decent ratings and somewhat respectable attendance, etc.......

Why settle for mediocrity?


If Smackdown (or RAW) scores a 3.9 in ratings, gets 7,000 people at their televised show, and gets 4,000 at their House Show.............is this a "success"?.........or is it just "getting by"?


Fuck that!


Why just "get by", when your show can be the greatest fucking thing since sliced bread?



I apologize for having to talk about the subject of the roster split about 55,545,654,767,243,543,765 times, but c'mon already. :foc:


To quote one of my favorite sports-entertainers of all-time (and god bless his soul),

"Enough is enough, and its time for a change".

[Aussie Skier]

Originally Posted by Alienoid06 I think having both shows going live, and having things actually happen on Heat & Velocity could be just as effective as ending the roster-split.

both shows cant go live unfortunatly, unless they are on monday and Tuesday night. The logistics of it are too great for the benefit it will recieve.


As for my opinion. I see no problem with the roster split.
I personally think its the best thing the WWE has done for a long time, because we get exposure to guys like Cena, Orton , Eddie G, Chris Benoit etc...

I think your prediction of a worst case scenario, with HHH, Taker, HBK (not so much now maybe), Angle, Big show etc... holding the top positions would occur, and would be detrimental in the longer run.


Also, imagine if they did end the roster split. WHat sort of message is that saying to everyone. "We tried this roster split, and we failed."
Firstly, i dont think the roster split has failed, I persaonlly think its brilliant, and secondly, why is there a need for such drastic changes?

[The CyNick]

The difference with Rock-HHH in 2000 vs HHH-anyone now, is that Rock dominated HHH on TV every week (just about anyway). Sure he may have lost from time to time (and really the only times he lost there was massive amounts of interference), but on TV he was portrayed as being above HHH.

The way they do things now is that they'll build up a face, have him get the title from HHH, but then HHH will be positioned as the bigger star, and its uilt up like its just a matter of time beofre HHH gets the belt back. This was done with HBK, Goldberg, benoit and Orton.

So no new stars get created using that method. And they never will be as long as HHH keeps playing the game like that.

Did Benoit and Jericho and co. have a role in 2000? Sure, but it was a role that was far beneath what they were capable of. Then when they finally decided to put those guys in main events, the fans didn't accept it i n part because they had been positioned for so long as mid carders.

With RAW v SD we can all have our opinions, but the only thing to really go by is ratings. And the ratings show SD consistantly beats RAW week after week. And thats even with HHH doing things to make RAW seem like the superior show. My take on that is that a lot of people think like me, and are just sick of HHH in that top spot.

I woudl bet a lot of money that HHH will be around 10 years from now, never mind 5 years from now.

More thoughts in a few, I gotta eat.

[Funky Fly]

I haven't read any of what you said, but RAW is already 2 hours and 10 minutes.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Funky Fly I haven't read any of what you said, but RAW is already 2 hours and 10 minutes.

Well if you haven't read any of what I said, then kindly fuck off (smile). onlykidding.

So? Make it 2:40 (the "extra minutes" still stay in-tact).

If that's not possible, then cut down the length of matches (as we saw during the days of the "attitude era).



So - instead of having a 2:10 show with longer matches, have 2:30 with shorter matches.

-No wrestler gets a significant loss of TV time.
-Matches are shorter and more "result" oriented (smarks will hate it, but the marks will love it. Marks compose of 90-95% of the fanbase anyways).

[Mr. Nerfect]

You bring up a good point as to why I'd like to see it kept in tact.

I can't explain it, you've got me. Guys like Eddie Guerrero and Chris Jericho can do with a bit of time on RAW and SmackDown!, and occassionally Heat & Velocity (as referees or special appearances or something). You bring up some good points, and the only way I can even defend mine is by using the old "talent gone to waste" idea, which I think is stupid anyway

One benefit of bringing the brands back together is PPVs. No more of those awkward brand exclusive PPVs, and each one can tell a story successfully. Royal Rumble, No Way Out, WrestleMania, Backlash, Judgment Day, Fully Loaded, The Great American Bash, Summerslam, Unforgiven, No Mercy, Survivor Series, Armageddon. Or something to the like (I've always liked the name "Fully Loaded" for some reason). You could even slip in a few special holiday themed PPVs as well. A Christmas themed one with proceeds going to charity (to an extent), and maybe an annual New Year's Revolution event.

You've won me over to your side, but I feel given the effort (which you so won't happen, but I still say COULD if the WWE WANTED to do it) RAW & SmackDown! can carry themselves as seperate brands. Add 30 minutes on to every major show, have Heat, Velocity, Afterburn & Bottom Line feature matches, and use Experience as the sole recap show.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Heyman -No wrestler gets a significant loss of TV time. -Matches are shorter and more "result" oriented (smarks will hate it, but the marks will love it. Marks compose of 90-95% of the fanbase anyways).

It's nice in theory, but do you thin kthat they'd reallystick to the formula?

We'd get an extra hour of JBL/HHH a week total, and we'd end up with as few superstars featured.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight It's nice in theory, but do you thin kthat they'd reallystick to the formula? We'd get an extra hour of JBL/HHH a week total, and we'd end up with as few superstars featured.

In my opinion - it wouldn't be THAT detrimental if a few extra superstars lost too much TV time. So? We see less Charlie Hass, Kenzo Suzuki, Tyson Tomko, and Hurricane?...........big deal! Even IF Triple H and JBL got twice as much TV as everyone else, we'd STILL see Jericho, Guerrero, Benoit, Edge, Cena, Taker, HBK, etc. ALL on television.

No matter who gets TV time (and who doesn't get as much that week), it will be someone of QUALITY. Someone who is 'over'.


In JBL's case for instance - the WWE may actually succeed in making him look like a credible main-eventer (if he was made to look superior to ALL of Triple H, Jericho, Guerrero, Cena, Benoit, etc.etc.etc.).



Here's the way I see it:

Like I said already, a POTENTIAL negative of the rosters being brought back together, is that guys like Guerrero, Cena, and.....Edge? may be somewhat "buried" initially (in light of guys like Triple H, HBK, and Taker all being on the same show). Remember - that's just the WORST CASE SCENERIO however.


Right now on RAW for instance - A guy like Chris Jericho should arguably be a main-eventer, but he's been relegated to the midcards (thanks to the "depth" of RAW).

However - I don't think that ANYONE will dispute the fact that Jericho is one of the "bright spots" of RAW...........and everyone gets "interested" whenever he's on air.

Even if fans no longer see him as a main-event calibre superstar, people still LOVE to see him on their TV sets. People would MUCH rather see a "Chris Jericho" than a Orlando Jordan. The same can be said for Rob Van Dam.


I guess what it would boil down to, is what's more important?

A) Creating more main-eventers? (on a sub-par show)

B) Creating LESS main-eventers (and possibly de-pushing a few wrestlers such as Guerrero, etc.), but having a higher quality show?





Some questions to ponder:



1) If you were an athlete, would you rather be an average football player on a PROFESSIONAL team, or would you rather be a star football player in the "minor leagues" (lots of players of which, are "nobodies")

2) Who would be classified as a "bigger star"? The "star" in the professional leagues (where there is more depth........and due to the perceived "more depth", the #1 star looks even bigger)..............OR the "star" in the minor leagues.


Would a guy like Dave Batista be more "over" if he was the World Champion, or UNDISPUTED champion?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Heyman In my opinion - it wouldn't be THAT detrimental if a few extra superstars lost too much TV time. So? We see less Charlie Hass, Kenzo Suzuki, Tyson Tomko, and Hurricane?...........big deal! Even IF Triple H and JBL got twice as much TV as everyone else, we'd STILL see Jericho, Guerrero, Benoit, Edge, Cena, Taker, HBK, etc. ALL on television. No matter who gets TV time (and who doesn't get as much that week), it will be someone of QUALITY. Someone who is 'over'. In JBL's case for instance - the WWE may actually succeed in making him look like a credible main-eventer (if he was made to look superior to ALL of Triple H, Jericho, Guerrero, Cena, Benoit, etc.etc.etc.). Here's the way I see it: Like I said already, a POTENTIAL negative of the rosters being brought back together, is that guys like Guerrero, Cena, and.....Edge? may be somewhat "buried" initially (in light of guys like Triple H, HBK, and Taker all being on the same show). Remember - that's just the WORST CASE SCENERIO however. Right now on RAW for instance - A guy like Chris Jericho should arguably be a main-eventer, but he's been relegated to the midcards (thanks to the "depth" of RAW). However - I don't think that ANYONE will dispute the fact that Jericho is one of the "bright spots" of RAW...........and everyone gets "interested" whenever he's on air. Even if fans no longer see him as a main-event calibre superstar, people still LOVE to see him on their TV sets. People would MUCH rather see a "Chris Jericho" than a Orlando Jordan. The same can be said for Rob Van Dam. I guess what it would boil down to, is what's more important? A) Creating more main-eventers? (on a sub-par show) B) Creating LESS main-eventers (and possibly de-pushing a few wrestlers such as Guerrero, etc.), but having a higher quality show? Some questions to ponder: 1) If you were an athlete, would you rather be an average football player on a PROFESSIONAL team, or would you rather be a star football player in the "minor leagues" (lots of players of which, are "nobodies") 2) Who would be classified as a "bigger star"? The "star" in the professional leagues (where there is more depth........and due to the perceived "more depth", the #1 star looks even bigger)..............OR the "star" in the minor leagues. Would a guy like Dave Batista be more "over" if he was the World Champion, or UNDISPUTED champion?

They're all good points, but with JBL, The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Booker T, Rob Van Dam, Randy Orton and Triple H all on one brand, would someone like Batista ever get a chance. We're either going to see rapid title changes, or less usperstars getting the title Although this boosts credibility, it could also get more people who think RVD should be champion upset.

BTW, Heyman, I am interested to hear your insight into the current PPV scene. That could make a good discussion sometime (if you haven't already done it).

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Funky Fly I haven't read any of what you said, but RAW is already 2 hours and 10 minutes.

That's 2.17, not 2.5

[Heyman]

HHH, Angle, HBK, and Taker dominating. Mass firings.


I still like this idea, but I'd like to address two major concerns that certain people have. Here are my opinons on these issues:



A) Angle, HHH, HBK, and Taker may dominate the "top spots" for awhile, but you've also got to realize that Angle and Taker are VERY close to retiring....and won't be around for much longer. Before either guy calls it quits as a full-time wrestler, I'm sure that atleast ONE of them will do a significant JOB of sorts.

Even if These 4 men dominate the top spots, the overall quality of the WWE product will still be higher.


B) Mass firings: Who cares?!?!!? If the WWE aren't using certain guys correctly (or these "certain guys" are wrestlers that the fans don't give 2 shits about), then why does it matter if they get cut? Honestly - would it really matter THAT much if guys like Snitksy, Viscera, Heidenreich, Rosie, Hardcore Holly, etc. got axed?


C) Does it really matter if certain guys become "curtain jerkers" even if the overall product of the show is higher? So what if guys like Edge and Batista get delayed in their future main-event pushes? So what if a guy like Eddie gets pushed down the card. They still can make the overall quality of the show better.

The guy that eventually DOES break through Triple H or whomever (Triple H won't be around FOREVER) will go over 10x more than he would if the roster split remained in-tact.


D) Most Wrestlers can still wrestle once per week........just as we saw in 2000/01. The top wrestlers however, can appear on both RAW and Smackdown.

[Heyman]

A RAW/Smackdown "invasion" angle should be the one to end the roster split IMO.


-After Wrestlemania, a new draft takes place.

-Cena, Guerrero, Taker, RVD, Mysterio, and Funaki get drafted to RAW

-Triple H, Orton, Edge, Kane, (Lesnar comes back), and Mohammad Hussan get drafted to Smackdown.


Smackdown invades RAW the next week.

-The entire Smackdown brand becomes heel.
-The entire RAW brand becomes face

[Hired Hitman]

Then that goes for a year untill the next Wrestlemania where the Titles get unified back into the WWE Championship... Yeeeeah.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Hired Hitman Then that goes for a year untill the next Wrestlemania where the Titles get unified back into the WWE Championship... Yeeeeah.

I would have the World titles unified a lot earlier than that (if it was up to me), but oh well. Your idea is cool as well.


I'd also try and get The Rock to be the sole GM of the WWE.

http://www.tpww.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25717

[Mr. Nerfect]

How is this for an idea? It is probably crap, but anyway...

Why not have RAW and SmackDown! alternate shows? Have a new name created for each brand, then have one of the brands (say RAW) has its talent appear on RAW, SmackDown!, Heat and Velocity for that week. Have the other brand (SmackDown! in this case) do house shows for that week. The following week things are swapped around, so RAW and SmackDown! feature SD! superstars, while RAW goes on a house show tour for the week.

Maybe even have Experience, Bottom Line and Afterburn used in there as well. Maybe as the brand not using RAW and SD!'s shows for the week?

If that doesn't appeal to you, you could have that "live" slot alternate. Every second week have the RAW slot go to SmackDown!, and the SmackDown! slot go to RAW. The Heat and Velocity timeslots could be swapped as well, but I'd leave them as brand exclusive shows where they are.

This sort of gives the brands more of an equal opportunity, and can allow for more time for storylines. Of course PPVs would need to be cut with my first idea, but is that really a bad thing?

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Alienoid06 How is this for an idea? It is probably crap, but anyway... Why not have RAW and SmackDown! alternate shows? Have a new name created for each brand, then have one of the brands (say RAW) has its talent appear on RAW, SmackDown!, Heat and Velocity for that week. Have the other brand (SmackDown! in this case) do house shows for that week. The following week things are swapped around, so RAW and SmackDown! feature SD! superstars, while RAW goes on a house show tour for the week.

It's a nice thought, but here's the problem I see with that (if I understand you correctly).

-RAW/SD are already shown on different networks. Lots of people only get to see 1 brand.

-In a lot of cases, people would have to go 2 weeks without seeing either the "Raw brand" or the "Smackdown brand". As a result, interest for PPV's would probably be pretty low.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Heyman It's a nice thought, but here's the problem I see with that (if I understand you correctly). -RAW/SD are already shown on different networks. Lots of people only get to see 1 brand. -In a lot of cases, people would have to go 2 weeks without seeing either the "Raw brand" or the "Smackdown brand". As a result, interest for PPV's would probably be pretty low.

Yeah, they're pretty good points.

I still like the idea of each brand getting two major shows a week. It sounds like it could do damage, but with frequent trades, and with some good matches "just for the sport of it". Have a lot of tag teams matches and six-man tags heading into PPVs. With frequent PPVs, you don't need to put matches off for too long.

[tucsonspeed6]

I read this in the Death of WCW book. It's tough to move from one show length to another. If they added another half hour of programming, they'd probably see their ratings slump a bit, but they'd make more money in advertising. Right now, I don't think the WWE is losing too much money, but with the wrestling business in a slump right now (assuming the business is cyclical) making a change in the show's length could be the driving force to turn the slump into a high, or it could drive business into new lows not seen in years. I'm thinking it'd be the latter.

To tell you the truth, if Vince was given an extra hour per week to give us a product, he'd give us an extra hour of fake boobs throwing pillows at each other, and I'd give my TV an extra bullet to sort through.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by tucsonspeed6 To tell you the truth, if Vince was given an extra hour per week to give us a product, he'd give us an extra hour of fake boobs throwing pillows at each other, and I'd give my TV an extra bullet to sort through.

Perhaps you have a point....a good one at that.


So - even if the WWE was *only* a 2 hour show (without the roster split), would that be such a bad thing?


-Does it really matter if a lot of wrestlers (such as Rosie, Viscera, Richards, etc.) get canned? Will most fans care?

-Does it really matter if a guy like Guerrero or Benoit gets further pushed DOWN the depth chart if the rosters comes together?

a) They may not get main-event spots, but they could still entertain the fans with their wrestling....and contribute to a higher quality show (kinda like what Jericho is doing now).

b) NO ONE in the company is drawing anyways. Therefore - does it really mean anything if guys like these get *temporarily* demoted? (I use the word 'temporary', because guys like Angle, HBK, Taker, and Triple H won't be around forever).



-Ratings were at its highest in 99/00
-No Roster Split
-Women's division was practically non-existent
-CW division was practically non-existent
-Shorter matches on TV (except ME's). Longer matches saved for PPV's.


As far as I know, its not like the WWE (back then) were making less money than now due to (arguably) less House Shows, Int'l events, etc. (which are some of the ALLEGED benefits of the roster split).

[Joe Kerr]

there really is no Womens division so Heat would fail....you could make Heat a tag team Division show bringing in a few more tag teams. Smackdown needs to be live and moved to Spike. Especially with all the censorship on UPN....does anyone even watch any other crap on UPN? Upn wouldnt even show "That 70's Show, The Simpsons , and FREINDS!"...instead they had a screen up saying that the FCC found the show to be offencive and inappropriate for veiwing.....So WWE needs a new station for Smackdown.

A hour and a half would work IF they cut down on the in ring Mic time. they waste 20 minutes every RAW for a HHH victory speech...or the Highlight reel...which I like..Just wrestle.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Joey Radd there really is no Womens division so Heat would fail....you could make Heat a tag team Division show bringing in a few more tag teams. Smackdown needs to be live and moved to Spike.

Come to think of it, I say FUCK the ideas of

-velocity being reserved for CW's
-Heat being reserved for Women.


Keep the same format for Heat and Velocity as we see now. As we'd see with RAW/Smackdown, the depth for both of those shows would be higher.


Perhaps reserve Heat and Velocity for the ECW alumni? If the WWE want seperate brands, then have Heat and Velocity become ECW.

Raw and SD would be WWE.



Atleast with a format like this, the WWE wouldn't *have to* pretend that they treat both brands equally (like they do with RAW/SD).