Smaller rosters

**DrA** · 03-04-2009, 07:54 PM

One of the things that began to annoy me after they brought back ECW was the smaller roster sizes. Back when the WWF was at its peak, there were what, 80-90 wrestlers on the roster that were more or less being used on a semi-consistent basis. While the argument may be made that a lot of talented guys were not being used to their full potential, having a larger roster as a whole makes the main event and upper mid card look more credible. Let's say that there are eight guys considered main eventers, and an additional ten to twelve guys that are upper mid carders. That makes the main event seem prestigious, and those in the upper mid card competing for the IC title look like legitimate competitors. Hell, it makes those competing for any title look credible.

Now in this absolute disaster of a product WWE is putting out now, you have three brands, maybe it's four now I don't know, with what, fifteen-twenty actual wrestlers on each brand and about five titles designated to each show. That means that one out of every four wrestler in the WWE has a title pretty much. It makes no sense to me what they are thinking having three separate brands like that, considering their roster size isn't nearly as large as it was in 2002 when they decided to go to two shows.

I miss the old days of there being one main show (RAW is WAR/The War Zone) and the one minor show (Sunday Night Heat). I always hated Smackdown because watching UPN makes me feel like a poor Mexican. I know they will never go back to that format, but it worked. Now they are mass producing WWE shows left and right and they are all horrible.

03-04-2009, 07:54 PM	#1
DrA Posts: 24,537	Smaller rosters One of the things that began to annoy me after they brought back ECW was the smaller roster sizes. Back when the WWF was at its peak, there were what, 80-90 wrestlers on the roster that were more or less being used on a semi-consistent basis. While the argument may be made that a lot of talented guys were not being used to their full potential, having a larger roster as a whole makes the main event and upper mid card look more credible. Let's say that there are eight guys considered main eventers, and an additional ten to twelve guys that are upper mid carders. That makes the main event seem prestigious, and those in the upper mid card competing for the IC title look like legitimate competitors. Hell, it makes those competing for any title look credible. Now in this absolute disaster of a product WWE is putting out now, you have three brands, maybe it's four now I don't know, with what, fifteen-twenty actual wrestlers on each brand and about five titles designated to each show. That means that one out of every four wrestler in the WWE has a title pretty much. It makes no sense to me what they are thinking having three separate brands like that, considering their roster size isn't nearly as large as it was in 2002 when they decided to go to two shows. I miss the old days of there being one main show (RAW is WAR/The War Zone) and the one minor show (Sunday Night Heat). I always hated Smackdown because watching UPN makes me feel like a poor Mexican. I know they will never go back to that format, but it worked. Now they are mass producing WWE shows left and right and they are all horrible.