Are you pro or anti brand split?

Are you pro or anti brand split?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pro in some ways and anti in others. The womens division needs to be split or else we'd have an endless Charles/Becky/Bianca rivalry. The mens main event scene should be split too to give other guys chances and so you don't have a Roman situation where one part time guy holds the belts hostage and either one show gets the champ or none do. Stuff like the tag team division should be unified though. The way they handle the womens tag division being on both shows is how the mens tag division should be.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Very much like this.
      The Roman "uNdIspuuTeD" 2 belt shoulder warmer champion thing is very much a Paul Heyman project and it sucks balls because it sounds like 2001, it forces all the challengers into vacuum of no belt holders so that it's always a naked guy versus the guy who holds all the bling.
      Maybe something like having a new grand champion (undisputed) belt on top of heavyweight championbelts you can only get by winning both SD and RAW - Money in the bank - Rumble - or just by accepted personal challenge would be better for variety matches while putting the Raw and SD belts back to competition for a reason other than just being the champ, maybe something like that could work and make these part timers have more reason to be the top guy?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pro if it's done correctly, but it has never been done right in WWE. So I'm against it.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pro, but only if it's extremely strict like it was in the mid 2000s. Separate PPVs, trashing each other on air, etc. Make it a fake monday night war type thing.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on how the company is at the time.

    If you have just the right amount of people from jobbers to main eventers on each show then it works great. Otherwise if you have too many people to the point you're consistently not using everyone then it doesn't.
    Early 2000s was good because it got Brock over, Cena, Batista. Freshened things up as Austin an Rock were leaving. Later on it got stale and SD was presented as more the 'midcarder' show to help catch people up with what the main story was on RAW.
    This current draft from 2016 till now has been good imo. It works well because Vince kept the rosters small and it wasn't as strict. FOX has helped SD a lot

    But generally speaking, it comes down to the state of the company at the time

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    anti
    they don't commit to it
    don't do enough to make the shows feel different either

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pro only if done right, the brands need to have their own PPVs with only some interactions during events like MITB and Royal Rumble. Scrap the survivor series 5 man and instead just do a points based system where brand with most points wins and gets first pick in draft or something. It also means survivor series is big again because you could have potential "dream matches" that you wouldnt get to normally see.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't care really, but it's annoying when wrestling fans get mad about it "not mattering"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It not mattering makes the split pointless

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pro
    You can create even more stars that way and the talent is happier.
    Just look at Smack 2016 for a good example

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    good idea but i feel like WWE just uses it and the draft as a crutch to get them out of their shit booking

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anti. The first brand split is where WWE really started to go wrong.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Raw and SD never really distinguished themselves enough. I guess SD has generally been seen as the "workrate" show while Raw is the main show, but that's not enough difference in identity for stuff like Survivor Series or the draft to really mean anything. Since NXT 2.0 is now clearly developmental, maybe having SD take on more of the trappings of Black and Gold NXT might help make the distinction more, well distinct.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >maybe having SD take on more of the trappings of Black and Gold NXT might help make the distinction more, well distinct.
      Raw is already more like NXT.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        people say raw is the "workrate" show and smackdown is the sports entertainment, I dont see it because outside of the bloodline and sami smackdown is very boring, it might be a good idea to try that.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Big brand split mark. I love having two distinctly different shows each week. Whenever it’s just the same rosters and stories on both, one always becomes pure filler. They’ve struggled to keep enough talent for both though.

    The only con I’ve ever really seen with a brand split is necessitating two world titles with slightly devalues them, but that’s an easy trade for having two different shows. Also WWE just can’t seem to stick to it and they got into a habit of trading guts between them so much each year that every 2-3 years, RAW was just SD from 3 years ago and vice versa.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Im in the camp of if it makes sense for them to appear on a show to progress a feud, then let them. So in a sense im anti bran split. But then there are also shitters who defintely needs to be contained to just one show and lesser exposure to hide their dimelessness away, so im also pro brand split

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pro brand split but they have to reduce the amount of titles because they basically mean nothing. There should only be one world champion, one set of tag titles, one women's champion etc. and then you can throw them on the different shows and make them feel distinct.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pro
    More people get the shine (deserving people)
    Competition (even if it's internal) will be beneficial by providing the show who has more viewers with actual benefits to its wrestlers like a bonus or pay increase
    Two distinct shows with its own storylines (SD 2016)

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    anti because the small rosters mean seeing Street Prophets vs Alpha Academy again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pro, but only if they actually try to make the shows feel different. The brand is Raw or Smackdown, not WWE, they shouldn't mirror each other

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pro, running the same guys doing the same storylines for 5 hours a week would get the fans burnt out on guys fast, plus the writers would have to book double the shit as well. raw needs the wwe title back though, Id love for seth or bobbo to hold it.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Raw
    >WWE Champion
    >Unified Women's Champion
    >Intercontinental Champion (merge US Championship)

    Smashdown
    >Universal Champion (rename to Heavyweight Champion)
    >Unified Tag Team Champions
    >Cruiserweight Champion

    That's all you need. Put all of the tag teams on Smackdown. You can still have tag matches on Raw, but they are to advance storylines, not to win championships. Likewise, put all the wrestling women on Raw, and put the valet women on Smashdown. You can still have women's matches, but they will mainly serve to advance the storylines of their men.

    Most importantly
    >both shows are 2 hours only
    >limit your big talent to only one match between PPVs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      putting women on one show is never gonna happen. feels like you copied svr08 gm mode kek.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pro if they do it right.

Your email address will not be published.