Is it Time to end the Brand Extension?

[multiverseman.com]

All those arguing for the brand split still....reality contridicts you. Smackdown's ratings are dismal, the split PPV's are gone. It's time to end it. A ton of stars needing face-time isn't an incentive to me to keep it going cuz that eliminates the need for people to rise to the top. Everyone isn't supposed to get facetime. Jack Swagger would've never become champ before the massive roster split. Plus, at this rate, it'll be a moot point cuz Smackdown ain't got another two years left in it.

 

[zomigosh]

Unify the all the titles so there are only:

WWE World Champion
WWE Intercontinental Champion
WWE World Tag Team Champions
WWE Womens Champion
WWE Television Champion (threw this in there so there could be two mid card builder titles)

Get rid of the brand split and the draft altogether. They have run their course and do not work anymore. When they were instituted years ago the rosters were overloaded with talents and it made sense. Now it is no longer needed and it shows by the lack of original feuds and storylines and viturally no mid card storylines what so ever anymore. The rosters are so depleted now due either to guys just getting old and retiring or injury, and new stars are not ready to carry single branded shows. The best shows that the WWE have bee having lately are the 3 hours RAWs that have superstars from both brands on the one show and thats how it needs to be again. This would provide rating boosts from both RAW and Smackdown and provide the opportunity for new angles and feuds to come about. Everything wouldn't need to be or feel so rushed because stories could flow from show to show much better.

It is still needed.

If the brand extension was ended, you would find that a lot of the roster wouldn't be used as you can't fit all the wrestlers from Raw and Smackdown every week all into one two hour program.

I don't see what's the fuss, I gurrantee if the brand split was ended we would have complaints about so and so weren't being used correctly. With two shows you can see most wrestlers you want a week and have them be used fairly well.

 

[darbare]

dude, last night we basically saw the whole SD! roster appearing on RAW, even JTG!! granted it was a 3 hour show, but why not feature the talent that is being used anyways on both shows...its not like 90 percent of the midcard on RAW and SD is doing anything anyways....every week on Superstars, you always see Yoshi, Zack Ryder, The Usos....why not show them on SD! on actual storylines....you mean to tell me you would rather see the damn eagle vs Hornswoggle every week (which is actually Chavo I think), than see Yoshi finally get some TV time, because he aint gettin none on RAW...on RAW last night the whole SD! midcard was featured with the exception of McIntyre....where was David Hart Smith, Ezekiel Jackson, R-Truth or Tyson for a match....All I'm saying is, why have pointless matches and segments no one wants to see on SD! that kills the overall product, when you could feature something meaningful....if they wanna keep SD! the wrestling show, then do that, but youre not gonna be able to do it effectively with the 13 or 14 guys they have already have who will run out of feuds quickly...

 

[LSN80]

I dont see how it makes much sense, to be honest. The brand split, despite its inherent flaws, works for WWE.

Raw is the flagship show. The better angles, storylines, and marquee names are there. Its generally going to be the best WWE has to offer from a production and flow standpoint. I identify names with Raw, such as HHH, Randy Orton, and John Cena. With Smackdown, I identify the better wrestling show that allows the younger talent in WWE an opportunity to shine. It's a nice mix, so why change it?

You simply can't deny that Raw is the bigger of the two shows. Its the show WWE has hung its hat on for ratings, viewership, and star power. People tune in to Raw to see the marquee names and the gorundbreaking angles they dont see on Smackdown. It's been that way since the brand split, and I dont see that changing any time soon. The better wrestling is also featured on Smackdown, not the name value. People don't tune in to Smackdown to see their favorite Superstar, generally, they tune into Raw. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The other inherent problem you would come across would be the need to unify all of the titles. I agree with the unification of the Tag and Divas Championships, but there's too deep of a talent pool to Unify the mid-card, and more importantly, the World titles.

The brand split allows for the better talent, viewing figures, and drawn out storylines to be on Raw, and the better wrestling to be on Smackdown. WWE has established that for a long time, and we as viewers know that as well. There's no need to end the brand split at this time, and its not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[TheAbsolute1]

Definitely not. You can't have Monday night RAW then, Friday night...RAW. Keep certain titles like the WWE, IC, Tag, Divas(I guess), and what I'd like to call a Zero gravity title(High Flyers ). ave feuds between brands sometimes to see who deserves contenderships for what titles and the WWE would be even more awesome. Seprate brands are very beneficial.

 

[d_henderson1810]

It is still needed.

If the brand extension was ended, you would find that a lot of the roster wouldn't be used as you can't fit all the wrestlers from Raw and Smackdown every week all into one two hour program.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two ways around this.

The WWE, when asked to do four 3-hour episodes a week, should counter with a much better proposal- "How about 52 a week"? So you have Raw be three hours a week, scrap Smackdown, and this will give plenty of time for people to appear.

The second thing is that having one show may force WWE to utilise their time better. They can cut some of the comedy spots, cut down the length of promos, and focus more on promoting the PPV, which is still the biggest revenue-raiser in WWE. They need to be "tighter" with their air-time, and then they can utilise stories and superstars more productively.

 

[zomigosh]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two ways around this.

The WWE, when asked to do four 3-hour episodes a week, should counter with a much better proposal- "How about 52 a week"? So you have Raw be three hours a week, scrap Smackdown, and this will give plenty of time for people to appear.

The second thing is that having one show may force WWE to utilise their time better. They can cut some of the comedy spots, cut down the length of promos, and focus more on promoting the PPV, which is still the biggest revenue-raiser in WWE. They need to be "tighter" with their air-time, and then they can utilise stories and superstars more productively.

I don't get your point.

Instead of having two well balanced shows, you want to fit it all onto one show whilst destroying the general structure of it. Why do all of this when you can have two detailed shows instead of one less entertaining one?

 

[MisterRob]

No, the brand extension wasn't the best idea in the first place, and it's been poorly executed with so much interaction between the brands over the years, but it would be a bad idea to get rid of it now. Right now, with two main brands, WWE offers far more wrestlers a chance at having a job and a career and making something in the business. If there was only one brand a great deal of the roster would have to be trimmed down and gotten rid of, and we'd see a lot less diversity in the wrestling product.

It could work if they unified the titles and still had two shows, Raw and Smackdown, but then there really isn't much point of getting rid of the brand extension idea in the first place. And if they unified everything and just made a 3 hour raw? It doesn't make sense from a business stand point... most fans don't want to sit through 3 hours straight of wrestling. And, they get more exposure and probably a lot of other advantages in having two distinct shows every week. I think this ending the brand extension discussion finally has to be laid to rest.

 

[lenguy]

Another thread about ending the brand extension? No, its good to have both brands. Why do you need to end them? So you can shove all that talent on to raw? Half oh which would never get screen time. This is why its good to have both raw and smackdown. Smackdown lets the younger guys to shine and show off the skills that will likely move them up to the A show. Smackdown gives talent that would other wise get no or little air time on raw.

The rosters to big for one show. Its good that its divided. and It should stay that way for awhile. Besides, it gives us viewers an option. You don't have to watch raw, there's always smackdown. Yet you don't have to watch smackdown if your a raw guy. One show runs the risk of stagnating the product with just one show. Two rosters gives the writing team to mix things up every now and then to try and keep things fresh.

 

[OmegaWWE]

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting this as "Should WWE scrap one show?" The question was "Should WWE end the Brands Extension?" If you recall, before the Brands Extension, there was one "brand" and it was WWE. It wasn't the Raw brand or the SmackDown brand. They were simply two shows showcasing WWE talent. That is the idea behind ending the Brands Extension. WWE wouldn't be scrapping SmackDown.

The idea is that it would give more depth to feuds/rivalries, and it would make Championship reigns more believable. It worked for WWE before. And, the only reason it's in effect now is because WWE purchased WCW and had an over-abundance of superstars. Obviously, WWE doesn't have that now, so there really is no need for the rosters to be split.

-One Commissioner/General Manager
-One World Championship
-Intercontinental Championship
-United States Championship (similar to how the European Championship was used)
-Tag Team Championship
-Divas Championship

It could work, and it would boost the ratings on SmackDown. It definitely wouldn't hinder Raw, since the same superstars would be appearing on the show.

 

[Agent J]

I'm gonna have to agree with a previous post. having two brands restricts the writers in the storylines they have to work with. And honestly the storylines are starting to get tired. One brand will add fresh rivalries and give the writers options instead of the four people in the main event on raw for the last 2 to 3 months

 

[darbare]

THANK YOU OmegaWWE...thats what I was trying to say through this entire post...Smackdown has been around since 1999....that was during the Attitude era.....so yes, Smackdown has alot of history...but I think feuds and championships would have more meaning if they were to be showcased on both shows IF NECESSARY...I didnt say have John cena and the main eventers hogging up Smackdown....just make it the way it used to be back then showcasing any and all talent if necessary for the effectiveness of storylines...we see the same faces on SD week in and week out with no purpose....Dashing cody Rhodes has been doing nothing the whole since being on Smackdown besides beginning a new gimmick....Kaval gets squashed every week....random matches between Swagger, Kofi, Ziggler, Cody, McIntyre....are these random matches so important that you cant feature something else more relevant at least pertaining to an actual storyline or an upcoming PPV....that is all Smackdown is....lets look at last nights Smackdown....The Miz, who by the way is from RAW...showed up had an actual match with Rey Mysterio...what do they next? they put him in ANOTHER match the same night in this time in a tag team match....what else...Cody Rhodes beat Masters...now what?...Santino and Kozlov beat ANOTHER makeshift tag team in Chavo and Tyler Reks.....a pointless segment from JTG....hell in the main event they had a match just to bring out the entire Smackdown roster (all 10 if them) to break up the fight between Kane and Edge....I dunno about the rest of you, but does really want to make you buy TLC tomorrow night? I didnt think so....if they wanted me to buy TLC, they could have added Randy to that show last night, and maybe even a segment between Sheamus and John Morrison....but nope...thats why PPV buyrates are so poor this year....a poorly booked Smackdown that by the way, some people do actually watch, discourages people from watching Smackdown the next week and even discourages them buying the PPV in a couple of nights...

 

[d_henderson1810]

I don't get your point.

Instead of having two well balanced shows, you want to fit it all onto one show whilst destroying the general structure of it. Why do all of this when you can have two detailed shows instead of one less entertaining one?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your question is nonsense!

Did they have a brand extension during the "Attitude Era"? No. Did everyone get a run every week? Mostly. I'm sure, over the course I saw Kaientai, the Nation Of Domination and other jobbers get some screen time. Raw was better then, because they build up stories properly.

There is a saying: "More is less". The structure of the show wasn't thrown out before 1999 (when Smackdown debuted). In 1998, when Raw was rating the highest, they had "Raw" and "Sunday Night Heat". So my suggestion is to go back to that (having "Superstars", or, if you please "Smackdown", being like "Sunday Night Heat").

Most superstars could fit onto "Raw" back then, and I don't think they had many more top guys then , then they do now. I don't see why we need to keep the charade of a useless brand extension going, just so some jobbers, who are clogging up the WWE list, shouldn't, in your opinion, be "future-endeavoured" , which is more fitting for some of them.

I care more about promoting the top talent, while building new "top" guys, then giving jobbers something to do.

 

[Lee]

Simple reason on why ending the brand split is a bad idea:

House Shows. It is well known that in the past few years ratings are dipping, PPV sales are dropping but it is house shows where the attendance is going up. Why's that? The brand split.

GO to a house show, it's either Raw or SD, you're guaranteed to see at least a few main eventers, now if you take the brand split away there's no guarantee on that. Would you pay $40 to see an untelevised show where there's no guarantee that anyone higher in the pecking order than Daniel Bryan will be there? Exactly.