The WWE TV title? But defend it on Superstars

[Savion83]

I one thing that the juggarnaut that is the WWE has never had is their own television championship. Other wrestling promotions like WCW and ECW had a diffrent version of the TV title, with great wrestlers winning and defending the title with pride like Steve Austin, 2 Cold Scorpio, Booker T, and Chris Benoit (R.I.P.).

The WWE had the now defunct European championship as a subsitutte for the TV title, but the championship didn't get that much attention as the other championships in the company (IC & US). But what if the "E" re-introduced the TV championship back to the WWE universe/wrestling fans (who still atlease remember the TV title) in today's WWEPG? But only have the title matches for the belt only on WWE superstars on thursday's? I can see it now!

They could hold a torney on superstars with wrestlers who are under the mid-card scene (Chavo, Santino, Primo, Tatsu), with the exception of cross brand-promotion matches on thursday's? It could really work!

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Even if the TV title is only defended on Superstars, there's a good chance the TV champion could still get lost in the shuffle. Not too many people watch Superstars, so I don't think the TV champion would get that much attention anyway. The WWE is already loaded with enough titles anyway:

WWE Championship
World Heavyweight Championship
US Title
Unified Tag Titles
Diva's Championship
Women's Championship
Intercontinental Championship

The WWE has enough championships already, they really don't need another one. Plus, with all of the championships WWE already has, I would find it very hard to believe that the TV title would ever have a chance of making it to a PPV. I know you said this title should only be defended on Superstars, but again, not too many people watch Superstars, so who ever the TV champion is, there's a good chance not too many people will give a shit about him anyway. But if the title were defended on a PPV, then there's a better chance more people could get know the champion.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't get the point of having a TV Title on Superstars. For one thing, why have a title that's only defended on a show that no one watches? If you're trying to draw people in, then why would they want to watch a show where the champion of it is confined to that show? Also, since every title is alreadyd efended on TV, what's the point in having a title that is just defended on TV? It's already done by every title there is. I just don't see the point to it.

 

[Savion83]

You got to remember that the WWE had (repeat) had the ECW championship in their mits. But of course the ECW brand is no more. The WWECW championship was more like a step child to the WWE, but they still had it anyways. The TV title in general is too important of a championship to just be thrown out of wrestling like that. Too many WWE hall of famers has had that championship around there waist, so let's not treat this title like another bastard child like other championships that the WWE aqquried, like the curiserweight championship!

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I understand what you are saying about all the names that have held the TV title, but with that said they should really just retire it and let it die. The WWE has had real difficulty making ANY of their titles prestigious in any way (seriously, when was the last time the WWE had a title that had any prestige? Titles used to mean something, now they are just props).
Not only that, the TV title was never a big title in WCW (the TV title to me was just another title for mid-carders, the US Title was the one that actually meant something, the TV title was like a prostitute, passed around from one wrestler to another), in ECW it was a different story, but if they couldn't make the ECW title mean anything, why bother with the TV title, its stupid.
There are ALOT of titles that great wrestlers have won (the US tag titles for example, that had more prestige than the TV title ever did, or even the National Heavyweight title), but that doesn't mean that they should just bring it back for the hell of it. Personally, I think the WWE would be much better off shedding some of their titles (like the Divas championship) not adding more, when there are too many champions most of the belts get lost in the shuffle (I saw the cruiserweight title being mentioned, thats a perfect example of what I'm talking about).
The TV title had its place and time, but that passed about a decade ago, lets remember what the title used to be instead of bastardizing its legacy which would undoubtedly happen (even though I still don't think it had that much prestige in the NWA or WCW).

SIDE NOTE: A title to be defended only on Superstars may be the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

 

[tomlyger]

Name the last time a title changed hands at house show, not to often the tv title was originally created when house show actually featured title changes, and is only realvent to shows who create storylines off of television like ecw did. A show that is a B-show does not need its own title, superstars is not a brand but instead a place to train wrestlers in the art of performing in front of a huge wwe audience and prepare them for real camera time, besides to many belts as is

 

[American Steamboat]

I think they should bring back the Cruiserweight Championship instead, and have it defended on both brands like the Unified Tag Team Championship. However, I wouldn't mind them introducing a TV title, as I really think there should be one more title for low and lower-midcard wrestlers.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

You got to remember that the WWE had (repeat) had the ECW championship in their mits. But of course the ECW brand is no more. The WWECW championship was more like a step child to the WWE, but they still had it anyways. The TV title in general is too important of a championship to just be thrown out of wrestling like that. Too many WWE hall of famers has had that championship around there waist, so let's not treat this title like another bastard child like other championships that the WWE aqquried, like the curiserweight championship!

The TV title is something of the past. WWE just wouldn't have enough time to give the TV champion the proper exposure. There are more than enough titles on Smackdown and Raw, so adding another one wouldn't be a good idea. Even if the title is exclusive to Superstars, the champion still won't get all the time he needs. Superstars is a 1 hour long show, and this gives wrestlers such as MVP, Gail Kim, Jillian, Primo, or Chris Masters a chance to get a little bit more spotlight that they might not get on Raw or Smackdown.

Putting a TV title on MVP or Masters would not big a deal, and nobody would really care, because besides Superstars, when would they get a chance to be known? One hour might seem like a long time, but when it comes to a wrestling show, one hour is not a lot of time. If a brand is only going to have one title, then it should be a world title, not a TV title. That's why I don't see a problem with the WWE's version of the ECW world title.

 

[TheBWO]

I'm really unsure why there has to be a jillion titles to begin with. I mean yeah I get it...the Intercontinental is for your top mid-carder, the TV for the top jobber ---if there is such one. Well wait, if he was a jobber he wouldn't be getting a title....okay, so it's for the top low card (think AA Ball), whatever you want to call it. Even so...I would like to think that the TV title should be eliminated. The European (oh please) should be eliminated....seems quite contrary that the E. title is defended primarily in the U.S., and I'm almost positive if it were defended overseas ---costs aside---that the Europeans would be more of a "WTF" crowd (as in, Who the ^&$%), but see...that's the thing. How could you call it the European title when for one, you're in AMERICA! NORTH AMERICA!, and secondly, it USED to be that the titles should be defended "once a month" (yes I know...a unsightly loophole when the storyline calls for someone to be stripped), and having them send someone over every week, or month, just takes away from everything. So...two titles down and done away with. The womens---please.....leave it at that. The term "diva" is so overused, and even used for men sometimes...that every time a new title is introduced, the rest lose credibilty. One womens title....heck, you don't even have that many women wrestling, in comparision to the men's numbers--and you have TWO titles already? The Hardcore title is gone because of the PG rating....If it were me..the tags titles and the Heavyweight is all that's needed. Have Cena, Orton, whomever....worry about EVERYONE, not just the upper escilon. That's what's killing the PPV picture and title at the same time. It's the SAME matches about three months in a row...and then they wonder why the numbers are down? I can remember when it was Wrestlemania....and then the following PPV (used to be called Backlash), was basically the same match up as the month before!! (but then again...some suckers would buy it anyway). Yes I know...match ups sell...but if the storyline was intertwined with maybe---a high level mid-carder after a month of build up, story line, etc.....it would at least be entertaining instead of keeping track of the "belt of the month" club.

 

[Savion83]

The TV title is something of the past. WWE just wouldn't have enough time to give the TV champion the proper exposure. There are more than enough titles on Smackdown and Raw, so adding another one wouldn't be a good idea. Even if the title is exclusive to Superstars, the champion still won't get all the time he needs. Superstars is a 1 hour long show, and this gives wrestlers such as MVP, Gail Kim, Jillian, Primo, or Chris Masters a chance to get a little bit more spotlight that they might not get on Raw or Smackdown.

Putting a TV title on MVP or Masters would not big a deal, and nobody would really care, because besides Superstars, when would they get a chance to be known? One hour might seem like a long time, but when it comes to a wrestling show, one hour is not a lot of time. If a brand is only going to have one title, then it should be a world title, not a TV title. That's why I don't see a problem with the WWE's version of the ECW world title.

Do you really consider the WWECW championship a world (repeat) WORLD title bub? Because it wasn't that at all! Like I said about it, it was just the bastard child of the WWE. The WWECW title was more like a glorified version of the IC/US championship (which explains how John Morrison won the WWECW belt in the first place outside of replacing the late Chris Benoit in his WWECW title match against CM Punk).

Tell me this if you can? How come the WWE has two women's championships but no crusierweight titles at all? It's just criminal man. So yeah let them bring back the TV title okay?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The concept of a television title in a company like the WWE is really kind of obsolete at this point. Back in the territory days of the NWA, you didn't have huge cable networks that broadcasted shows all over the country. Instead, you'd have local outlets broadcasting out over certain geographical areas. Now, that did change eventually with TBS and USA but other wrestling companies didn't have the exposure that Crockett Promotions and WWF would get eventually. Whereas the WWE currently has 6 hours of original programming each week nowadays, most wrestling companies would be fortunate to produce a single 1 to 2 hour show in a given week and that'd be it. With such limited viewing time, the idea of a television champion was made all the more special. Even when WCW was growing and expanding beginning in the mid-90s, the prestige of their tv title just wasn't nearly what it had once been. After all, what was so special about it now? It was just another title.

A WWE Television Championship would be just another title and would ultimately wind up getting lost in the shuffle. Also, I don't really see the sense in only defending it on Superstars as it's the lowest rated WWE program on today. Superstars generally averages around a 0.8 Nielsen rating and somewhere in the neighborhood of 800,000 viewers per week. Considering that Superstars is basically a throwaway show in which you'll usually see some good wrestling, those are good numbers. But, in the grand scheme of things, it'd be a waste of a title exclusively defending it on Superstars.

 

[Chauncy Talon]

Everybody wants a TV title, but the TV title was nothing more then a step-up for a midcarder. The WWE has two mid-card title and adding a TV title would just make the US and IC lose it prestige. A waste of metal on a leather strap. How about making aa new belt buckle with that instead?

 

[johnbragg]

I think that creating a title "exclusive to Superstars" could work. Sell the idea that the champion gets a cash bonus each week for retaining, say $2000, and the champion is "exclusive to WGN Superstars". The cash bonus would give all the explanation necessary why, say, Yoshi Tatsu or MVP or Luke Gallows wants a shot at that title while Randy Orton or CM Punk won't come within a mile of it--being stuck on WGN means they're out of the world title hunt.

The a run with the Superstars title would give guys a chance to either shine, or fail, without much pressure.

A title could also benefit Superstars--fans of, oh, let's say Superstars Champion R-Truth would have a reason to tune to WGN every week if they were guaranteed to see him perform.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Do you really consider the WWECW championship a world (repeat) WORLD title bub? Because it wasn't that at all! Like I said about it, it was just the bastard child of the WWE. The WWECW title was more like a glorified version of the IC/US championship (which explains how John Morrison won the WWECW belt in the first place outside of replacing the late Chris Benoit in his WWECW title match against CM Punk).

Tell me this if you can? How come the WWE has two women's championships but no crusierweight titles at all? It's just criminal man. So yeah let them bring back the TV title okay?

Was the ECW title on the same level as the WWE or World Heavyweight title? Absolutely not. But the ECW title did help elevate guys like Swagger, Punk, and Morrison. Do you really think a TV title exclusive to Superstars would make a difference or be significant in any way?

I don't see a problem with the WWE Women's title and the Diva's title. Again, Raw and Smackdown both have women's divisions, so why not have two titles? The Diva's title gives other female wrestlers in WWE a chance at expsoure. If the WWE still only had the Women's title, then things would be too clustered as far as champions and contenders go. Imagine all of the Divas from Raw and Smackdown were going for one title. It would be chaos. Having two titles helps give the women's division some breathing room.

As far as the Cruiserweight championship goes.....why would you want to see that title return? You do remember that Hornswoggle was the last Cruiserweight champion right? Would you really want to see him wear the strap again? Because he's been pushed a lot more since that time, and I wouldn't be surprised if WWE decided to put the title on him again if it were still around. The Cruiserweight title was getting lost in the shuffle just like the WWE TV title would if it were to debut.

There simply isn't enough time on Superstars to showcase a TV champion. Besides, it just wouldn't make sense. A TV champion on Superstars? Who would he feud with? Because Superstars isn't a true brand. For example, lets say if WWE decided to put the TV title on Primo. Now Primo is on the Raw roster, so who in the hell could he feud with? Khali? Goldust? Mark Henry? Nobody would care about those feuds, and pretty much every other member of the Raw roster is involved in another feud, so even if Primo or who ever the champion might be tried to feud with someone else, it just wouldn't work. The wrestler would have to have two feuds going on at once, and I find it hard to believe that WWE would do something like that.

 

[chrisman]

The problem with having a tv title, is that all of the titles already get defended on tv on a regular basis. The tv title was only useful when the more important titles would mostly be defended on PPV.

 

[Buster]

Tell me this if you can? How come the WWE has two women's championships but no cruiserweight titles at all?

Hey I’ll answer your question.

It's because WWE has 2 rosters of women, just like they have 2 rosters of men.

A RAW roster and a Smackdown roster.

There are 2 women’s titles so that each roster has a championship, otherwise what would the title-less show's women compete for?

When considering the cruiserweight title, regardless of weight, anyone can win the 4 titles (US,IC,WWE,WHC), so why restrict a division to a minority of talent?



As for a WWE TV title, I like it. It would replace the ECW, Hardcore and European titles which have left a slight gap in the 'go-to prop' for newcomers, new signings and new gimmicks.

However my suggestion would be to defend it on all shows, RAW, Smackdown and Superstars.

Have the title as a usual fixture for a Superstars main event, much like the European title would appear on Heat, but also on occasion have it on the other shows.

This would draw more people to watching Superstars because talent from RAW and Smackdown have title matches on it.

The reason why it would be a TV title would be because it doesn’t appear on PPV, which again adds a bit of exclusive worth to Superstars while taking nothing away from PPV's.

The reason why it would be good for talent is because it will allow WWE to 'test the waters' with a belt on somebody, maybe somebody they aren’t 100% sure on, without wasting or ruining the prestige of the existing mid-card titles.


How about my own title suggestion, what about a WWE Universe title?
Defended only on web matches streamed from WWE.com, pre-recorded or live it’s up to them. The internet is more significant than TV today. Maybe even put the matches on Youtube (new deal).

WWE fans vote online for the next opponent, from a choice of 5-10 stars.

This would allow WWE to find out who is over, again allow them to test a title on someone, plus generate interest in the site and their social network.

It would also allow fans to vote on how good a match was, much like Youtube ratings.

I guess it’s a bit similar to the TNA title voting, but with a better infrastructure and purpose.

 

[DJrayray]

I think they should do more to elevate the I-C and US titles. They should have a stipulation that if your US or I-C title reign exceeds 6 months that you're guaranteed a WWE/World Title match on PPV. The drama would be in months 4-6. Can this superstar keep the title and make it to the World title match? Have someone like Kofi or The Miz hold a title for 6 months go on PPV and get a clean win over the champion. What better way could you establish somebody?

 

[Henry Hill]

Mitch Hennessy and Klunderbunker already said everything that needs to be said. the title would be lost in the shuffle. there isn't a point to having it. Why bring back a championship that would essentially be what was the ECW championship (defended on one show) when you've just retired that title? Aside from the desire of WWE wanting superstars to be more watched, i don't think any fan, hardcore or casual would make an effort to watch anymore whether there is a title on the line or not.

 

[idarks1d3]

I think them having a TV title would be a good idea, but like everyone else has said they would have to have less championships,they should just go back to the old way they were and have 5 titles

WWE World Heavyweight Title
Intercontinental/United States Title
Woman's Championship
World Tag Team Title

then add the TV title, but if they're gonna keep all the titles like they have now, a TV title is pointless as me it would get no PPV time and people would use those matches as bathroom breaks or merchandise buy breaks

 

[Scotty]

I don't want another championship, nor do I feel the WWE needs another championship. They have enough championships now where they have enough time to focus on each one on the main shows while featuring the talents who don't seem to get much on either of the main shows. Take one of my current favorites for example. Zack Ryder seems to get squashed on Raw week in and week out, yet somehow manages to consistently win on Superstars. If getting the opportunity to see out of the ordinary faces get a little time to showcase their talents has the ratings hovering at a measly 1, then there is no reason to place a championship on the show.

 

[Dave]

I don't want another championship, nor do I feel the WWE needs another championship. They have enough championships now where they have enough time to focus on each one on the main shows while featuring the talents who don't seem to get much on either of the main shows. Take one of my current favorites for example. Zack Ryder seems to get squashed on Raw week in and week out, yet somehow manages to consistently win on Superstars. If getting the opportunity to see out of the ordinary faces get a little time to showcase their talents has the ratings hovering at a measly 1, then there is no reason to place a championship on the show.

No, the reasons that you mentioned are exactly the reason as to why you would want to have a Championship on Superstars.

You see, Zack Ryder could definitely use a title run just now and although a TV Championship might not be the answer to that, it could definitely give him an extra edge and could give the other people, who compete on Superstars regularly, something to compete for. I am not saying that a title needs to be introduced but it would make sense for something to be added to Superstars right now. In my mind, there is very little attraction to that show and it just seems to be “hovering” between being cancelled and neing uninteresting.

I am not endorsing a Championship being brought onto Superstars but I could definitely see the allure of having one there. Firstly, if they add a Championship to Superstars, then it gives it an actual meaning other than to recap what happened on Raw and Smackdown in the last week. It often reminds me of Sunday Night Heat and how I always wished that I could see something worth while when watching it. Adding a Championship to Superstars could maybe enhance the product a little bit. It would help some of the mid-card talent get over and get some fans behind them. A Championship is a Championship, at the end of the day and someone holding one that is exclusive to Superstars would be very intriguing.

Given that the WWE Raw show is currently full of mid-card talent that is not getting a look at Miz’s US Championship, I think that you are wrong. Superstars allows some of these guys to get some TV time and what’s more, learn what being a Champion is all about. If having a belt on Superstars is what that takes, or even helps towards it, I am fully behind the idea.

 

[Scotty]

No, the reasons that you mentioned are exactly the reason as to why you would want to have a Championship on Superstars.

You see, Zack Ryder could definitely use a title run just now and although a TV Championship might not be the answer to that, it could definitely give him an extra edge and could give the other people, who compete on Superstars regularly, something to compete for. I am not saying that a title needs to be introduced but it would make sense for something to be added to Superstars right now. In my mind, there is very little attraction to that show and it just seems to be “hovering” between being cancelled and neing uninteresting.

I am not endorsing a Championship being brought onto Superstars but I could definitely see the allure of having one there. Firstly, if they add a Championship to Superstars, then it gives it an actual meaning other than to recap what happened on Raw and Smackdown in the last week. It often reminds me of Sunday Night Heat and how I always wished that I could see something worth while when watching it. Adding a Championship to Superstars could maybe enhance the product a little bit. It would help some of the mid-card talent get over and get some fans behind them. A Championship is a Championship, at the end of the day and someone holding one that is exclusive to Superstars would be very intriguing.

Given that the WWE Raw show is currently full of mid-card talent that is not getting a look at Miz’s US Championship, I think that you are wrong. Superstars allows some of these guys to get some TV time and what’s more, learn what being a Champion is all about. If having a belt on Superstars is what that takes, or even helps towards it, I am fully behind the idea.

As it stands right now, Superstars is a place for wrestlers who need to improve their gimmick a little bit. Zack Ryder's gimmick is gold, but he needs to work onto getting the crowd into him. Chris Masters is also a good ring worker, but he really has no gimmick except for the Pectoral Dance. Primo really has nothing so he is trying to develop himself a heel persona. Dolph Ziggler is just maybe one tweak away from getting over with the live crowd. Then you get the occasional appearances from the likes of Christian, MVP, and other Superstars. Would you really want them to come onto Superstars and get an automatic shot at the title seeing as how there is no set roster? The fact is Superstars is just about the last stop before the unemployment line.

As much as I love some of these guys I have mentioned, why should they get a title? They get a little title like that and they will begin to think that their character is far enough along and doesn't need any tweaking. They then would get the assumption that they are ready to move onto either Raw or SmackDown! when they really aren't even close. Why reward mediocrity? Make them strive to improve.

 

[Magooder]

I one thing that the juggarnaut that is the WWE has never had is their own television championship. Other wrestling promotions like WCW and ECW had a diffrent version of the TV title, with great wrestlers winning and defending the title with pride like Steve Austin, 2 Cold Scorpio, Booker T, and Chris Benoit (R.I.P.).

The WWE had the now defunct European championship as a subsitutte for the TV title, but the championship didn't get that much attention as the other championships in the company (IC & US). But what if the "E" re-introduced the TV championship back to the WWE universe/wrestling fans (who still atlease remember the TV title) in today's WWEPG? But only have the title matches for the belt only on WWE superstars on thursday's? I can see it now!

They could hold a torney on superstars with wrestlers who are under the mid-card scene (Chavo, Santino, Primo, Tatsu), with the exception of cross brand-promotion matches on thursday's? It could really work!

Why should Chris Benoit R.I.P?

as for the topic, yea I would like to see a TV title. It would help build wrestlers over on WWE superstars and could be drawing point. I for one have not watched one single episode of Superstars.

 

[JaceEvans]

I beilieve it would be a GREAT idea.

The TV title could be a nice rub for wrestlers who show promise but dont have the crowd into there gimmick yet(Zack Ryder,Primo,Tatsu). I say let an establish wrestler( Im thinking William Regal) hold the title for awhile let him build up "prestige" and pass it off to a young wrestler. Hell worst case scenario it would finally give me a reason to watch superstars, lol.

 

[Dave]

As it stands right now, Superstars is a place for wrestlers who need to improve their gimmick a little bit. Zack Ryder's gimmick is gold, but he needs to work onto getting the crowd into him. Chris Masters is also a good ring worker, but he really has no gimmick except for the Pectoral Dance. Primo really has nothing so he is trying to develop himself a heel persona. Dolph Ziggler is just maybe one tweak away from getting over with the live crowd. Then you get the occasional appearances from the likes of Christian, MVP, and other Superstars. Would you really want them to come onto Superstars and get an automatic shot at the title seeing as how there is no set roster? The fact is Superstars is just about the last stop before the unemployment line.

As much as I love some of these guys I have mentioned, why should they get a title? They get a little title like that and they will begin to think that their character is far enough along and doesn't need any tweaking. They then would get the assumption that they are ready to move onto either Raw or SmackDown! when they really aren't even close. Why reward mediocrity? Make them strive to improve.

No! Right now, Superstars is a place where people superstars go to die.

I literally haven’t seen anyone go to Superstars and change their angle or gimmick slightly. Sure, you may see the odd feud between Primo and Zack Ryder but it is doing nothing for either of them. Superstar has a case of “Fourth-Show-Syndrome”. This means that nothing is going to change that. Raw brings in the casual viewers. Smackdown brings in the people who want to see a more competitive wrestling show and NXT breaks the walls of kayfabe down continually. The problem for Superstars is that it is a show that is just boring. There is no feud progression that means that much and the superstars who wrestle on it are not that great to be honest.

Giving Superstars a Championship, however small, would legitimise that show. It would mean that it can grow and most of all, it would give people a reason to tune in. With a continually changing roster though, it would be hard to implement for sure. However, I imagine that Superstars has a certain amount of guys who are pretty much dyed-in-the-wool Superstars wrestlers. People like Zack Ryder, Primo and Matt Hardy. Putting a belt on the show would be very exciting and would give the show something to set it apart from the rest of WWE programming. Every other show is watchable and means something but Superstars is little more than a recap episode.

Also, suggesting that they would then think they are a big fish in a little pond is ludicrous. Make no mistake, if you are on Superstars, you are probably not doing a good job. These guys know where they stand in the WWE. However, I don’t see the problem with giving them a Championship to feud over. The worst that can happen is that they run with it and it actually does its job in getting them over…