BRAND EXTENSION/DRAFT Thread: Keep It All Here

[drummerboy144]

This is what wwe did during the original brand split, but they have decided to drop it.
I'm still waiting for it to be officially over and that every star appears on every show, and for the championships to be unified again, 2 world champions is just ridiculous, always has always will.

 

[Xumer]

I think the brand extension has been a waste of time as is evident by the fact that WWE doesn't even really acknowledge it themselves anymore. Having the stars constantly going on each others shows every week kind of makes the different shows meaningless. They even have the champions face each other on regular tv. Vince should have run Smackdown as a total and separate entity with very limited co-promotion between shows. I don't ever think of Smackdown as it's own show anymore. I think of it now as "Stuff they don't have time for on RAW".

I might be wrong about this but didn't the U.S. and World Heavyweight titles on Smackdown come from WCW when Vince bought it?

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

I was a firm supporter of the brand extension for the longest time but the past two years, its become apparent that it needs to end.

Back in 2003/2004/2005/2006 the brands were a great idea. Imagine in one week you get two sets of shows (and two sets of PPV's) each with its own unique superstars and stories. Example on RAW you get Matt Hardy and Edge going at it because of some real life issue then on Smackdown! you get Orton and Undertaker feuding. It's things like that which made the Brand Extension work.

It allowed exclusive stars so you know you are getting something totally different from the two shows. And they made sure the rosters stayed to their exclusive brand. So when the time came for a inter-brand matchup (like Angle/HBK, Orton/Undertaker) you knew you were going to get something special.

Or once the Draft Lottery kicks in you know each show will get fresh new faces for fresh feuds since, at the time, jumping brands and trades were rare ... it makes them even more special. Imagine the first time we heard Cena was moving to RAW, wasn't that an OMG moment or what?

Now with the fine line between brands almost invisible it doesn't matter anymore. Crossbrand matches, stars moving from one brand to another, etc. They don't mean much anymore. It's just the special moments and luster created by brand exclusivity now is gone so the whole feels pointless.

I have two solutions for this though either (a) Make Rosters exclusive to their Brand again and also have non major PPV's focus (not generality exclusive) to a certain brand. Example on one PPV you can have a RAW focused PPV with one or two Smackdown matches and on the next one it can be vise versa or (b) get rid of the draft altogether.

 

[Big Papa Santo]

I was a firm supporter of the brand extension for the longest time but the past two years, its become apparent that it needs to end.

Back in 2003/2004/2005/2006 the brands were a great idea. Imagine in one week you get two sets of shows (and two sets of PPV's) each with its own unique superstars and stories. Example on RAW you get Matt Hardy and Edge going at it because of some real life issue then on Smackdown! you get Orton and Undertaker feuding. It's things like that which made the Brand Extension work.

It allowed exclusive stars so you know you are getting something totally different from the two shows. And they made sure the rosters stayed to their exclusive brand. So when the time came for a inter-brand matchup (like Angle/HBK, Orton/Undertaker) you knew you were going to get something special.

Or once the Draft Lottery kicks in you know each show will get fresh new faces for fresh feuds since, at the time, jumping brands and trades were rare ... it makes them even more special. Imagine the first time we heard Cena was moving to RAW, wasn't that an OMG moment or what?

Now with the fine line between brands almost invisible it doesn't matter anymore. Crossbrand matches, stars moving from one brand to another, etc. They don't mean much anymore. It's just the special moments and luster created by brand exclusivity now is gone so the whole feels pointless.

I have two solutions for this though either (a) Make Rosters exclusive to their Brand again and also have non major PPV's focus (not generality exclusive) to a certain brand. Example on one PPV you can have a RAW focused PPV with one or two Smackdown matches and on the next one it can be vise versa or (b) get rid of the draft altogether.

I'm just like you. When the draft started in 2002, it was needed because of the surplus of talent from the ECW/WCW purchase, so it was good because it gave airtime to the people who needed it. But now, the brands are smaller and we have shows like Superstars and NXT to showcase that extra talent on. So in a way, it should be ended, I mean the idea has gone to Hell in a hand-basket in 2011 anyway. But just don't unify the 2 major titles, because if you only have one title then only a certain pool of talent will be able to obtain that title, for example if we only had the WWE Championship, then we would of never had champions this year like Mark Henry and (Admittedly) Christian. You would only have poster-boys like Cena and Orton and not experiments like D-Bry and Mark Henry. And think about it, we have been having Supershows for the past 6 months, so in a sense, the Extension has ended.

 

[24fawwe12fa24]

I prefer it with two rosters to be honest, they don't use it like they used to do back in the WWF days, early 2002, you will not see e.g. Randy Orton (Smackdown) vs. John Cena (Raw) for the WWE Championship.. they will still split the brand matches at PPV's, what I mean is, e.g. CM Punk (Raw) vs. Dolph Ziggler (Raw) WWE Championship, Daniel Bryan (Smackdown) vs. Big Show (Smackdown) World Heavyweight Championship

 

[tommyh]

i dont understand why vince has two brands with each show having there own set of titles but yet he alows everyone to go to each show.Now i enjoyed it back when we had a brand an those people stayed on there brand.Now the whole point of this is do you think we should keep the brands or just go back to one whole roster.Plus if u think we keep the brands do you think each brand should have its own ppv like it use to.I for one think we should keep the brands an then split the ppv up between the two shows.I beleieve if they did this then it would allow for a better roster because the mid card guys would get more of a chance on there shows ppv to be able to show there talent.Just wanted to hear your throughts

 

[vampirek]

i dont understand why vince has two brands with each show having there own set of titles but yet he alows everyone to go to each show.Now i enjoyed it back when we had a brand an those people stayed on there brand.Now the whole point of this is do you think we should keep the brands or just go back to one whole roster.Plus if u think we keep the brands do you think each brand should have its own ppv like it use to.I for one think we should keep the brands an then split the ppv up between the two shows.I beleieve if they did this then it would allow for a better roster because the mid card guys would get more of a chance on there shows ppv to be able to show there talent.Just wanted to hear your throughts

Quite the eyesore to read, just to make you aware.

As for the brands, from previous discussions, debates etc on this issue one thing that keeps appearing about why the brands are still separate is due to tours and house shows. By have two rosters, it is possible to have lets say one house show in Newcastle, the other brand in Liverpool without having to move all the talent round over night.

Why are talent appearing on both shows on tv, quite simply because its better for advertisement and so forth by having all the big guns available on the number flagship show. You can instead have Cena cut a promo rather than wrestle but still have a big name in lets say Orton (when not injured) taking up that spot.

There should never ever been brand only PPV's, most of them were dreadful and towards the end had to use talent from the other brands anyways due to the shortages of actual talent that would sell PPVs.

Midcarders won't get more opportunity if the brands were using exclusive talent again, why? because that isn't a brand problem, its a creative problem. As you can see most of the midcard that are to be used in the future appear on Smackdown anyways, so its not like their time is being taken up by Smackdown's big guns appearing on Raw. The fact is since Raw went to 'Supershow' status, the likes of Cody Rhodes, Barrett, Sheamus, Christian, Danielson (prior to injury) etc have all had increased time on television than they previously had. Withdrawing the Supershow would actually cut down their tv presence.

 

[scottyshowman82]

A member on here wrote a Royal Rumble prediction thread and he was mentioning how difficult it it to predict the main events at Wrestlemania compared to the old day when they was just one WWE Title.

I like the idea of having a Champion of Champions over the Raw world title and Smackdown world title and having that belt called the WWE Championship.
Back in the day in WWE guys like Bret Hart and Steve Austin and The Rock had to bust their asses to get recognition of being a multiple time world champion and brother if you were the WWE Champion, there was no question about it, you were the man, you were top guy, you represented the company and with it came a lot pride and aura about it.

I love Edge and I do respect Triple H and a fan of but for these guys to be having over 10 World Title Reigns in this day age is a lot easier than what Ric Flair had to go through in his day. Not to say they don't deserve those belts because they did beat top level guys. However if you think about back in the day, how guys like Piper, Curt Hennig and Million Dollar Man, Ricky Steamboat all the legends who never held the title (which I partially understand because Hogan was so hot) and it doesn't seem quite fair or seem to add up on paper.

Maybe it's just the evolution of the business or a sign of just how different then and now are but if you ask me I want a clear cut Champion of Champions signifying that this person is the best in the company. As Kerry Von Erich said "There 's only one world, so there should be only one world champion."

 

[#hamler]

I don't think it's that difficult to single out who is the best Champion in the company right now as Raw is clearly the top show that brings in the most ratings. Everyone knows that. It's not hard to realize that the World Heavyweight Championship is playing second fiddle to the WWE Championship when the WWE Champion gets the last spot on a pay-per-view card. I don't need to see who the better Champion is when it's clear that CM Punk is the better of the two. The World Heavyweight Championship gives opportunities to guys who may never be on top of the WWE. Superstars like Christian, Daniel Bryan, Mark Henry just to name a few. I actually rather it stays the same as it’s been since 2003.

 

[Headman]

While the World Heavyweight title gives guys something to do while out of the WWE title picture I myself am leaning towards unifying the two belts. Brand Extension is pretty much gone. There really isn't much since in having as many titles as they do so perhaps they should go ahead and pull the trigger on this in the near future. However I am somewhat torn because I do like the idea of seeing guys like Mark Henry and DB reach the top of the mountain, but in reality they really haven't. The world title is an upper mid card belt and is by no means the equal to the WWE championship. If it were equal, CM Punk winning the WWE title would have been no big deal considering he had already been the world champion multipule times. Winning the WWE championship felt bigger because it was bigger. So if the World title is not a main event title, what is the point?

 

[#hamler]

So if the World title is not a main event title, what is the point?

I believe it's there to give these superstars who'll never hold a WWE Championship a sense of accomplishment. It is unlikely guys like Mark Henry or Kane will ever hold a WWE Title. Their careers are winding down and their wrestling resume doesn't look that impressive when Kane has had a one day reign as WWF Champion and Henry's got nothing. The World Championship fixes that. Also, with guys like Daniel Bryan and Christian, a reign gives us a chance to see what they've got headlining a TV show even if it is Smackdown. Christian proved to many of his naysayers that he can handle being placed in a feud with WWE's second biggest face in Randy Orton. That's what the World Championship does. The opportunity it gives guys like Daniel Bryan, Christian and Mark Henry is very well worth it.

 

[Aberle4Life]

Headman, I don't even remember what title CM Punk had previously held--nor do I remember how many WWE and how many World Championships Edge or Triple H or anyone else has held. Having two major championships has watered down the importance of winning either.

It's one company--there should be one WWE Heavyweight Championship. There can still be the exclusive-to-brand titles in the Intercontinental and US Championship, but there should be just one world champion. The prestige of the other titles would go up significantly, I think, including the tag team championship as there is one fewer belt in the WWE.

The World Champion could appear on any show at any time (but not every single show), kind of like how WWE originally did it when the brand extension began. I understand why they now have two major champions on two shows--it does help build some guys--but my preference would definitely be for just one heavyweight champion. The fact that there are two takes the prestige away from each. Winning it should truly be a huge deal, but it doesn't have that feel to it anymore.

 

[brighamosity]

I myself am torn between unifying them or not. As stated, Raw is the supreme of the two shows because it features superstars from both shows. Smackdown, on the other hand, rarely features Raw superstars. Quite frankly, most significant developments on Smackdown are replayed or summarized on Raw, so you could realistically never watch Smackdown and still have a pretty good idea of what's going on by just watching Raw. (Although I have noticed that the Cody Rhodes/Goldust feud has yet to be addressed on Raw.)

My point is that it's very clear that the WWE Championship is the more prestigious of the two. But WWE rarely acknowledges this. Even when ECW was around, I remember John Morrison becoming ECW champion and WWE.com advertising it that ECW was finally considered an "A" show. (or something to that effect. This was over four years ago).

Ultimately, while I would be okay with them unifying the two belts, the World title is more or less a prop right now, and I'm okay with that as well. I mean, if there were only one belt, what would Daniel Bryan be feuding with Mark Henry and Big Show over? Bragging rights? And it really wouldn't be the same if they were feuding over the Intercontinental title. I feel like the World title is at the same level that the Intercontinental title was in the late 90's. However, the values of the IC and US titles are about the level of the European and Television titles, so the whole title scene is just messed up and I'm not sure the two world titles are the biggest problem. The fact that Jack Swagger is walking around with the United States title is a huge problem to me, because I don't think he is anywhere near the level (although I was fine with Zack Ryder having it, because at least he is over with the fans).

So in closing, ideally there would be one world title and two lower titles. But I think accomplishing this is far more complicated than just unifying the two world titles. If anything, they should unify the United States and Intercontinental titles, and then make it clear that the WWE title is the "main" title and the World title falls somewhere between the WWE title and Intercontinental title. Heck, rename it if you have to.

 

[Headman]

I believe it's there to give these superstars who'll never hold a WWE Championship a sense of accomplishment. It is unlikely guys like Mark Henry or Kane will ever hold a WWE Title. Their careers are winding down and their wrestling resume doesn't look that impressive when Kane has had a one day reign as WWF Champion and Henry's got nothing. The World Championship fixes that. Also, with guys like Daniel Bryan and Christian, a reign gives us a chance to see what they've got headlining a TV show even if it is Smackdown. Christian proved to many of his naysayers that he can handle being placed in a feud with WWE's second biggest face in Randy Orton. That's what the World Championship does. The opportunity it gives guys like Daniel Bryan, Christian and Mark Henry is very well worth it.

So in otherwords it's the same thing as giving the losing little league team a trophy, or doing away with failing grades because they "hurt children's self esteem". That makes sense because that's the state of the world we live in right now. For some reason it's important to us as a society to make people feel like they've accomplished something even though they have actually accomplished nothing. The truth, Christian has never drawn a dime. He doesn't deserve a world championship. Mark Henry and Kane are both terrific monsters who can help a face champion, but if it wasn't in the cards so be it. While part of me likes to see guys like them get rewarded I've come to the conclusion that the world heavyweight championship is actually the welfare championship.

 

[UFOcalling]

The WWE title picture is rather strange, and I agree with the majority here that the WWE Title is labeled more prestigious than the WWE World Title. It's really weird...I remember when my step-son was 8ish (he's now 10), was given toy WWE belts for his birthday. He got the small toy versions of both belts; the WWE "spinner" title and the "big gold" title. He asked me "...which one do you like better?". I said I wasn't sure, and asked him which one he liked better. He told me that he liked the "big gold" title the best, because that one meant you were the champion of "the entire world"...not just the WWE Champion. Obviously the first thing that popped into my head was how that's NOT how the WWE treats the belts (in fact, they treat them the opposite).

Obviously the WWE Title has been with the company longer, so that's why they keep it at a higher level. The "Big Gold" title (which was carried over from WCW) isn't held at the same level, most likely because of Vince's ego (he never wanted WCW's title to seem more important than their "original" title).

I do agree that one "true" champion should be the WWE's focus, and that's kind of what they try to do with the WWE Championship (being more prestigious than the World Championship). I really can't see the belts being unified until the brand-split is ended, but I don't see that happening in the immediate future. I thought maybe the wheels were being put into motion to end the brand split (with the induction of the "Raw Super Show" a few months back), but nothing has really changed since then. For the time being, I think we're stuck with the two World Titles...at least until the WWE's roster is trimmed down quite a bit, or we also start to see a "Smackdown Super Show" as well. At this point, in order to unify the titles the WWE would have to acknowledge that there is no more "brand loyalty" and that all the WWE rosters are just "Superstars". No "Smackdown guys" or "Raw guys". I think things are going to stay the same for a loooong time.

 

[DirtyD79]

The problem with having two world champions is it loses credibility. It's like boxing where everybody who steps in the ring is champion of something. Hell, why stop with just two? Let's give everybody a belt! Let's strap one on the guy selling popcorn. The chick who takes tickets needs one too. The fat douche who thinks he's cool for cheering for the heels and waving a foreign flag? Yep make him a champ.

 

[Vyris]

I think the World Champion Belt is stupid because the same can be accomplished with the IC Belt. That's how it was back in the old days, the IC Champ was the second guy in the company and should be able to replace the WWE Champ at any time. Somewhere along the way we made that belt a joke. There is no reason why the IC Champ can't be used in the same way the WH Belt is used, end of story. If I ran the WWE, I would drop the WH Belt, use the IC belt in its place and put more emphasis on Tag Team wrestling.

 

[CotterHavok]

"At the Royal Rumble, the world as you know it, will come to an end..." Am I the only one that noticed his video last week? That it ended with him winning the WWF and WCW titles? Jericho is going to take CM Punks WWE title some how at the Rumble or set it up to happen. I also think he is going to win the Rumble and win the world championship at WrestleMania and become the "first" WWE Undisputed Champion for the second time.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I think merging the titles back and having Jericho win them would be a good move to establish the concept of one champion again... Keep both the IC and US titles but make them defended every 30 days without fail. I would bring back the Cruiser and TV titles, TV title defended EVERY week without fail.

At this point I think the womens belts have run their course, even when Kharma returns there isn't much of a division now... Tag team titles have to stay...

I would also bring back the King Of The Ring title, and have people feud over it... It could work like MITB... The King can call in a title shot any time, but if they lose once, they lose their shot...

 

[tripleddd]

i cant see why we dont have a raw and smackdown champion and more importantly a wwe champion.- one world champion within the wwe - the only time it was credible was when ecw was alive

 

[Jackal960]

WHC has been devaluated and I think it is a problem. I understand that it serves a pupose like giving the belt to the like of Henry or Kane, but I don't think WHC is the right belt to serve that purpose. If you think about it, if WCW bought WWE and used WWE belt for that reason, it would be a slap in the face to Austin, Rock, HHH etc. I thought it would be better to keep the WHC belt prestigious, at least make it better than what it is today

 

[scottyshowman82]

WHC has been devaluated and I think it is a problem. I understand that it serves a pupose like giving the belt to the like of Henry or Kane, but I don't think WHC is the right belt to serve that purpose. If you think about it, if WCW bought WWE and used WWE belt for that reason, it would be a slap in the face to Austin, Rock, HHH etc. I thought it would be better to keep the WHC belt prestigious, at least make it better than what it is today

There is an argument that the World Heavyweight Title has been highlighted over the WWE Title. The way the WWE handled the Money in the Bank Punk and Cena superclash they made the WWE Title feel more important than the Heavyweight Title. However, there is an argument that the World Heavyweight Title has been highlighted over the WWE Title. There have been many per views in the past The World Heavyweight Title has been on last. Sometimes it seems they just put the match with the biggest draw on last, or for circumstancial reasons and what not. Did Smackdown have the superior champion over Raw when Lesnar was their champion and Triple H was Raw's Champion? Cena and Punk are the face of the WWE right now but who's to say if Punk and Smackdown's Champion Daniel Bryan went one on one Bryan wouldn't come out on top.

Raw is the flagship but is has taken a backseat to Smackdown on several occasions and picking a superior between the two isn't always an easy thing.
HHH, Shawn Michaels, Edge, John Cena have all been World Heavyweight Champions which would make the WCW lineage proud. I personally think don't like to link the two though. They're not really the same thing to me.

 

[Headman]

There is an argument that the World Heavyweight Title has been highlighted over the WWE Title. The way the WWE handled the Money in the Bank Punk and Cena superclash they made the WWE Title feel more important than the Heavyweight Title. However, there is an argument that the World Heavyweight Title has been highlighted over the WWE Title. There have been many per views in the past The World Heavyweight Title has been on last. Sometimes it seems they just put the match with the biggest draw on last, or for circumstancial reasons and what not. Did Smackdown have the superior champion over Raw when Lesnar was their champion and Triple H was Raw's Champion? Cena and Punk are the face of the WWE right now but who's to say if Punk and Smackdown's Champion Daniel Bryan went one on one Bryan wouldn't come out on top.

Raw is the flagship but is has taken a backseat to Smackdown on several occasions and picking a superior between the two isn't always an easy thing.
HHH, Shawn Michaels, Edge, John Cena have all been World Heavyweight Champions which would make the WCW lineage proud. I personally think don't like to link the two though. They're not really the same thing to me.

I may be mistaken but I don't believe a WWE ppv has ended with a world title match since 2010. And even then it was rare to see this happen. It usually happened when Cena was involved in a non title feud. There was once a time when the WWE atleast tried to make us think the titles were equal by having King Bookah win a champion of champions match or by briefly switching the title over to RAW, but these days they're not even pretending the title means as much. Atleast not in the way they used to. We all know the WWE championship is THE championship. Yes, Henry and Bryan need something to feud over, but I guess that means the writers have to do their jobs and come up with a reason to make us care. If they can't do that, why are they even employeed?

 

[CM Steel]

At one point the WWE had three brands. RAW, Smackdown, and ECW. RAW is the flagship show of the WWE, while Smackdown serve's as the "B Show" to some within the E. And ECW was just a brand for the ECW originals to be re-born, a rookie brand to the newer WWE superstars, and a haven for superstars from both RAW & Smackdown to do battle against each other.

But now the ECW brand is no more. With NXT taking it's place on the SyFy network. But as time went on with the NXT program it got stale. Thus WWE moving the show to the internet along with WWE Superstars. So the WWE is back to having two brands in the E with RAW & Smackdown.

So with that saying. Does the WWE need 3 brands?

 

[The A]

I don't think they NEED it but if they did it right, I suppose it could be beneficial. I'd like to see FCW on tv. It would be like watching College sports, looking at future stars and whatnot. I'm sure they could have some interesting matches and storylines. And when someone got called up to the big leagues, they would be more recognizable and that would mean they would get over quicker, or already be over.