what led to the success of 1999-2003 was wwe letting go of old stars like the hogan and savage and built new ones like michaels, rock, stone cold ,triple H. those stars were allowed to get on to the tops because of none of the old guys getting in there way. the gus the wwe let go (hogan and savage) as well as old wcw mainstays didnt leave their spots as main eventers and wouldnt put over younger talent which led to their companies demise.
Now well, I've seen this type of discussion quite often now, but as far as this particular point is concerned, I beg to differ.
WWE didn't become great in the instant they let go of their top stars like Hogan and Savage, and later Nash and Hall. They all left in the early to mid 1990ies, in a time where the over-the-top gimmicks (Doink and all those fancy guys) were Vince's state-of-the-art in WWE, and what happened? They all went to WCW, and WCW took the ball for a few years and actually did what WWE at that point couldn't do yet - it went into a completely new direction. Everyone is always talking about WWE's "Attitude", and while I agree that some of the stars the WWE later managed to produce (Austin, Rock, HHH, Angle) were really spectacular, to my mind, it was years before Austin and Rock really took off that "attitude" was introduced into the wrestling business, and that was done by WCW in the form of the nWo!
Nothing of the like had been there before - Hogan, Nash and Hall were heels, but heels people could both completely despise, but at the same time somehow thought "cool". They had that rebel attitude that would later make Austin and Rock such huge stars - and those were the same guys that WWE had kicked out "in order to let their young stars build" - but that's not my opinion. From the days when Hogan and Savage left, please tell me which big star is still in WWE now OR which was already around then who rose to such stardom because of those guys being let go? Rock and Austin weren't even around back then, the only guys I now remember from the top of my head would be Taker and HBK.
Which is not to say that letting Hogan etc... go was a bad move - since WWE at the time had no idea what to do with their product, and those guys cost them a ton of money without bringing enough in at the time, it was the only logical move they could have made. Good for us, as Bischoff picked it up with WCW and gave the WWE the competition it needed to finally get their own asses in gear and do something about their own product. And in my opinion, it was not until 2 years later, after WCW had really changed the wrestling landscape with THEIR new "attitude", that WWE finally came through with their own new stars, and their legendary era of incredible success; also thanks to WCW, who in turn where in the position WWE had been in years earlier - in that they didn't know what to do with their programming anymore, storylines were crap, the talent was not there or wasted, and everything just went FUBAR at some point. On the contrary to WWE though WCW did not manage to recover, and ultimately went out of business.
Which leads us to today, practically - since without any (in Vince's eyes) noteworthy competition on the landscape right now with TNA still being no real threat to what is essentially WWE's market monopoly, there are basically 2 main reasons why the ratings are declining, and why WWE's shows are "not as good as they used to be":
1) They got lazy again since they don't have that competition
2) About everything that can be done, has been done
Additionally, few of WWE's greatest Attitude-Era stars are still there - HBK and Taker only, with both having not too many years left anymore before they will have to end their careers unfortunately, and HHH; however in his position he is a bit over-represented as we all know. So until WWE has once again built up their "new breed" of stars that can follow in the footsteps of today's top stars (which are, simply put, only HHH, HBK and Taker - everyone else that is considered top tier still comes in as close second as far as popularity is concerned, in my opinion), this doesn't make things easier. For if all they can do is essentially recycle things that have been done time and again (which is inevitably bound to happen as they will not be willing to push the envelope any further with their new direction back to kids; aside from the question whether there still ARE any boundaries left to push for them), even that can be done interestingly if they have the charismatic talent for that. But right now, that is still missing. There are a few hopefuls, but it will take some time before we (and they) will be able to see who of those guys can eventually make it, and who will remain a flavor of the month.
The other problems they have are of course:
1) Their new direction back towads kids as main audience, as mentioned before
2) The roster split
Now the first point I think most people on the forums will agree with me - as many of us are a bit older and quite vividly remember the edgier, more adult-oriented stuff we used to love about the Attitude Era. Of course we want that blood, we want that violence, we want that "no-bs-attitude". But well, it seems we'll have to live with that we're getting right now.
And as far as the roster split is concerned... Now of course that subject has also always been a matter of many a heated discussion; my take on it is this:
While I basically understand the notion behind it - being that WWE nowadays has a truly massive roster, and everyone needs their TV time; but in my opinion, that is just a money making move; but of course everyone in their position who COULD make that move, WOULD make it; even if it probably meant reducing the quality of the programming. But as said, with their currenty monopoly status, they can afford it (or at least they thought they could until the most recent desastrous ratings).
Anyway, what my (wishful) thinking on that matter would be:
First: Scrap half the belts. Someone mentioned before that WWE has "only 10 belts or so" right now, and thought it few - please, sweet Lords, back in the day, how many belts did WWE have? There was the World, the IC, the Tag Titles as your basic setup, and then from time to time they would also use the Women's, Euro and Hardcore. But that's it. WCW had the World, the US, the Tag, the TV, the Cruiser. Also enough. In my opinion, as I still consider WWE an entity, no matter the brand division, having that many titles just takes away from the value of each of them.
Back in the day of only one main title, that thing was THE PRIZE. You know what I mean? Everyone was ultimately gunning for THAT PRIZE, everyone needed to have it. Now, you have what essentially is three "equally best" stars - what kind of crap is that?! The top title is to mean that ONE GUY is the absolute best; but now all of a sudden we have three guys who are supposed to be the absolute best?! And the same goes for the US and IC belts. Back in the day, those still meant something, and they were a clear indication of a superstar being in consideration for a move up the card in the near future. Nowadays, those belts change lightly - however most recently, I think we've seen a move in the right direction, with both the Hardy/MVP feud over the US and Jericho's tenure as IC champ respectively - I think this indicates that those belts are intended to be taken more seriously again, with both being in possession of guys who are (Jericho) or could be (MVP, Hardy) considered main event status.
Plus, I just HATE that spinner belt. I remember the day when Bret Hart was World Heavyweight Champion - and that belt, in my mind, was the most beautiful of them ever; the WCW one never did that much for me even though it is huge, and nowadays, this spinner-thing looks like a freakin' toy - NOT the thing you would want THE TOP GUY of a wrestling company to have. I just can't take a champion wearing that seriously.
Now I see two options that I would take: Either cut down the roster (which would be a very drastic move of course), reunite the brands, and focus on decent storylines with that couple of stars that would remain around only a select few belts which then in turn would again really MEAN something, if A LOT of guys would go after each of them. You would have about 6 or 7 guys being potential World Title candidates (e.g. Taker, HBK, HHH, Edge, Cena, Orton, Batista) who could at any given team have feuds with each other (and wouldn't need to fight each other week after week after week in the same constellation over and over again, so that the actual PPV match means less in the conclusion), you would have the same number of almost-top tier guys who could work on the IC scene (right now Jericho, JBL, Umaga, the Hardys, MVP, Kennedy, CM Punk, John Morrison), and so on. Without the roster split, I think the main advantage would be the greater flexibility both in feud variations and especially in weekly matches - instead of seeing the same pairing every week one on one even though that type of showdown match should be reserved for the PPV, there could be many different setups. That, together with a more elaborate long-term angle build up I think could do wonders, even IF all the stuff we get to see "has been done" before.
And even if a roster cut seems drastic - but honestly, do we really need Deuce and Domino? Do we really need Cade and Murdoch? Do we really need characters like the Highlanders? Especially those heavy gimmick guys (like D&D) just will never move up to the top spot - the only guy with a "gimmick" up there is Undertaker - the rest are all just more or less "normal" guys, of course with the volume turned up, as it is often said.
But even if they kept the roster split - the least thing I would do is once again unify the World titles into one UNDISPUTED title, to once again determine THE ABSOLUTE BEST at that moment. This would open the door for more cross-brand-feuds, and also feuds between the brands themselves, as each brand would of course strive to be the one that has the World title at any time.
Now in closing my "little" rant - I just wanted to sum up my thoughts on the whole situation with WWE (and with wrestling in general) as I see it right now; of course I do not claim that all my ideas are great... but a very wise man once said: "I can't promise everything will become good if things change - but I know things have to change if it is supposed to become better." So I guess change definitely needs to happen in one form or the other; be it that WWE restructures their program, be it that TNA finally picks up momentum and pressures WWE to restructure their program... there are many ways, and I'm quite curious to see what will come.
So guys, sorry for the tirade - lol I guess not many of you will have read it anyways (which I can completely understand lol). But consider this one of my "welcome" posts to the forums