Cross branded PPVs: Time to end it?

[911 JP]

Back in March 2007 it was a mark out moment for me when WWE changed the PPV back to the tri-branded system that is still current in todays world of wrestling.

But ever since the the fall of WWECW i believe the whole tri-branded system has become stale. And especially since talk of more lower card firings in WWE is it officially time to stop the tri-branded system?

If they went back the original format not only could the lower card guys (Zack Ryder, Curt Hawkins, Chavo Gurrero, Chris Masters, Ted Dibiase, Goldust, etc.) be put in rivalrys but get some TV time also. Not to mention create some new and intriguing rivalrys, and let some of the WWE SUperstars prove thesleves worthy of a contract.

One flaw to this plan however is that WWE has currently got a large number of its PPVs tagged under themes (Hell in a Cell, TLC, Fatal 4 Way or capitol punishment, Extreme Rules etc.) so it would be hard to divide these up between RAW and SD!. Yet if the WWE did do this it would make Bragging Rights feel a little more special.

Your Thoughts?

Apologies if this thread has been created, I did search and no recent results were retrieved.

 

[The Chosen One of WZ]

Sounds like a good idea on paper but the fact of the matter is theres not enough great talent on each brand to put on a good 6+ matches each PPV for ether Raw or Smackdown without each match being a singles match.

 

[Vincent Michaels]

I think they should stay the way they are. Back in 03-06 the main problem with most single-branded shows was that there wasn't enough talent on one show to fill an entire 3 hours, which meant there needed to be alot of filler which obviously wasn't a good thing. And even with WWEs current amount of talent today I don't think they could do it.

 

[The Gribbler]

I think they should stay the way they are. Back in 03-06 the main problem with most single-branded shows was that there wasn't enough talent on one show to fill an entire 3 hours, which meant there needed to be alot of filler which obviously wasn't a good thing. And even with WWEs current amount of talent today I don't think they could do it.

I see the problem, but don't you think this could get past the problem WWE has been having with PPV's lately. WWE want to keep to their ludicrous PPV schedule, we want better built feuds.

With branded PPV's itll make the build to each PPV about 6 weeks, but we will have the same overall number of PPV's so it will sorta fix both problems. It will give talent a better chance to get their feuds and therefore themselves over...

Just My Opinion

 

[Stormtrooper]

As long as there is a brand extension, WWE should NEVER go back to having split PPVs.

WWE has one Super-Mega-Star that sells tickets. His name is John Cena. If they were to take John Cena off of half of the PPVs (which is what you're asking them to do), then you effectively kill half the PPVs, as people won't want to buy the PPV, nor would they want to go to it. That was one of the reasons they ended the brand split PPVs (that, and the fact that nobody gave a damn to see an undercard match featuring 2 guys that didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Would you want to pay money to see a match between Chris Masters and Tyler Reks (they've feuded on Superstars recently)? Because with Split Brand PPVs, I'd guarantee that that would have been a PPV match.

The only way around that problem is for both World Titles to be defended on all PPVs, but then the rest of the card be one brand. However, even then Cena wouldn't be on all the PPVs, as he isn't always in the title hunt.

 

[conici]

I loved the concept but have you looked at the SD brand roster Its tiny compared to raw a SD ppv could not cope with out an excess amount of fillers so wwe needs to keep the duel branded PPVs for the moment and wait intill the wwe has enougth talent on both brands

 

[Azane]

I'm not going to pay money to see Chavo Vs Zach Ryder. Neither is anyone else, Matches like those won't help them Get over, because nobody is watching for them. Exposure on free TV is the only way to get undercard, or mid card guys up. I'd rather see a mix of the best each brand has to offer than be stuck with half a card not fit for Superstars.
Cross brand PPVs proved to be less of a Draw than combined, the combined ppvs don't see more just from fanbase, it also means double the drawing power for an event that operates under the same, if not just similar cost. With the current generation of superstars being young with only a few big draws, they need all the star power they can pull per show now. As far as quality SUPERSTARS that can work a full schedule, the list is very short, I can count consistant Drawing names on 1 hand, the rest are new faces, haven't proven themselves, or only make a few PPVs a year.

 

[The Gribbler]

As long as there is a brand extension, WWE should NEVER go back to having split PPVs.

WWE has one Super-Mega-Star that sells tickets. His name is John Cena. If they were to take John Cena off of half of the PPVs (which is what you're asking them to do), then you effectively kill half the PPVs, as people won't want to buy the PPV, nor would they want to go to it. That was one of the reasons they ended the brand split PPVs (that, and the fact that nobody gave a damn to see an undercard match featuring 2 guys that didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Would you want to pay money to see a match between Chris Masters and Tyler Reks (they've feuded on Superstars recently)? Because with Split Brand PPVs, I'd guarantee that that would have been a PPV match.

The only way around that problem is for both World Titles to be defended on all PPVs, but then the rest of the card be one brand. However, even then Cena wouldn't be on all the PPVs, as he isn't always in the title hunt.

I do see the potential problem there, but it might force the WWE to try harder on smackdown. I dont think that would get past that problem but at least it might force them into some action.

And in addition, they may not have Cena on the card, but that would also mean they dont have to pay Cena's (probably rediculous) pay-per-view bonus. Not saying itll balance out, just putting it out there.

Just My Opinion

 

[The Curtis]

yeah, i don't really wanna see seperate Smackdown and Raw PPVs again. Doing seperate PPVs is just gonna leave you with a card that only has maybe a couple matches that people would pay to see. Why pay for a PPV with just one main event when you can have two? I am fine with having the best of both worlds.

 

[GameOver]

By all accounts they are gonna have more PPV's again so likely some of them will be brand specific. That was on the wrestling news cycle several months ago.

Problem with a joint PPV is they copy each other already on the shows and going into the PPV's the storylines of both brands are pretty much the same anyway, just some differences here and there

Like watching your favourite drama/soapy shows that compete, there mirror each other you can watch one and the other one has a very similar story going on at the same time.

Seperate PPV's atleast they can give more time to each brands PPV's and don't have to share the load. not to mention having multiple commentry teams at one PPV

 

[dizzle1119]

The brand exclusive PPV idea has been tried already, and it failed if I'm not mistaken.

WWE simply doesn't have enough "big names" to make casual fans pay to see a brand specific PPV every month. Hell, a lot of casual fans don't even watch SmackDown. I don't even watch SmackDown myself. I simply have better things to do on a friday night....and that's why lots of other people don't watch too.

WWE is having a hard enough time selling PPVs with the "big names" from both rosters appearing, so going back to the brand exclusive stuff would be a BAD idea...very bad.

 

[yellowdog22]

My thought on this subject is two-fold.

1. If they are serious about the brand extension than keep the brands separate from each other.

2. Have general managers work out trades, have free agents, etc.

3. The problem with it lies that with a ppv like Money In The Bank, it's expected to have two MITB matches/same thing with The Elimination Chamber.

4. If you truly kept them separate, it would allow more people face time and more stars could potentially be created.

5. I personally would have two separate creative teams to write the show and create true competition with yourself. The lack of something forces you to think about things in a more creative fashion rather than having infinite possibilities at your disposal.

6. You could create a new ppv called "The Battle of The Brands" (Kind of like a one night tournament similar to KOTR)

 

[The Suplexer Perfecter]

No they shouldn't. Back during the exclusive PPVs for SD and Raw people complained. So why go back to that?

You'll get great matches like Bobby Lashley vs Simon Dean. Or Boogey man and little boogey man vs Finlay and Hornswoggle.

Or even the greatness of The Mexicools vs bWo.

 

[Mindshatter]

Seperate brand PPVs are awful. Most of the matches are dull and I constantly found I couldn't care less about them. Furthermore as people have said, removing your top stars from half the PPVs like Cena and Orton is bank book suicide. In addition part of the draw of PPVs for me is that I pay to see matches from both shows otherwise I view it as just another RAW/Smackdown except that I pay for this one. When they last did this I refused to buy the single branded PPVs because they were garbage.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

I don't think are factoring in the fact that if the shows were separate again, these lower card guys that we don't care about now will end up being cared about after they're on TV week in and week out. I'd love to care about someone talented like Zack Ryder but he gets absolutely no TV time so how can I? With the shows separated more stars could get created quicker and we could get lucky with 1 mega-star on each show like when Batista and Cena rose to super-stardom in 2005.

I love this idea though and I do think it is time to end the cross branded ppvs

 

[DethMetal]

The problem is, back then, you had enough talent on one show that people cared about, thus making it easy to do split-brand ppvs. I remember one ppv in particular, Bad Blood 04(RAW), and it was a GREAT show. You had Benoit v. Kane, a pretty decent fatal 4 way for the Women's title, Orton v. Shelton Benjamin for the IC title, and HHH v. HBK: Hell in a Cell. Another one is No Mercy 04(SD!) Undertaker v. JBL:Last Ride match, Cena v. Booker T for the U.S. title. Pay-per-views back then worked because people cared about the people involved. If they could recreate the interest in all of their superstars, split brand ppvs could work again.

 

[The Perfect Max]

Tell me you didn't just suggest that?!

Look, I get where you're coming from and you're right, Bragging Rights would feel more special, but, if you get back to the 2002-2007 system, you're just paying to see a 3 hour RAW. Instead, keep this system going and get to see the best SmackDown and RAW have to oofer.

 

[DeadmanFan]

They won't be ending. The reason they began in the first place was because it was too expensive to give both brands eight PPVs. The only feasible way to end them and keep current costs in place would be for there to be only six or so PPVs for each brand and no one is gonna want to see that.

 

[EasyE]

I think the roster is strong enough to do some solo brand PPVs. Maybe have 1 or 2 matches from the other brand though to still give it more of a PPV feel. Say it's a RAW heavy PPV, 6 matches would be RAW and 2 would be SD! The Tag & Divas titles would be defended every PPV. Thay could draw storylines out longer this way and get more guys big matches. Here's what I'd like the schedule to look like-
1- Royal Rumble
2- Elimination Chamber: 1 EC match w/3 guys from each brand for WWE or WHC belt.
3- WrestleMania
4- MITB: 1 MITB match for 1 case for a shot at any title any time w/3-4 guys from
each brand competing.
5- A PPV that's mostly RAW matches. Both cross branded belts defended.
6- Same as above but mostly SD! matches.
7- King of the Ring: Winner from RAW bracket faces winner of SD! bracket for a title
shot at...
8- SummerSlam
9- Night of Champions
10- Bragging Rights
11- A PPV that's mostly RAW matches. Both cross branded belts defended.
12- Same as above but mostly SD! matches.
So you have 8 cross branded PPVs & 4 that are mainly 1 brand. BR replaces Survivor Series, KOTR is back and meaningful, and no lame HIAC PPV that only gets 2 weeks to build to watered down PG HIAC matches.

 

[911 JP]

I loved the concept but have you looked at the SD brand roster Its tiny compared to raw a SD ppv could not cope with out an excess amount of fillers so wwe needs to keep the duel branded PPVs for the moment and wait intill the wwe has enougth talent on both brands

Fair enough but with the draft being meaningless now, it could really shake things up again, and make it more meaningful. + with Tough Enough and NXT now being in full stride and Superstars being taken off the air it will give the new stars a chance to shine and get some face time.

Filler rivalrys were always some of my favourites, Bought No Mercy 04 the other day and the first half of the card out did the mainevent half in my opinion.

If not full time one branded PPVs with the exception of SS, RR, WM, then make 2 PPVs a year (1 exclusive to Raw ans the other to Smackdown, and atleast judge how well they play off.)

 

[xsKiitz]

If the WWE still had Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Batista, RVD, Jeff Hardy, Mr. Kennedy and Shawn Michaels then YES, a branded PPV system would be GREAT. It's just that the lack of talent prevents a solid card to be produced for an event.

Back in 2006 or so, the roster was hot with talent, making it able for something like that to go on. And hell, I loved it. Times are changing, and I just don't think it's possible. At least not at the point WWE's at now.