Did The Brand Extension Hurt?

[Khalifa]

Everyone WWE fan and their dog loves the attitude era for many different reasons. Anything went, we had stars like Rock and Austin putting on terrific matches and Raws/Smackdown/PPVs were always watchable just because of some of the superstars on the card. However when WWE split into two different brands with their own superstars many people started to not like the product as much.

So I thought into it some more and thought that the brand extension could be the reason. Obviously because WWE had split into two different shows the talent was lackluster on both shows. There would be a few main event guys and a few guys challenging for the midcard title and that was about it. During 2002-2006 we had PPVs that had like 3 or 4 filler matches because each show had it's own PPV which means Smackdowns superstars couldn't wreslte on Raws PPV and visa versa. Everyone was getting fed up with this because PPVs were becoming less interesting everytime (except the big 4 ofcourse) now WWE has made the PPVs unexclusive and everything seems to be looking up (atleast a little bit).

So my question to you is did the brand extension hurt? Or was it the simple fact we just couldn't see Rock vs Austin in the attitude era anymore.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

It was the best move ever for me.


It was time to make new stars in the business with people like Brock, RVD, Jeff Hardy etc being looked at. It was a bold move dividing the roster but with th einflux of ECW and WCW superstars, it was bound to happen.

And it gave the company to grow two set of talents and create more top heels and babyfaces. It can never hurt you if you have more people going over and with Brock on SD and Hunter on Raw, I think fans got to chosse between what kinda product they liked and it really sowed the seeds of which is the superior show debate.

Also, the SD vs Raw interpromotional matches became a big deal and genuinely felt like a markout moment when a SD guy conronted a RAw guy or vice versa.

 

[HamSwissman]

Look at the ratings before.
Look at the ratings after.

Look at the star power before.
Look at the star power after.

Look at the prestige of the titles before.
Look at the prestige of the titles after.

I disagreed with yet understood the decision to split the rosters initially (my thoughts were that a 3-hour Raw, 2-hour Smackdown!, hour long Sunday Night Heat, and Pay Per Views would have given plenty of time to showcase the entire roster). Now it is no more than a way for WWE to split up house shows and get a few extra bucks that way. I think when Vince said he wanted to "kill what he created" with the NWO, he decided to go with the roster split instead. I place it as one of the worst things to happen to the company that doesn't involve death or murder.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Look at the ratings before.
Look at the ratings after.

Look at the star power before.
Look at the star power after.

Look at the prestige of the titles before.
Look at the prestige of the titles after.

I disagreed with yet understood the decision to split the rosters initially (my thoughts were that a 3-hour Raw, 2-hour Smackdown!, hour long Sunday Night Heat, and Pay Per Views would have given plenty of time to showcase the entire roster). Now it is no more than a way for WWE to split up house shows and get a few extra bucks that way. I think when Vince said he wanted to "kill what he created" with the NWO, he decided to go with the roster split instead. I place it as one of the worst things to happen to the company that doesn't involve death or murder.

How?

The ratings were high during the Attitude Era because wrestling was just more popular at that time. With he advent of the nWo and WCW and Austin, Rock and WWF it gave wrestling fans 2 mega promotions to chose from.

The boom period died. The bubble burst.

Blaming on that on today's product...I just don't get it.


What happened to the prestige? Are you talking about guys like Swagger and Sheamus and Punk in 2009 being hotshotted?
During wrestling's most lucrative period Mr. Courtney Cox held the title. The majority take that as being the most ludicrous decision ever.
Kane held his title not even for 24 hours after his First Blood win against Austin. A mega monster heel lost to Austin so facetiously it was sad. And for the title may I add again!

 

[Jeritron5000]

And it gave the company to grow two set of talents and create more top heels and babyfaces. It can never hurt you if you have more people going over and with Brock on SD and Hunter on Raw, I think fans got to chosse between what kinda product they liked and it really sowed the seeds of which is the superior show debate.

It gave the company the "canvas" to grow two sets of talent...doesn't mean that they were ever successful. Brand specific PPV's were scrapped because that goal was an utter failure. And I don't know about you, but it doesn't sound like the best business decision to compete with yourself in order to give your fans an opportunity to decide which show they like better. I don't know if you remember, but before the brand split, one roster occupied both RAW and Smackdown. Wouldn't it be a lot better if you didn't have to choose which one was superior and maybe...I don't know...make your end goal having both be good? Now it's 9 years later and we have a Champion of Mondays and a Champion of Fridays...it's just stupid and unnecessary. And it's not as if they've taken the ball and ran with the concept either. Because of the brand split, what we now have is a situation where stories and feuds are artificially limited, the main roster split into two ever-thinning weaker entities, confusing boundaries, and diminished title value. This isn't a "simple" instance of no longer having Rock vs Austin in the Attitude Era, but a failed experiment the WWE will seemingly forever refuse to acknowledge.

 

[DexVendetta88]

I don't think that the brand extension hurt the WWE at all. Just bear in mind that the true purpose of the brand extension was that when both WCW, and ECW were bought out by the WWE over 10 years ago there was a surge of talent coming in from both those companies. The brand extension made handling the influx of talent at the time a little bit easier to manage. Think about it, if the brand extension never happened after the purchases of WCW, and ECW a lot of talent would not be given enough exposure. However, I do feel that the brand extension has run its course for a long time now since the amount of talent has dropped tremendously since 2001, and that there's no need for it anymore. Also, if the brand extension were to be taken away now it would allow the WWE to focus on one set of storylines and angles instead of two.

 

[HamSwissman]

How?

The ratings were high during the Attitude Era because wrestling was just more popular at that time. With he advent of the nWo and WCW and Austin, Rock and WWF it gave wrestling fans 2 mega promotions to chose from.

The boom period died. The bubble burst.

Blaming on that on today's product...I just don't get it.


What happened to the prestige? Are you talking about guys like Swagger and Sheamus and Punk in 2009 being hotshotted?
During wrestling's most lucrative period Mr. Courtney Cox held the title. The majority take that as being the most ludicrous decision ever.
Kane held his title not even for 24 hours after his First Blood win against Austin. A mega monster heel lost to Austin so facetiously it was sad. And for the title may I add again!

I'm not saying there weren't bad decisions during the Attitude Era (there were plenty). I'm simply stating that none of the other bad decisions were as far-reaching and product-altering as this damned roster split. The titles don't mean nearly as much now as they did then, period. Who is the champion? That question should not be up for debate, yet it is. Every week when I see two champions with neither one being officially more important than the other.

And as for your "ratings were better because wrestling was more popular" argument, I really don't know what to say. Well, I guess I could point out that maybe wrestling was more popular then because it sucked much less? I'm sure there would have been a decline in one form or another after the peaks of the Monday Night Wars, but come the hell on! This valley only seems to get deeper with no peak in sight. If DVR didn't exist, I'd have given up watching Raw after the botching of CM Punk's push last summer.

So, in conclusion, my answer is yes. I believe the brand extension hurt.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

PPVs were becoming less entertaining during the brand extension ? I don't think so. I liked most of the PPVs till 2006. PPVs were show exclusive so it was a big deal when the RAW and Smackdown superstars met each other at big 4 i.e Royal Rumble, SummerSlam, Survivor Series and Wrestlemania. It gave everyone from lower card, mid-card to Main-event a spot on a PPV.
After WWE acquired WCW the talent doubled and hence WWE made two separate "Brands". RAW and Smackdown were like two different companies during the Brand Extension era. Both brands were rivals. Every brand having its own World Title. RAW had the World Heavyweight Championship and Smackdown had the WWE Championship. During the Brand Extension era the World title were equally prestigious. RAW had Smackdown both had up and coming young talent with a mixture of established stars. I liked the Brand Extension era (Till 2006 when the PPVs were brand exclusive) and I think it was a brilliant move by WWE.

 

[jokernaut]

never liked it. it takes away from building up rivalries. a rivalry has to be done on one show now. only thing that worked for the brand extension for me was raw and smackdown having their own ppvs and building up stars. now you have to do it on raw or smackdown if you are an upcoming star and hope you are on the midcard. its just bad in my opinion. how can stars build up when they only have one show to do it on? needs to go back to normal

 

[Richard Blonoff]

I don't think it hurt it at first. It was a necessary move. You had the influx of guys from WCW and later ECW coming in, there were just too many stars and too few slots available for them. The original concept was good too. It was Raw vs. Smackdown, two shows competing to be the best. The draft used to mean something. You had the two, and eventually the three GMs competing to get the top guys. You wondered who would go where, you wondered why someone used a high pick on a mid card guy. There was intrigue.

That said I think its run its course. Raw has reverted back to its status as the A show. The main story lines play out there, the top stars are there. Even when they started doing the Supershow only the top Smackdown stars make appearances. They need to go back to having a unified roster.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

It gave the company the "canvas" to grow two sets of talent...doesn't mean that they were ever successful. Brand specific PPV's were scrapped because that goal was an utter failure. And I don't know about you, but it doesn't sound like the best business decision to compete with yourself in order to give your fans an opportunity to decide which show they like better. I don't know if you remember, but before the brand split, one roster occupied both RAW and Smackdown. Wouldn't it be a lot better if you didn't have to choose which one was superior and maybe...I don't know...make your end goal having both be good? Now it's 9 years later and we have a Champion of Mondays and a Champion of Fridays...it's just stupid and unnecessary. And it's not as if they've taken the ball and ran with the concept either. Because of the brand split, what we now have is a situation where stories and feuds are artificially limited, the main roster split into two ever-thinning weaker entities, confusing boundaries, and diminished title value. This isn't a "simple" instance of no longer having Rock vs Austin in the Attitude Era, but a failed experiment the WWE will seemingly forever refuse to acknowledge.

I will tell you this that in its inception and the early years it was brillaint to me. With Brock and his angle on SD with Taker and Big Show while Shawn battled Hunter actually was a boon for younger superstars who had another show to showcase their talent. If the roster was one, you know the whole creative world would've revolved around HBK/Hunter.

I am not adverse to the idea of one champion but two rosters. I think Taker played out that role magnificently. While he was battling guys like Hardy on Raw and giving them some ME taste, he was venting it out on legends like Hogan as well.


They needed to compete with themselves because just a year ago they had swallowed the other two biggest promotions in the western world. Their roster had expanded and people needed their due shine which could only have been achieved if you had two separate brands with two different storylines and arcs.

 

[Moffat09]

Ok some people just don't understand. That ratings would always go down brand split or not.... They did it for the future and to spread out the huge roster they had at the time. But with all that being said the ratings shouldn't be still going down and that's mainly because of the poor product now but that's a total different issue. But the split itself didn't hurt them at all

 

[King Michéal]

I loved the brand extension, after teething problems were worked out of course. Raw had a more edgy feel to it and concentrated on Tag teams. Raw during early brand extension had 3 tag team bouts a night.

Smackdown had a good feel to it too, Brock, Taker and Kurt carrying the show while Cruiserweights were exclusive to smackdown and had opportunities to shine. Cruiserweights regularly had a main event slot on Smackdown.

The shows had theit own direction, concentrated on different aspects of the business and everyone had an opportunity.

2006 was when it all went downhill, adding a third brand to the mix hurt, Look at WWECW during its formation Kurt Angle and Big Show moved their with ECW originals and major fueds were held. this further stretching of resources hurt the company.

In addition to this cruiserweights no longer held the importance they once did and Raw lost its tag team driven focus as the new thing was to have tag teams split and fued and then do nothing with them.

For the Brand extension to work again i think we have to give Raw and Smackdown different feels again. Make Raw edgy and storyline centred, non PG. Bring back the Hardcore title. Intercontinental Championship, Hardcore Championship exclusive to Raw.
Smackdown to have the US Championship, Cruiserweight Championship and a more family friendly feel, it can even keep a PG rating. Have the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships United, Champion can appear on both shows, Have the Tag team Champions appear on both Shows. these champions are the only ones who can officially appear on both shows. If we have a cross brand fued have the heel attack from behind in the parking lot. Sit in the front row and hop the barrier to interfere etc.

Its the only way to save the brand extension or else scrap it and have one roster

 

[Honkey_Kong]

The brand extention did hurt the overall product. At first it was necessary due to the intake of ECW and WCW talent. But look at what happened, you ended up with a lot of talent that doesn't deserve a spot on the roster only there because they've restricted their rosters to specific shows and need a filler.

Another thing that has happened, during the days of Thunder and Smackdown, both WCW and WWF had two main shows per week to progress storylines with. That meant you had double the amount of time devoted towards promoting the matches on their PPVs. Now we're in the age where there is way too little build up for the PPVs now.

What they should do is a lot of house cleaning. Get rid of all the guys who are going nowhere and consolidate the roster to one all-star team. Then we'd have double the time allocated per feud to build for a PPV. They can use the WWE network as an opportunity to setup more of a farm system. with FCW as the A, then remake midsouth as a AA and finally bring back the USWA as your AAA farm team. That way wrestlers not ready for prime time can earn their way to the main roster.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I don’t think the Brand Extension had anything to do with our loss of interest. Before we had Raw vs. Smackdown, we had WWF vs. WCW. The WWE simply tried (a little too hard) to recreate the Federation vs. the Alliance by way of the Brand Extension. I think the Raw PPVs and the Smackdown PPVs were a bit much, as the really were just 3 hour Raws and 3 hour Smackdowns. I think what is making us lose interest is what got a lot of us 30-somethings into Wrestling in the first place, it went back to PG.

Think of it like having a girlfriend when you were a kid. When you were a kid, kissing was the best. All you wanted to do was kiss. Then we get to the Attitude Era and start doing things that were a little to “Adult”. Now imagine after a few years of that, you go back to just kissing. Yeah, I would be p!$$ed off too, but it is what it is. Whatever gets the money in is what they will go with. Who knows?? Maybe when today’s children are grown up into their teenage years, we could also have Cena “grow up”. The only thing with that is, when he goes, the PG will be back once again.

You guys have to think about money first, or recreate the Attitude Era in WWE 12 the Video Game!! Man, I love that game!!

 

[FlairFan2003]

Ratings ae down because the product isnt as enjoyable and quite honestly, many of the stars of the 90s boom period are gone, as is the war between the promotions. Older fans tuned back in because of guys like Hogan, Flair, Sting, younger fans bought in due Rock & Austin & Goldberg, either by age, injury, or moving into non wrestling careers so many of those guys are gone.

Just like in the mid 90s when WWE was struggling to stay above WCW before the whole NWO thing, the company has had hard a time finding talent that can replace the top stars who are gone. Of course, at that time WCW was nose to nose with WWE not so much because of the new exciting talent they promoted but simply because they got Hogan, Flair, & Savage from WWE along with Luger (they always had Sting). In essence they had a handful of big stars, leftovers from the previous decade, who had more name recognition and drawing power than the new guys WWE was developing. That's a decent recipe for ratings but not for long term success.

As for the Brand Extension, ultimately it was and is still good for WWE. The purpose was not so much to re-create the feel of a "wrestling war" like the WWF vs NWA in the 80s or WWE vs WCW in the 90s, it was to feasibly keep as much wrestling talent locked under contract AND make money off of them. Focussing the entire company on all of the TV shows and live events would mean a lot of wrestlers simply wouldnt be working much, there is only so much show time to go around. By running two separate brands, each with their own talent and storylines, WWE was able to not not only keep a lot of wrestlers under contract, it was able to use a lot more wrestlers, thus make income off of them, not just pay them not wrestle elsewhere.

What did this do ? It prevented TNA or anyone else from signing a bunch of underused or unemployed but well known wrestlers and becoming a major competitor to WWE. No more would Vince have to worry about competition for the wrestling dollar, he could completely dominate the industry in a way even he probably never thought possible. Without the ability to sign many big names any promotion that would challenge him would have to work extremely hard to get recognized by wrestling fans and build a suppot base, and it would take a long time for said promotion to gain interest of casual wrestling fans. WCW never had that problem because of their connections to the old NWA wrestling, which made them a serious competitor (although a poorly run one for most of the early 90s) even before the calvacade of 80s stars came in followed by the NWO angle.

Also, with the economy down entertainment spending is going to decline no matter what, therefore money spent on merchandise and PPV's is going to be down. That is not related to the brand extension.

Ultimately the brand extension made it possible (and keeps it possible) for Vince to control the entire US wrestling industry, making it almost impossible for any competitor to seriously challenge him (I think TNA could if it was run better but that's another thread for another time). There may be a point where money is down so much Vince decides to drastically pair back and end the extension, thus ending the WWE careers of many performers, although with no serious competitors, wrestlers today cant "get over" and establish themselves with the mass audience without WWE. Most casual fans dont even know who Bobby Roode or AJ Styles are, but they know The Rock & Cena are main eventing WrestleMania. That works in WWE favor as well because when they do decide to let talent go they have so little marketability that it would take a great push and lot of work for another promotion like TNA to make them stars. That's alot better than having top established guys like Nash & Hall leave your company for the competition bringing instant name recognition and drawing power with them like in 1996.

 

[bringbackblood76]

Personally, I never thought the brand extension was a good idea. I miss the old days when they would amp a storyline by using both shows. I think it was a great idea because you got better stories and you would be able to see every wrestler on both shows. I get why they did , but I just believe that it was better when both shows were intertwined. It created more drama and really made you want to watch. Also, I believe that fans are now given more of an opportunity to pick and choose what show they want to watch. If you don't like the stories or the roster of smackdown then you don't watch. Back in the day you wanted to watch because both shows had the same roster and storyline build up. So...I believe in that respect .....yes it did hurt the business. I understand that when they did it the roster was just too big and a change was needed, but there was a lot of great talent on the mic and in the ring back then. Nowadays....not so much. Let's face it everyone!! What really hurts the business is lack of good storylines and lack of a good creative team and lack of talent. That's why they keep going back to the likes of the Rock, Triple H, Undertaker, HBK. It' s simply because it's what draws a majority of the casual fan in. Even when they have a great storyline brewing (see the summer of punk), they change it at the last minute, don't even give you the big payoff or just simply shit all over it. I know that people get hurt, suspended, sick etc. which causes some changes , but the overall product is really lacking.

 

[JaylisJayP]

Nothing good came from the brand split.

People will spout off excuses or whatever else about how it helped make this person a star and this person a star...that's all total garbage. Talented wrestlers/entertainers would have received their opportunity sooner or later and made the best of it.

For the wrestlers: I imagine being on Smackdown has to be seen as a demotion or being in the minor leagues. Randy Orton the exception but he knows the reason behind his presence there at the moment.

For the fans: Nobody cares about Smackdown, nor should they. The stories are even more half-assed than Raw these days, I have no interest in anything they do over there. Neither do most other fans as is shown in the Ratings.

The Brand Extension might have been good for the initial story (when they still cared about telling a story) of the two separate entities competing and the battle between Stephanie and Bischoff. Once that ended, I stopped watching completely.

 

[bringbackblood76]

I agree with your post completely. I think that brand extension has been played. There was once a time and a place for it. Raw is WWE's staple program. Smackdown has some good talent, but it is obvious that fans and the WWE believe it is second rate. I believe that once brand extension is eliminated and possibly the belts unified, the ratings will increase. The intercontinental championship will mean more. The most talented guys on the roster will shine. You will be able to start feuds between two guys like Rhodes and Punk .Or maybe even revisit feuds such as Orton/Cena. Once that is done the intrigue will bet there. Fans will come back and watch. I'm not saying that WWE needs to bring back the Attitude Era or even drop the PG rating. You can can have a good product even if they are PG. I don't understand why Vince doesn't see this. I don't understand why Creative or even Vince's right hand man (Triple H) doesn't see this . I can't even believe there are fans out there that like brand extension or even a majority of the product. PPV ratings will also rise. It's simple. The roster isn't so gigantic that they have to continue on this path. For crying out loud, the roster isn't even so talented that they have to stay on this path. Rhodes, Ziggler, Sheamus, Cena, Orton, Punk , Del Rio, Barrett, Bryan. Those are your main event guys mixed in you have Triple H, Undertaker and the rare Stone Cold or even rarer Rock appearance. The rest of the roster are mid carders or even lower on the totem pole (some may say I'm leaving out Miz, but everyone is entitled to their opinion). Even if you want more face time for the others, then maybe have a bit more of Orton on Smackdown or maybe have punk appear every other raw, but keep him weekly on Smackdown. That's just an idea to open more face time to others. But PLEASE VINCE!!!!!! Stop this! Start letting storylines brew longer, start having these story lines carry over into both shows , start linking story lines together like you used to and open the up the roster so anyone can feud with anyone . Also, please make sure (no matter what) each storyline has a payoff. Stop treating the fans like morons who can only follow a story that lasts 2 weeks. You may have become more kid friendly in recent years, but you are ostracizing the adult fan that appreciates good storylines, good feuds and good matches. START BY GETTING RID OF BRAND EXTENSION IMMEDIATELY!!!!!

 

[PlayTheGame]

I personally think the Brand Extension was great for the WWE. I really enjoyed those days of wrestling. I thought it was great for two main reasons:

1. More guys got more air-time: With more time open on each show, developing guys got a chance to showcase their talent. A lot of guys were able to develop during this time that are now top guys. The midcard and the tag division were both relevant during this period too. More attention and creative energy were spent on more guys. Instead of the same top guys dominating both shows, we got to see most of the roster, something we don't get to see now. I really miss that. Guys got to develop back then and use more time. Now guys like Zack Ryder have to do it over the internet.

2. There was an exciting sense of competition. The brands were always in constant states of war, competing with each other. Stars were stolen from each other, trash talking occurred, and brand superiority were all regular parts of the show. It made it exciting and gave you that "anything could happen" sense. I thought it was really compelling to watch. Competition=Excitement to me.

I thought the B.E. was great for the WWE. Guys got the time to develop, grow, and be featured, and it was an era of competion. Plus, the GM's actually mattered back then, another aspect of it that I miss. I thought the B.E. was great.

 

[Aquaman6686]

The brand extension was utterly necessary and still is. Without it, the stars of today wouldn't exist. John Cena, Randy Orton, The Miz, Sheamus....none of them would have made it in WWE if the rosters hadn't been split, simply because they wouldn't have gotten any TV time. For the brand extension to work, however, they need to make it MEAN something again. Go back to how it was in 2002-2005: interpromotional competition should be VERY rare and treated as a big deal when it does happen. Remember how huge it was in 2004 when [CENSORED] won the Royal Rumble and jumped to RAW? Or how an entire storyline was built around what brand a particular Superstar, such as Triple H, would sign with? That's the way it needs to be again.

 

[Cabana]

The brand split led to a useful testing ground on Smackdown, but I think the primary issue is that the idea has run its course. The time is ripe for the WHC and the WWE titles to be unified back into an Undisputed championship, which would be recognized cross-brand. However, the US and IC championships should remain program specific (though never explicitly so.)

A main event, championship feud which carries across both shows would add continuity, while other main-event caliber wrestlers could ply their trade on one show or the other. Really, this would only be mildly evolutionary from the existing TV structure. A pair of secondary programs could and probably should be broadcast - Superstars and something akin to the old WWECW, allowing for additional TV time for developing talent. A TV schedule which went something like:

Monday: Raw (live)
Tuesday/Wed/Thurs (pick one): Smackdown (live, skewing more towards Raw in terms of present content)
Friday: WWE NXT (taped. family friendly, focused on developing talent + elevating mid-carders. Friday night is a ratings wasteland, anyway.)
Sat/Sun morning: Superstars (taped. childrens' fare, focused on developing lower and mid-card talent, much like the current web show, the original Superstars or Wrestling America)
Sat/Sun morning: WWE AM/Livewire (taped, recap show from the rest of the week. Possibly a new match towards the end.)
Sat late-night: WWECW (taped. focused on high workrate developing talent, cruisers, hardcore, etc. A wrestling show which treats the product as sport.)

The only real encumbrance here would be TV tapings, as this would likely necessitate a 3rd day of taping unless Raw+Smackdown were both televised @ 9, and had 2 to 2.5 hour pre-shows (NXT + Superstars before Smackdown, WWECW before RAW.)

 

[LoudClearVoice]

The Brand Extension was good at first but now I think it's caused some serious problems. As many people have mentioned, despite the propaganda WWE tries to feed us, Smackdown is the second rate, lower tier, show. It does NOT compare to RAW overall. This has created a "stigma" for wrestlers who are on Smackdown. It's seen as a "demotion" to the lesser quality show.

They should combine the rosters, unify the WWE and WHC belts and make everything mean more. If you win the belt, you're the champion of the entire WWE roster.

The only thing right now that would save the brand extension is if they were to turn Cena into a full blown heel and send him to Smackdown. Then people would care. Otherwise, it served it's purpose but it's time to end it.

 

[nwojeff]

I've hated the brand split and and especially the two world titles from the moment each of these things happened in 2002. Each year since has further devalued every title in the company and the overall WWE product. I still can't believe that McMahon and company thought this was a good idea back then. It seems almost masochistic. It reminds me of the beginning of the NWO storyline in WWE where Vince wanted to kill what he created by poisoning his promotion with the New World Order. This is the same thing. It seems like he wanted to kill his company with a terrible, illogical move like the brand split and two world titles. What shocks me more than this is that in 2012 it's still taking place and hasn't been rectified. I thought for sure that they would recombine everything at Wrestlemania 20 back in 2004. When that didn't happen, I lost major interest in the product and I'm having a hard time getting really into the current WWE with two ridiculous world title belts and two nonsensical rosters.

What's even more troubling than the fact that they did this and have kept it going is that so many fans have just accepted it and allowed them to not only survive but thrive the past 10 years. I know some of you are younger or didn't watch wrestling pre-2002, but I think everyone that did would agree with me in saying that back then, for the most part, it was much, much better. And I think they did just fine with one world champion and one talent roster for the first THIRTY NINE YEARS of the company's existence.

I'd compare this stupid WWE fan loyalty to the problems in NCAA college football right now. Everyone know that the BCS system is a joke. Almost everyone wants it changed to some type of tournament/playoff system, like EVERY other team sport on every level, high school, college and pro, decides their champion. But the idiotic sheeple keep forking over their money to NCAA football, especially during the bowl season, and they allow this farce to continue, even though they should know it could be and should be a way better product then it is. The brand split is the same thing.

Keep supporting all of this nonsense and prepare to keep getting more of it. Or, show the WWE that you know they can do way better by closing your wallets. You know they're capable because you've seen it before. But they took it away and went backwards instead of progressing. This is unacceptable. The WORST angle, idea or business strategy in the history of professional wrestling, by far, is the WWE brand split and having two "world champions."

 

[Aquaman6686]

I've hated the brand split and and especially the two world titles from the moment each of these things happened in 2002. Each year since has further devalued every title in the company and the overall WWE product. I still can't believe that McMahon and company thought this was a good idea back then. It seems almost masochistic. It reminds me of the beginning of the NWO storyline in WWE where Vince wanted to kill what he created by poisoning his promotion with the New World Order. This is the same thing. It seems like he wanted to kill his company with a terrible, illogical move like the brand split and two world titles. What shocks me more than this is that in 2012 it's still taking place and hasn't been rectified. I thought for sure that they would recombine everything at Wrestlemania 20 back in 2004. When that didn't happen, I lost major interest in the product and I'm having a hard time getting really into the current WWE with two ridiculous world title belts and two nonsensical rosters.

What's even more troubling than the fact that they did this and have kept it going is that so many fans have just accepted it and allowed them to not only survive but thrive the past 10 years. I know some of you are younger or didn't watch wrestling pre-2002, but I think everyone that did would agree with me in saying that back then, for the most part, it was much, much better. And I think they did just fine with one world champion and one talent roster for the first THIRTY NINE YEARS of the company's existence.

I'd compare this stupid WWE fan loyalty to the problems in NCAA college football right now. Everyone know that the BCS system is a joke. Almost everyone wants it changed to some type of tournament/playoff system, like EVERY other team sport on every level, high school, college and pro, decides their champion. But the idiotic sheeple keep forking over their money to NCAA football, especially during the bowl season, and they allow this farce to continue, even though they should know it could be and should be a way better product then it is. The brand split is the same thing.

Keep supporting all of this nonsense and prepare to keep getting more of it. Or, show the WWE that you know they can do way better by closing your wallets. You know they're capable because you've seen it before. But they took it away and went backwards instead of progressing. This is unacceptable. The WORST angle, idea or business strategy in the history of professional wrestling, by far, is the WWE brand split and having two "world champions."

I disagree completely. I watched wrestling WAY before the brand extension as well, and I think the quality of the product in WWE improved drastically as a result of the Brand Extension. Two rosters means more time to develop new talent and during the days of brand-exclusive PPVs, more time to develop storylines. I think the worst business strategy was doing away with brand-exclusive PPVs, ever since 2007 every show has featured the same talent on the card all the time, and only rarely elevating new stars.