First up, my opinion on the thread. I like separated brands. I like the shows having different feels which they are. Raw, ton of promos, acts for the kids, and a good match or two somewhere in the middle. Smackdown, good solid wrestling, smaller wrestlers for faster paced matches, and very good promos done in moderation. And then ECW, a very young show where people can show their stuff. It's like AAA baseball. Not as popular but you get a sneak peak at the future. Keep the brands separate for now, I like it.
Now simplyry I disagree with a lot of your points, but mostly it's because they're too complicated and/or impractical.
1) Only defending the world title on the big PPV's. Way too few. We're talking about 4 defenses a year which is much too low. Part of being the champ means that you are guaranteed a spot on the next PPV and the belt can get exposure. We like seeing the belts defended regularly. Do you remember Shelton Benjamin's US title run last year? We know he had the belt and lost it, but he never did anything with it. Or the Colon's unified tag title run. It was a 4-5 month reign, defended once, and an epic fail. If the title's not defended regularly it becomes irrelevant.
2) Brand only PPVs are okay in moderation. Maybe in the spring after Backlash you could do a few brand only PPVs but that's it. In the late spring, early summer, WWE has no competition. There would be a perfect time to focus on the midcard. But if you do it in the fall, Raw would get absolutely crushed by Monday Night Football.
3) Undisputed Champ. I just don't like the idea at this time. If you took the WWE title off Raw, then everyone would shift down. The contenders for the WWE title on Raw would be in the US title picture while Kofi Kingston, Evan Bourne, and anyone else in the midcard would get absolutely buried.
4) Tag team titles. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't the tag team title unified already? Good idea though, but WWE has yet to do anything with it. Mostly because of underexposure.
5) We have different ideas on how to revalue the titles. People here use way overcomplicated methods for doing this. We don't need to complicate this. Here is my idea, longer title reigns and more successful defenses. Anyone remember Cena's reign that went on for 13 months? If he didn't drop it to injury and Orton just took it from him, how huge would that have made Orton? The title was so valuable because nobody could ever take it from Cena. Put in a current example, CM Punk. My plan for that would be have Punk and Jericho team up and defend the title up to Mania, yes that long, where someone else finally takes the team down. WWE, similar deal. Let's not have people drop the title all the time. It devalues the belt when it always shifts hands.
Look at the midcard titles now. These have taken a huge drop for a while. Back at Armageddon 2007 was where the IC title was at an all time peak (recently) when Jeff Hardy (IC champ), feuded with Randy Orton (WWE champ). Some say that Orton looked weak, but in my mind it made the IC title on the same level as the upper title. Do that more. At Summerslam, have either Kofi Kingston (US) face the WWE champ, or Rey Mysterio (assuming IC) face CM Punk (assuming WHC). It's a simple solution that brings a ton of credibilty back to the midcard.
Now for the Divas. Easy solution here. More actual full promos and solid, regular defenses. WWE has the resources to put on good diva feuds, they just don't use them.
I love the idea about making feuds personal. I remember back in 1999 Armageddon. HHH vs Vince was the headliner but it wasn't over the title. Summerslam last year Edge vs Taker got more exposure than Khali vs HHH. If memory serves, that match main evented. Heck even Cena vs Batista was Raw's main event and that had nothing to do with anything. HHH and Orton don't need the belt now and it should be used to elevate something else.
