Does the W.W.E. need a Strictly Television Championship?

[TheOneBigWill]

While lately we've had a lot of Championship discussion, I invite you to yet one more. However this one isn't exactly about bringing in yet another title. It's about defining one specific Championship, to strictly being a Television title only.

In W.C.W., for years they only defended the Television Championship on their television programming only. It didn't start being defended on their Pay per view, until it shortly became no longer important. (ie. Pay per view, actually could've destroyed it's legacy) So I ask, since current W.W.E. Pay per view standards don't hold enough time for all of the mid-card Championships to be on their Pay per views.. should one specifically be designed for only being defended, weekly, on their television shows?

I would suggest the Intercontinental Championship. But any of you can resuggest any other title.

I suggest the I.C. title because currently C.M. Punk is the hottest Superstar, to still not be a major individual gaining solid Pay per view slots. Yet several fans still flock to him. So why not attempt making the Intercontinental title a weekly, televised defended title, only.

It would be defended every Monday Night, and by that possibly become important again.

What does everyone think? Do you believe one of the current mid-card Championships should become a Televised defended Championship, ONLY? (meaning NO Pay per view defenses) Please add detail and full opinions. Thank You.

 

[PlayTheGame]

The idea is okay, but the way you presented your example of it with I.C. Title/Cm Punk situation really won me over. I really think it can work. It would def put alot of attention on the belt again, thus making it more important. The weekly title defenses could be woven into storylines, they could be advertised online so fans could have a title match to look forward to (I would def be checking wwe's website if they were going to announc who wud challenge for the IC title every week). So, yes, it would def work... at least in the short term- my only concern is that, in the long run, the title might be pressured into having to change hands on a too-often basis, thus ultimately devaluing it. I mean, the way the writers have been booking title changes, this is a definite possibility. However, if they can avoid doing this, then I can see nothing but success for the IC/midcard division.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

In a recent Blog by Jim Ross, he eluded to WrestleMania being far from complete in terms of plans. Be it scripted or not, the fact is it could greatly explain for the huge Championship title changes happening rapidly.

The Intercontinental Championship, however, doesn't have to be rapidly switched from individual to individual, because as I stated right now it's being held by the one individual who doesn't have to truly do anything, to be loved by the fans. Unlike guys like Triple H., Edge, or Cena.. whom the fans all cry out for quick title changes.. they're pleasantly content with Punk holding something for a long period of time, it seems.

So I say since he's an obvious weekly star anyways, you might as well let him begin defending his Championship on a weekly basis. And as for "well, would that cause the title to decrease in value because noone has to earn a shot"..

No. And the reason I say that, is because currently the title is barely getting any type of day of light as-is. So suddenly defending it against guys who could have an honest shot at winning it, would do anything BUT hurt it. Infact, it'd likely start to make the Championship a must-see title. It'd unofficially become the "people's" Championship, because it'd be defended constantly on "free-t.v." not "Pay per view".

 

[Frank White]

well homie your kinda right and kinda wrong if you remember the TV title was defended almost weekly on either saturday or sunday on TBS and in those specific match's there were a strict set of rules like a 10 or 15 minute time limit and matchs ended in draws alot allowing feuds to build ( steven regal was the king at TLDs for the TV title). they also defended it on PPVs usually throwing these rules out the window to try and crown a new champion or end the feud. I believe bringing a TV title back would def help the wrestling aspect of the business cause in my wrestling memory i always loved the TV title feuds i can go on for hours about rotunda an steiner sting, muta, regal Z man yes i said Z man AA Arn Anderson,Blanchard, Windham, Koloff, Eaton, Austin,
steamboat and Luger
WOW look at that list of names WWE has the talent pool to pull it off they just need to stick with feuds and having guys in certain divisions for awhile i mean AA stayed in the TV title division and was one of the best ever guys like Sting Windham and Austin used it as a building tool

 

[Dirty Spamchez]

that would make a lot of sense and good matches. It would make the fans look forward to something each week. This would raise a superstar's contention level and the superstar's prestige.The Intercontinental Championship would be a great suggestion. It would be on the line against virtually anyone and would make for great matches. This also can raise the prestige of the Title.

 

[ad21k]

Both the IC title + US titles are basically both TV titles anyway. They are barely ever on PPV anyway, so preventing them been defended on the 1or 2 PPV's a year they are defended barely makes any difference. The legacy of both these titles has almost completely diminished and although an intresting idea moving either of these titles off PPV's completely isn't going to add any prestige or importance to the title.

In addition in what way is CM Punk hot? He is wrestling boring matches week in week out without showing any charisma or realising any of the potential that others apparantly saw in him before he was given a chance to run with the WHC.

A better idea would be to scrap the US title and have the IC title defended on both shows, it would guarantee fresh feuds each month and they actualy might be able to fit matches onto PPV's.

 

[Christian Battlez]

There are pluses and negatives to your idea. I like the idea of the Intercontinental title being showcased more because its not shown nearly enough right now. Even though its rarely defended on ppv anyway, I like the idea of having the door open for the belt to be defended at Wrestlemania or whatever. That's where the problem lies. I have a different approach. Have one title match on each of the three brands shows guaranteed every week. It would raise all the titles value. Even the world titles on occassion because they never get defended on Raw or Smackdown. You would also have to occassionally change hands on tv too to keep it interesting. But you were definetly on the right track.

 

[h_G]

Not a bad idea at all. Perhaps not as impactful a suggestion as it could've been if the IC Title was ever defended on PPV, aside from at Night of Champions. And even then, if it was a 'TV only' Title, it'd be pretty cool to have it still defended at NoC as it would add a little more emphasis to the point of that PPV. They could promote the IC Title match at it as 'the one time in the year the IC Title is defended on PPV!', which would make the match seem like a big deal.
But yeah, it'd certainly put more emphasis on the belt. It'd be nice to know each Raw had a guaranteed Championship match, and perhaps they could even go as far as to create some kind of rankings for it, to really show who was in the hunt. For example, Kofi Kingston puts together a couple of wins and appears as one of the top 5 in the hunt for the belt. That way less matches are simply two guys wrestling, as you'd have matches that would have a direct baring on the aforementioned rankings.

 

[Missin90sWrestling]

I haven't read many responses, so if I repaet someone, I'm sorry...

The U.S. Title AND the Intercontinental Titles have both become the WWE's version of the WCW TV Title. Too bad we don't have an Arn Anderson or Lex Luger or any other TRUE mid-card athlete to carry and defend a title on a regular basis.

Both the US Title and the IC title have become nothing but a stepping stone to nowhere.

Who else wishes one of these titles should regain the prestige it once held, when Hennig, Steamboat, Anderson or Hart held the title.

I realize that these titles were a stepping stone from mid-card to main-event... but now its nothing more than a glorified TV title, for each respective show that is rarely defended... for example, last time Shelton Benjamin defended on TV or PPV... He always defends at house shows, and beats R-Truth (sadly the former NWA Heavyweight Champ) but he doesn't defend anymore.

Somebody please make a case for one of these titles to be worth my time...

 

[Hacksaw Highway]

I feel the idea could be best launched with the US title. Have Shelton brag about how he hasn't had a challenge since beating Hardy for the belt, and announce he will defend every week. When a face does win, have the stip just carry over. SD has a very solid midcard with Shetlon, Kendrick, Helms, Truth, MVP, Kennedy, Umaga, Chavo, Carlito and Primo, not to mention Morrison, Miz, Bourne, Finlay and Henry with the talent exchange. This could also be a way to elevate people like Jesse, Festus, Goldman, Tyson Kidd, etc. by having them get very close to winning a big title match on TV without having to build a whole feud up.

 

[mauihaole69]

I don't think the WWE needs a TV title. In my mind, they already have four titles that are TV titles as they never get defended on PPV. The IC, US, and both tag team belts only seem to get defended on regular TV with the exception of maybe 2-3 PPVs per year. If they really wanted to create a "TV-only" title then they should just change the US title to a TV title. That one being changed is more likely because its a WCW title while the IC title holds more history in the WWE.

 

[Frank White]

every has to remember the reason the IC and US titles were so good is because yes good athletes held them but they were not defended alot. DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THE OLD U HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR TITLE IN 30 DAYS CLAUSE ???? the us or ic champ defended there title what 12 times a year and some of those werent on tv (and dont count house shows cause ive been to a few were titles changed hands but it wasnt reconized). if they want a TV title then make a TV title and call it just that. Dont put punk in that category let him build a lasting feud hold the title for 9 to 16 months bring some fucking meaning back to it, then he can win the WHC again like Warrior did and vacate the title that now has meaning. But they need one or the other a US or and IC not both they need to make champs go to whatever program there feuding on same with a TV style belt. theres too many titles with no prestige

 

[klunderbunker]

Nah. As my usual answer for this goes, there's far too many belts already. With the IC and US titles never getting defended on PPV, they're practically tv titles already. Defending the title on television doesn't mean anything if there's no story to it or a credible match. That was always my issue with the WCW tv title: the feuds absolutely sucked. With the IC/US belts still around, what would really be the point in this case?

 

[TheOneBigWill]

While lately we've had a lot of Championship discussion, I invite you to yet one more. However this one isn't exactly about bringing in yet another title. It's about defining one specific Championship, to strictly being a Television title only.

In W.C.W., for years they only defended the Television Championship on their television programming only. It didn't start being defended on their Pay per view, until it shortly became no longer important. (ie. Pay per view, actually could've destroyed it's legacy) So I ask, since current W.W.E. Pay per view standards don't hold enough time for all of the mid-card Championships to be on their Pay per views.. should one specifically be designed for only being defended, weekly, on their television shows?

I would suggest the Intercontinental Championship. But any of you can resuggest any other title.

I suggest the I.C. title because currently C.M. Punk is the hottest Superstar, to still not be a major individual gaining solid Pay per view slots. Yet several fans still flock to him. So why not attempt making the Intercontinental title a weekly, televised defended title, only.

It would be defended every Monday Night, and by that possibly become important again.

What does everyone think? Do you believe one of the current mid-card Championships should become a Televised defended Championship, ONLY? (meaning NO Pay per view defenses) Please add detail and full opinions. Thank You.

.........

Nah. As my usual answer for this goes, there's far too many belts already.

Sometimes I wonder if people try too hard to overlook the actual concept I'm bringing forth in this thread. I never actually said, or ever intended to say, they should bring in yet another Championship, klunker.

I brought up the idea of making one of the current titles they already have, a televised Championship, only.

MEANING: That specific Championship (I.C., U.S., something that's already there) would become defended weekly on it's specific Televised show. Not on Pay per view, and always every week.

Thus, it would be come a "televised" Championship title. Not, a new "W.C.W. television" title.

It's an idea that would give fans something to look forward to, every week on Raw or Smackdown, or even E.C.W. depending. It's a title match that's guaranteed to happen, each and every week. (barring the Champ being injured) And 9 outta 10 times, the Champion of the mid-card title is normally wrestling anyways.. so why not make it a title match?

Fans in today's business want more title matches. They truly don't care how, why or when.. they just want more. This would be an idea to kill two birds with one stone. It'd give a better purpose to one (or both for that matter) of the midcard titles, that they don't currently have.. and it'd satisfy the fans lust for a Championship match.

 

[klunderbunker]

Even still, I'd say no. The problem with the IC title already is that it's only defended on tv. There's been what, one PPV match for that or the US title in how long? Shelton and Regal were perhaps the two most worthless midcard champions of all time. Punk has helped a bit but there's nowhere for the title to go but up. Just defending it on tv wouldn't mean much as that's really all there already is to it. Think back to WCW's tv title. You would get such classics as Prince Iaukea vs. Steve Regal, Ultimo Dragon vs. Alex Wright, and Booker T vs. Damien. That's my issue with it: when you're defending it just for the sake of defending it, it loses even more value. There needs to be a balance between defending it all the time and never defending it, not one extreme or the other.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Even still, I'd say no. The problem with the IC title already is that it's only defended on tv. There's been what, one PPV match for that or the US title in how long? Shelton and Regal were perhaps the two most worthless midcard champions of all time. Punk has helped a bit but there's nowhere for the title to go but up. Just defending it on tv wouldn't mean much as that's really all there already is to it. Think back to WCW's tv title. You would get such classics as Prince Iaukea vs. Steve Regal, Ultimo Dragon vs. Alex Wright, and Booker T vs. Damien. That's my issue with it: when you're defending it just for the sake of defending it, it loses even more value. There needs to be a balance between defending it all the time and never defending it, not one extreme or the other.

I think you're proving my point, for me. The Championship is already more or less "in the shitter". So why not let it try to regain enough momentum from being a weekly televised defended Championship, rebuilding it to becoming a once again highly contested title that would be worth paying to see it defended in highly profiled Pay per view matches?

C.M. Punk is your very basic television Champion right now. He's a huge fan favorite, for roughly doing nothing and becoming even less. (sorry, it's true) He's over-accomplished a great deal and his shoes weren't big enough for the Heavyweight scene. Not yet, anyways. This is his perfect balance.

He's unofficially becoming the "People's Champion" as they love seemingly seeing him on a weekly basis. And he's helping the Intercontinental Championship to possibly be a meaningful title, held by someone who isn't just holding it as a fucking belt to hold their tights up. (ala Jericho did)

So what if he defends it against randoms on a weekly basis? It's not like we'll get the same ol' shit fest W.C.W. gave us. And you can't tell me there's anyone on Raw, who wouldn't deserve a slight crack at the Championship.

The beauty of the W.W.E. roster is, almost every single individual on that company's roster, deserves some type of title match. So why not let Punk build off defeating them.. building up to a medium sized feud with someone, then defeating them.. all while building Punk back to a possible Main Event outing?

It elevates Punk to defend and retain, more than it hurts having title matches every week. And Punk is gonna wrestle every week anyway, you know this.

 

[NSL]

I think the best thing for the midcard belts right now, would be to get switched to this idea.

CM Punk is a great face, and the fans obviously love him with a belt around his waist. If the IC Title were only defended on television, the fans would get to see their guy every week, and by continuing to win title defenses, Punk would make the IC Title relevant. Of course, at first, most of the title defenses would be complete nonsense, but eventually (hopefully), one wil click with the fans, and the WWE will run with it. If a match works great on a specific RAW, they could have a re-match the following week, and then a follow-up, and then start some promos that actually promote the belt, and the match, instead of the wrestlers involved. Within a year, fans would be paying attention, especially after seeing what would basically be 52 title defenses. Even if there's 10 different contenders, that's 5 matches each. Plenty of time to work a small feud, and potentially set up a much longer one.

As far as the US Title, they need to find someone that can hold the belt for a while, and actually make their defenses must-see TV. Shelton Benjamin would've worked, if they would've continued booking him as they did in ECW. The main event is already crowded, so they could easily pluck someone from there (i.e. Kozlov, who's been my choice), and give them the US Title until a WWE Title shot is available. With him being as loathed as Punk is loved, the fans would already be set up to cheer whoever goes against him. He's feuded with nothing but jobbers and main eventers, so a reign as a mid-card champ would actually be refreshing for his career, and would make whoever beat him, instantly a legit champion.

Granted, these belts are rarely defended at PPVs anyway, but except for the short-lived Punk v. Regal and Shelton v. Helms feuds, when were they defended on TV? By having these belts on TV more, it would make people watch if they knew for sure that a title change could happen on any given show.

 

[ulimate123]

That is a greaty idea. It would put more emphasis on the IC title and the holder and it could actually be given to mid-carders getting them ready for a World title push. One gripe is however it would look too unrealistic if the title holder kept defending it each week and didn't loose it for a number of months however if they change it tooo often then the title would get devalued so if I was to do this the title changes planned would have to be done carefully.

 

[dwightanddenise]

I think it's a good idea. But how about the Night of Champions?

 

[IrishCanadian25]

You know what I love about you, William? You intentionally post terrible ideas in an effort to provoke discussion, but you make the point in such an intelligent manner that some people blindly follow you right over the cliff. It's like the people who read the essay "A Modest Proposal" and started agreeing with the prospect of eating babies.

That having been said, WHERE'S YOUR HEAD AT?

How many times, on these boards alone, have we discussed how the absence of the Intercontinental, United States, and Tag Team Titles on PPV's has essentially devalued those belts? Similar to how a wrestler hasn't really made it until they've started appearing on PPV's regularly, a championship that doesn't make it to the bigger stages lack "oomph."

Furthermore, if you take away the Intercontinental Title from PPV defense, you cost the world matches such as: Hart vs Henning, Michaels vs Razor, HHH vs Rock, Foley vs Orton, etc. Sad state of affairs. And I doubt WWE wants to give away those matches on TV regularly.

 

[supergav67]

After another PPV which had nothing more than WorlD title matches.Im begining to ask myself,"What are these Inter,US,Womens & Tags matches that you speak of ,earthling!"

 

[CDR]

No, the WWE doesn't need a strictly TV title. Obviously, the purpose of this title would be to only defend it on TV shows, such as Raw or SmackDown. Now I have a question for you. Why would they need one? It seems about once every two to three months, a title changes hands at a house show. Other than that, every title changes hands on Raw, except the two big ones. If the mediocre titles usually change hands on TV more than on pay-per-views, what's the point of a TV title? They practically already have one. And since the titles don't change hands on house shows very much, there's no purpose. Now, if in two years, titles are moving around on house shows all the time, then maybe a TV title may be needed. Until then, the answer is no.

 

[Azamuth]

I agree that with its current structure it should not have a belt devoted to television. If right now just major titles are defended on PPVs then At least 4 or 6 matches out of 7 or 8 SHOULD be title matches. It leaves no real space to do much of anything. If RAW and Smackdown had a show in which they could both defend on then a television championship would be able to exist. Actually... if they had a show like that then a unified title would work as well. Meh...just sayin.

 

[TheJoker20]

Its a good idea. However the wwe has 8 titles.....EIGHT. Do we REALLY need 1 more... My idea would just kill ECW, merge the shows together and titles would follow as such: World,tag,intercon,womens,cruiserweight.
To bring in the tv title might work...but how about replacing it with the cruiserweight...lets face it WWEs lightweights consist of like 2 people..chavo and rey. Then just group every wrestler to be eligable for the TV title

 

[randy ortons #1 fan]

i think the ic title should be defended one week then the us the next that way it would space them out right