First of all, let me begin by congratulating Dirty Jose for getting this far, as we all know, it hasn't been easy to make it to the Final Four of this competition. Jose, I wish you the best of luck throughout this debate, and I anticipate an interesting, challenging and enjoyable debate. Thankfully, you offered me the opportunity to get this thing going, which I appreciate because it allowed me the right to argue the side of the equation that I wanted to discuss, which is clearly the correct side of the debate. Now that the Brand Split "appears" to be over, I would respectfully suggest that while it was an excellent idea in theory, when one looks at this time period retrospectively and objectively, one would have to conclude that the Brand Split was
not a success. And now I'll tell you why not.
[size=+2]Invasions[/size]
Why did the WWE go with the whole concept of the Brand Split in the first place? Personally, I think it was largely a reactionary idea on the heels of a failed WCW Invasion. I'm sure we all remember the end of the Monday Night Wars in 2001, and the subsequent purchase of the vestiges of WCW by McMahon and the WWE. The intent was a battle between WWE and WCW, albeit it all in the world of the WWE:
Of course, we all know this was a miserable failure, something which was mishandled from the get go, something which the fans were initially excited about, but ultimately, simply never bought into. The vision of Vincent Kennedy McMahon, however, still appeared to want two rival entities, functioning under the umbrella of the WWE, to co-exist and compete as WWE and WCW were intended. While this may have been a great idea in theory, it must never seemed to click fully and never fully resonated with the fans. More on this later.
A few years later, the ever stubborn McMahon decided upon yet another invasion angle, this time involving the now defunct ECW group which too had been assimilated into the WWE machine. We all remember this too:
Once again, we see a further brand split, with now three separate entities which were supposed to co-exist as three distinct groups, again all under the watchful eye of the WWE. Once again, as history has shown, this was a failure and an exercise in futility. The ECW brand began on May 26, 2006, but by February 2, 2010, it was gone.
The original brand split into RAW and Smackdown as totally distinct units occurred largely because of the merging of the remnants of WCW and ECW with the WWE, and the brand split was supposed to capitalize on all of this. The problem is, though, is that the fans simply never bought into it as expected. Everyone knew that RAW, Smackdown, and ECW were not separate and distinct, that they were indeed all part and parcel of the one company. Efforts to brand them as separate and unique have never been truly successful. Throughout the tenure of the brand split, RAW has always been and continues to be the flagship show. Smackdown undoubtedly has always been the B show and ECW, while it was still breathing, was definitely the C show. The nature of the shows (live versus recorded for example), the timing of the airings, and the rosters themselves, have always lead to this ultimate result. The brand split never recaptured the whole WWE/WCW/ECW rivalry; it has always come across as a forced rivalry, one which never truly existed like it did in the days of the Monday Night Wars. Case in point:
Bragging Rights is a PPV which supposedly fed off the tensions and rivalries between the RAW and Smackdown brands. But does anyone who has ever watched these PPV's ever buy the notion of a true rivalry between the groups? Do any of the superstars seem to pay any attention whatsoever to a true brand rivalry? Do the fans really care who ultimately gains bragging rights? Simply put, no, and therein lies the problem with the brand split. There is no tension or division between the groups, not like there would have been if the Invasion Angles had gone had McMahon and company had their way, and this is what has ultimately resulted in the failure of the brand split.
[size=+2]Roster Size[/size]
Once WCW was bought out by WWE (and later ECW suffered the same fate), WWE experienced a dramatic increase in the size of their roster. How could they feature all of their superstars and give everyone ample television exposure? I guess the Brand Split was intended to serve this purse. But did it ultimately happen? No. Simply put, the cream of the crop rose to the surface of their respective brands, and the dead weight was excised. And this was bound to happen, whether the two brands were separate and distinct units, or all superstars were featured on all shows. If the brand split was to protect the jobs of such guys as Raven, Billy Kidman, Perry Saturn, Justin Credible, and lesser guys of this nature, the Brand Split did nothing to salvage their careers. These guys were not protected by the brand split and saw no increase in television exposure because of it.
[size=+2]Prolonged Careers[/size]
I think another goal of the brand split was to protect the health and welfare of their superstars, by minimizing their workload and reducing their travel. By keeping guys brand specific, they would only have to appear on either RAW or Smackdown, but not both. They would appear at fewer house shows, fewer PPV's, and ultimately avoid injuries, stress, or burnout. So how did this all work out, bearing in mind that the Brand Split occurred on March 25, 2002:
Did the lighter schedule of the Brand Split work well for this guy? Gone from WWE in 2006, complaining of the high workload, intense schedule, and physical and emotional demands of the WWE.
Another casualty of the workload of the WWE. Unable to toe the company line and maintain the feverish pace expected of the WWE. Was the lighter schedule of the Brand Split able to pacify him and keep him in the WWE roster? Nope.
The reduced workload and lower travel of the Brand Split wasn't enough to maintain this fellow either. Gone to seek gratification in the NFL and eventually the UFC.
Gone to greener pastures down south. The lighter schedule of the Brand Split did not keep him around.
Enough said.
Point being, if the Brand Split was introduced to preserve the health, safety, and sanity of the WWE Superstars, it failed. If the point of only having to appear on either RAW or SD but not both, or having to appear in fewer PPV's or house shows was the intent of the Brand Split, it certainly did not fare well for these guys, and they aren't alone.
[size=+2]Exclusivity Of Titles[/size]
Another notion which proponents of the Brand Split often point to is the fact that certain belts are featured exclusively on certain brands. At the moment for example, the WWE Championship is exclusive to RAW, while the World Heavyweight Championship is on Smackdown. Likewise, the United States Championship is on RAW while the other midcard title, the Intercontinental Championship, is on Friday nights.
But how big of a deal is this really? This brand exclusivity is not absolutely necessary. Why couldn't both major titles and both mid card belts be featured on both shows? After all, that is what is happening now, and it seems to be going just fine. Not to mention the fact that title reigns these days are often shorter than they were in the past, so having to perform double duty should not really be that big of a deal. And who is to say that Punk, for example, could not appear on RAW, but not SD, this week, while Sheamus does the reverse, and next week, they do things the other way around? The champion does not need to appear on both shows every week (even though as I said above, it's no big deal if he does anyway), so there's really no benefit to brand exclusivity of the belts.
And let's not forget, such exclusivity did not save the Cruiserweight title, the Light Heavyweight title, the Women's Championship, the European Championship, the Hardcore title, or the second tag team title. Brand exclusivity of the titles is simply not a significant reason to maintain a Brand Split.
[size=+2]WWE Draft[/size]
Now one thing I always did enjoy about the Brand Split was the annual Draft. It allowed such moments as this one:
But really, is the excitement produced by moments such as this one really significant enough to offset all of the other limitations of the Brand Split? Because let's face it, moments such as the above are offset by moments like this:
Has the Brand Split, in this example, really accomplished anything? Two major guys switched brands and took their respective belts with them. Big deal. When this can be overcome simply by having both guys appear on both brands with their belts. Bottom line, no reason for a Brand Split.
[size=+2]Pay Per Views[/size]
So far, I really have been unable to decipher a tangible benefit to the fans or the superstars regarding the Brand Split. But I guess it benefitted the ownership and the financial aspects of the move. Or did it?
The Brand Split happened in 2002, and the idea of going brand exclusive with PPV's began at Bad Blood in 2003. Of course, the "Big Four", namely the Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series still applied to both brands (although even action on these shows was attempted to involve action between superstars on the same brand). A great idea, right? More PPV's added to the schedule, while still reducing the workload of the superstars. And this yielded some true masterpieces:
And of course:
Let's face it, the brand specific PPV's were horrible. By the time Backlash of 2007 came around, the WWE finally realized that the brand specific PPV's just weren't working. These PPV's were cancelled for the future, and ever since, all PPV's were back to featuring superstars from both brands. Hardly a resounding vote of confidence for the Brand Split.
[size=+2] Ratings [/size]
I don't think anyone would contest the fact that RAW is the A show, the true flagship program of the WWE, with Smackdown being the B show. Let's look at the ratings for 2010:
http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2010-ratings/
For the Brand Split to be taken seriously, you cannot have one brand so consistently dominant over the other. I don't plan on reviewing the numbers for other years, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that the bottom line is pretty much the same. If the Brand Split were successful, I think there would be more equitable ratings between the two. If I'm supposed to believe there is a true rivalry between the brands, as per Bragging Rights and the like, the brands would need to be more comparable. The Brand Split was never able to address the discrepancy between the brands, and I see this as yet another example of the lack of success of the Brand Split.
Simply put, the WWE Brand Split was created with the best of intentions, but they simply never materialized. This fact has been apparent to the fans, to the superstars, and to the WWE brass for years. While the apparent end of the Brand Split was August 29, 2011, I would suggest that the writing has been on the wall since 2007. Dating back to this year, movement between the brands was occurring pretty freely. Trades were occurring, free agents were changing sides, and guys were appearing on the other brand with increasing regularity, not to mention the end of the brand exclusive PPV's as mentioned above. The strict brand split has been on the way out for years, and it's only since eight months ago that the WWE finally began to acknowledge it. And it's been on the way out because for all of the reasons alluded to above, it simply was not working.
Let's face it, if the Brand Split concept were working, it would not be coming to a close. The very fact that it appears to be ending is proof positive it is not a success. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. However in this case, it most certainly is broke and has been for some time now. And the WWE has finally taken tangible steps to fix it, by mercifully ending it. Let's hope it truly is the end of the Brand Split, and not simply a temporary postponement of it.
Now, over to you Dirty One.
