Absolutely love this idea. I feel this is being done because of the New WWE Network. By having fewer championships and more distinguised champions its just better all around for marketing and advertising purposes. In terms of talent I love the idea. Now The Championships will matter in the long term. Two and three years from now when the roster is filled with new talent its going to be very exciting. I just hope they leave it with it four championships, IMO that is all you really need.
I never understand when people state that with less titles wrestlers now have less chance for gold. But isn't that the point? Why does every wrestler need to be in a title fued to make themselves relevent? We don't need a new midcard championship like a tv title or something along those lines. Now The Writers need to think of good fueds and good storytelling for guys who aren't invovled in a title picture.
OK first off if you're for "marketing and advertising purposes" then less titles doesn't help here, at all. The people they're marketing to like people they want to convert into fans won't care how few titles they have, if anything a person having a title around makes them stand out since they're obviously wearing something that makes them look important. Which is exactly what you want to do in marketing and advertising, stand out and get people's attention, which big shiny titles do. For example take away the IC title away from Big E and to your average person he's just 1 really big guy. But now they can market him as a champion in which he would standout from being just a really big guy. Do the same with Roman Reigns and the US title and they'll have a easy way to market him.
And yes it'll really exciting see a ton of new and exciting talent with nothing to fight for since they're go nowhere near the WWEHC and the IC title can only go to so many people.
Champions only mean as much or little as creative puts into it, the actual number of titles doesn't matter that much as long as you don't go overboard. Having the WHC gone didn't suddenly make the IC title look good again, creative just finally did something with it instead of just ignoring it like they're doing with the US. But oh look, there's one less title and the US is still crap, so obviously the "less titles = remaining titles becomes more important" idea just isn't true.
As for "Now The Writers need to think of good feuds and good storytelling for guys who aren't involved in a title picture." We don't need less titles for that. That should be happening now, why do we need the US title gone for that to happen? Shouldn't we be expecting both good feuds and good storytelling regardless of how many titles they are?
And if the US title being gone is supposed to make that all that great stuff happen, why isn't happening now? After all we pretty much have the situation you want right now since the US title is being totally ignored on Ambrose, so where are the "good feuds and good storytelling" for the midcard guys that would normally be busy with US title matches? Unless you like crap like Miz-Kofi, Sandow-Khali, Brotus-Woods/Truth etcetc that stuff obviously isn't happening despite the US title being essentially non-existent.
"But if the title is useless on Ambrose then we should just get rid of it" I'm sure you guys are thinking, and no we shouldn't. Just make it seem good again like they're sort of doing with the IC and suddenly we have another thing worth watching. Don't know about the rest of you but I'll happily take a US title match on PPVs over the other non-title filler crap matches that always happens and will undoubtedly continue if the US title is gone.
