So without house shows, can ECW really be a viable third brand for WWE? Frankly, I thought the whole 'have cards in smaller arenas' was a good way to create business, since house shows of any brand haven't been drawing more than a few thousand people anyway.
Since: 12.1.02 From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA
Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 26 min.
#3 Posted on 30.10.06 1852.54 Reposted on: 30.10.13 1853.07
Not having ECW house shows actually makes sense to me, especially since it said the ECW Superstars are going to continue to be on house shows, just not their own house shows. So they'll still be on RAW and SmackDown-brand house shows.
I mean, it's not as if they regularly book arenas for ECW to have television tapings all to themselves either. Though I think they should; I think a crowd that's there to actually see ECW would be less indifferent towards the brand than a crowd that's there to see SmackDown while ECW essentially gets the Velocity spot. (Of course they might also be less indifferent if, you know, ECW was any good.) But since WWE isn't willing, apparently, to let ECW have many television tapings to themselves (with the exception of their two pay-per-views a year and the occasional Hammerstein Ballroom appearances), it's not altogether illogical what they're doing.
Now that they've got that out of the way, they need to consider the illogic of only having a B-show for the RAW brand, since they dumped Velocity. Why not make Heat a B-show for both RAW and SmackDown?
Since last post: 1147 days Last activity: 852 days
#5 Posted on 30.10.06 2341.06 Reposted on: 30.10.13 2341.20
Originally posted by canis582Hammerstein itself maybe done as a rockin venue for ECW, based on the last show.
What did they expect? You have toe WWE Hosses fighting for the ECW title infront of real ECW fans. Of course they were gonna shit all over that match. ANyone expecting a diffrent result was only folling themselves.