I'm also against two wold heavyweight champions. WWE barely acknowledges people that won the title on Smackdown but we're going to go back to pretending that a Smackdown title matters? I guess there's a scenario where they get serious about Smackdown now that it's live and try to make two legit champions but I don't think many people have faith that's actually going to happen.
The women's and tag titles should definitely float. There are some very talented women but I don't know if they have enough for two titles. I would be okay with all the women being on one show. And if Smackdown is going to have somebody else running the show and less Vince influence then please sign Bayley up for that show whenever she is called up.
There are a lot of tag teams now, definitely enough for two shows, but New Day is really the only one that is established (other than the Dudleys). I'd break up the tag teams between the two shows but I think they need the New Day on both shows to add a little juice to both tag divisions.
The tag teams definitely need to be split between brands - you couldn't have one of the shows just for tag teams. As pointed out above there are are a lot of teams, let alone the random chucked together combos here and there.
Overall this seems like a great idea as long as they do a good even split rather than a superstar heavy show and then Smackdown with just one or two to keep us internet fans happy. Not sure of the best route for the champions. IC on one and US on the other with one heavyweight champion seems good, but that would lead to a lot of contenders for that title which might get confusing and people missing out because it's not their month for title shots. Tag titles and womens title should be on both - having titles as the main aim for everyone would be good with people having to raise their game on their show to get the shot at a PPV. I realise I have contradicted myself there so I will wait with interest to see what happens!
Hopefully they will have Smackdown live over here in the UK as well so we can keep up to date.
So I have a question...The video on youtube has the two mcmahon children bickering over who gets to run Smackdown....What was the point of Shane fighting taker, losing, getting control of raw , sharing control with his sister if the end result is him Running Smackdown? Why would he want to run Smackdown all he has said in the past few months was he wanted RAW.
Dont say its not worth it, when you can sleep with no fear, that kind of time is worth any thing.- FFX
Hoping that this is finally the full on Crisis-style reboot angle I've been wanting for years, with the big reveal being that Dusty Rhodes - who has evolved to a higher level of being - will be behind the destruction of NXT as the catalyst for a Brand Split Rebirth, course correcting the WWE Universe to a place where hope, optimism, selling and less scripted promos are welcome.
FWIW, "the End" is primarily meant to be about the Joe/Devitt feud. They'll tease a double meaning like always but they're probably not giving away plot spoilers in their subtitles.
Originally posted by QuezzyI'm also against two wold heavyweight champions. WWE barely acknowledges people that won the title on Smackdown but we're going to go back to pretending that a Smackdown title matters? I guess there's a scenario where they get serious about Smackdown now that it's live and try to make two legit champions but I don't think many people have faith that's actually going to happen.
My first reaction is also not to have two world champions. In fact, here's what I'm thinking: don't do a floating champion. Instead, the champ appears on his own show only. Yeah, I know, it's really hard to swallow that sometimes the champ won't be on RAW. But this lets them have more variety to the storytelling. Sometimes the champ will be in a feud on his own show, and the build will look like it does now. Other times, his next opponent will be on the other show, and they'll build to it by keeping them apart. We've already been saying we're tired of seeing the same matchups over and over, anyway, right? And, hey, just because someone doesn't wrestle on RAW doesn't mean he can't occasionally *appear* on RAW, cutting promos or whatever. Not sure I have all the details, but I think they've got to be willing to try something different. (I don't think they ARE willing to try something different, but I think they should.)
Just out of curiosity -- for anyone who has watched Smackdown regularly, has anything of any importance happened on Smackdown? Feuds started? Ended? Title changes? I haven't watched in a few years but keep up by reading the spoilers. I can't recall anything but angles treading water that happened on Smackdown. If nothing else, perhaps this brand split and move to live shows will at least make the show mean something and become more must-see. Speaking personally, I don't think I've lost a single thing by not watching Smackdown for the past three or four years.
Originally posted by HokienauticJust out of curiosity -- for anyone who has watched Smackdown regularly, has anything of any importance happened on Smackdown? Feuds started? Ended? Title changes? I haven't watched in a few years but keep up by reading the spoilers. I can't recall anything but angles treading water that happened on Smackdown. If nothing else, perhaps this brand split and move to live shows will at least make the show mean something and become more must-see. Speaking personally, I don't think I've lost a single thing by not watching Smackdown for the past three or four years.
I haven't been able to catch Smackdown since before WrestleMania - they're all still on the DVR, but who knows if I'll get to them or not. I think you're probably correct.
Oh, that reminds me. Let's see how my poll turned out:
POLL: Wrestling fans, will Mauro Ranallo still be @WWE#SmackDown lead announcer when the show goes live?
If nothing else, perhaps this brand split and move to live shows will at least make the show mean something and become more must-see.
It's not off to a good start with the Draft being set for a Raw. If they're serious about SmackDown being the an important show, they need to overcompensate for a while it can't just be equal, it's got to be bigger to overcome the impression you (and most people) have.
Originally posted by CRZHmmm, a split. What a jaded crew of smarks still bother to follow my wrestling tweets
I voted "will not" but if I could, I would like to change my vote to "he will, but he'll be overproduced into sucking."
I feel about this brand extension like I felt about the last one - it's a good idea as long as they have the self-discipline to really differentiate the shows and stick to the split even in the face of an initial dip in ratings. But they didn't have that self-discipline then and they won't now, so this s just a big ol' mess waiting to happen.
Originally posted by thecubsfan It's not off to a good start with the Draft being set for a Raw. If they're serious about SmackDown being the an important show, they need to overcompensate for a while it can't just be equal, it's got to be bigger to overcome the impression you (and most people) have.
Good point. If Raw gets the draft, then SmackDown should be getting something to compensate. So right off the bat, Raw gets the big event to kick things off while Smackdown, I guess, gets the fallout.
Raw comes first during the week, so it makes sense to that degree, but they could have easily also done the draft on Smackdown to leave people for a week in anticipation of Raw, which could have helped both shows.
Originally posted by HokienauticJust out of curiosity -- for anyone who has watched Smackdown regularly, has anything of any importance happened on Smackdown? Feuds started? Ended? Title changes? I haven't watched in a few years but keep up by reading the spoilers. I can't recall anything but angles treading water that happened on Smackdown. If nothing else, perhaps this brand split and move to live shows will at least make the show mean something and become more must-see. Speaking personally, I don't think I've lost a single thing by not watching Smackdown for the past three or four years.
Nothing of note at all, just rematches and tag team matches. No real storyline development, no title changes, nothing of importance... but it is a decent little show. Matches get a little more time, the announcing is better, and it's over in two hours.
Originally posted by KJames199 I feel about this brand extension like I felt about the last one - it's a good idea as long as they have the self-discipline to really differentiate the shows and stick to the split even in the face of an initial dip in ratings. But they didn't have that self-discipline then and they won't now, so this s just a big ol' mess waiting to happen.
100% this. Last time they did the brand split I really liked it in the beginning, when the shows were kept entirely independent. Once they started bleeding into each other, the split lost it's appeal. I would be okay with the idea of floating champions, but Peter TH's idea of champs keeping the belt on their show has some real possibility.
The one thing I don't get is making Smackdown live. I'm not even sure why RAW is live anymore. Do most people even watch TV live as it is airing? How is this a boon for USA?
It's the most important meal of the day.
http://toomuchbreakfast.tumblr.com/