WWE Brand Split News, Rumors, and Other Tidbits Thread

[Jacob Fox]

The "one world title" vs. "separate brand world titles" seems to be the biggest argument about the entire thing (although, I'm interested that the "one women's title" vs. "separate brand women's titles" has been talked about...didn't see that one coming). My opinion about titles is simple: if they're well-written and well-booked (something WWE has shown that it is capable of doing), then it doesn't matter how many titles you have, fans will buy into it. It reminds me of a debate I saw posted here a couple or three years back regarding what makes a "world title" (my position then and now: if I own the title and my fans buy into it as a "world title", then it's a "world title"...that's really all it takes).



wk

I tend to agree with this for the most part. I see no issue with both Raw and Smackdown having a world title level belt.

It seems that the way they did it during the original brand extension was to have the WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship. They never referred to the WWE Championship as a World title belt, even though it was pretty much accepted as such. Although it was never said, it was like the WWE Champion was the champ of the WWE and the World Champ was champ of the world. I see no problem going back to that.

The reason I think it will work fine is because of my own experience. As some might know, I took my only wrestling hiatus ever during the AE and when I began watching wrestling again, the brand extension was already well under way. I checked out a PWI magazine in the super market and they had Raw and Smackdown listed as separate promotions. It was curious to me. Then, they had the champions listed not as World Champions, but as Smackdown and Raw champions, something I didn't understand but actually helped me become interested in wrestling again. So I did, and when I did, I found that it worked well since the belts were treated as separate belts on separate rosters. My thought is that if I came in during the brand extension and was easily able to pick up and accept the two world championship situation, that current and new viewers alike should have no problem with it.

In the early 1990's, when WCW withdrew from the NWA, they had their own World title. It was the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. After Ric Flair left for WWF with the NWA belt, after the belt was eventually returned, the NWA World Heavyweight Championship was revived. For a while, WCW had what they considered two World Heavyweight belts on the same roster and the same show. If they do this, I would agree with StopSpot that it would be confusing because it was confusing back then. The NWA belt was considered like a secondary title by many fans and was even treated as such on the show. But then it was also sometimes the main event and there was more than one time it was defended on a card but Vader's WCW Championship was not. It was annoying because the belt was pointless. However, if they keep the defense of the titles exclusive to each brand, I don't think it will be confusing.

If the brand split keeps their rosters, story lines and other stuff mostly separate from each other... where ONLY members of that roster can challenge for the World title, then I see no problem with there being two world championships. But I honestly think they could do what they did before. Have the WWE Championship without the "World" in the title (fans will still consider it a world title though) and have the World Heavyweight Championship without the "WWE" in the title. It worked before and I can't see a reason why it wouldn't work again.

 

[Jacob Fox]

It'd be so much better if Raw was reduced to 2 hours also, it's the perfect length as SmackDown will surely prove. Cut the Backlund/Goldust/other crappy segments and there's plenty of time.

I agree. You the man... well, theoretically at least.

 

[Aids Johnson]

Goldy should leave and go somewhere for a one off match with Cody like we all have wanted for the better part of 2 years. His Golden Truth shit just puts more reason to the fact Vince shits on him so bad, he even offered to get tits to stick around in WWE, and was still let go.

He is older, but is as athletic a guy for his size i've ever seen. Goldy off the top rope huricanrana ffs, it's a mark moment when he does it, and it's not like an Ambrose clothesline or Ortons vintage shit. Ahh fuck me I just realized Orton returns soon, Anyone have a timeline so we can just assume he fucks Rollins out of the title, and they feud into the summer while Reigns keeps...who cares.

 

[Deagle]

So many questions, especially when it comes to the titles. If they do reintroduce the WHC, they need to rename the current one back to simply the "WWE Championship". I see the U.S title and IC titles being on separate brands but I hope they don't introduce a separate set of tag titles as that'll spread the tag division thin.

 

[Prince Bálor]

Major WWE Pay-Per-View Changes Revealed For The Upcoming WWE Brand Extension?

We recently reported how WWE was apparently bringing back the WCW Clash of the Champions name for TV specials and other merchandising. We also reported how there were plans to do brand-specific pay-per-view events after the upcoming WWE Brand Extension.

According to a user on Reddit, WWE will indeed be bringing back the Clash name to use at a RAW branded pay-per-view event. The user also leaked this pay-per-view calendar for the rest of the year.

It should be noted that these changes have not been confirmed:

* WWE SummerSlam - August 21st in Brooklyn, 7pm EST start time, both brands

* WWE Backlash, September 11th in Richmond, 8pm EST start time, SmackDown event,WWE Network exclusive

* WWE Clash of the Champions, September 25th in Indianapolis, 8pm EST start time, RAW event

* WWE No Mercy, October 9th in Sacramento, 8pm EST start time, SmackDown event

* WWE Hell In a Cell, October 30th in Boston, 8pm EST start time, RAW event

* WWE Survivor Series, November 20th in Toronto, 7pm EST start time, both brands

* WWE TLC, December 4th in Dallas, 8pm EST start time, SmackDown event

* WWE Roadblock, December 18th in Pittsburgh, 8pm EST start time, RAW event

 

[Roadster]

Seems like total bs ^

WWE retired those names, and aren't gonna be brining them back. And why Roadblock was moved to before the proverbial, Road to WrestleMania begins is just another thing that screams fake to me.

 

[Stopspot]

Seems like total bs ^

WWE retired those names, and aren't gonna be brining them back. And why Roadblock was moved to before the proverbial, Road to WrestleMania begins is just another thing that screams fake to me.

The dude who's leaked this has a pretty good track record tho. And the dates match dates brought up by Jerry Lawler recently when he did a con panel and was asked about brand specific ppvs

 

[Rogue]

Also seems like WWE would re-hash names, because we all know what happens when they try to be creative. Welcome to Fatal Four Way!

 

[Snowman1]

This is all way too much. Trying to split the roster, despite keeping Raw 3 hours. Trying to have twice PPV's a year AND make them longer with halved rosters... It just feels like it can't happen.

 

[Roadster]

This is all way too much. Trying to split the roster, despite keeping Raw 3 hours. Trying to have twice PPV's a year AND make them longer with halved rosters... It just feels like it can't happen.

WWE has the resources to make it happen. How the crowd will take to it, is a different situation, but WWE can definitely make this happen.

 

[Jacob Fox]

This is all way too much. Trying to split the roster, despite keeping Raw 3 hours. Trying to have twice PPV's a year AND make them longer with halved rosters... It just feels like it can't happen.

While I feel that the extra programming indeed seems like too much, I don't think there will be a problem with the rosters. WWE has plenty of wrestlers. By splitting the rosters, we should get a chance to see more wrestlers shine that haven't been able to before. I think it's an opportunity to see guys main event that simply have not been given much of a chance to before. Plenty of the guys who don't main event are capable of it, but just haven't been put in that position because there is only so much room at the top. Now, there's twice as much room.

 

[Rogue]

I definitely think the split would help ease the wrestlers' toll as well. Already one less show to work, and then with separate tours you can spread who works what night. Sure, they'll still be overworked. But if it helps at all it's a success.

 

[Gman003]

The perfect scenario (in my mind) would go as followed: 2 hours per weekly show, 3 hours for ppv, and 2 separate world titles (wwe champ and whc).

Have alternating months for ppv. Smackdown one mon the, raw the next with the big 4 being mixed ppv.

If they continue mitb have 2 separate matches, one for each show.

With the way it is now having 3 hours for raw, 2 for SD plus basically 4+ hour ppv...that's way too much for me to keep up with personally. I'd be limited to one show. Most likely SD since it's only 2 hours.(unless they fuck around and go to 3)

I'm excited for the brand split but there's so much that needs to be cleared up in the coming weeks before I'll be ready to devote nearly 30 hours a month (or more) to wwe. I've got life happening too lol. By cutting 4 hours of raw and presumaby 4 hours of ppv each month, it's more realistic for me.

Either way I'm happy to see what's going to happen. Just hope it all works out for the best.

 

[Snowman1]

While I feel that the extra programming indeed seems like too much, I don't think there will be a problem with the rosters. WWE has plenty of wrestlers. By splitting the rosters, we should get a chance to see more wrestlers shine that haven't been able to before. I think it's an opportunity to see guys main event that simply have not been given much of a chance to before. Plenty of the guys who don't main event are capable of it, but just haven't been put in that position because there is only so much room at the top. Now, there's twice as much room.

That's certainly true for the main event scene, but two PPV cards of 6-8 matches per month? I don't think there's nearly enough depth on the roster.
But there's SO MANY guys who could make quality main eventers. That's why I can't wait for this

 

[Wacokid27]

It's been bandied about that what would make sense would be for Raw (the FLAGSHIP) to be geared more toward the "casual fan" while Smackdown would be more wrestling-oriented and geared more toward the "hardcore fan"/IWC/those guys who don't just watch WWE.

If that's true, then having separate rosters, titles, PPV's, etc., makes sense. The Raw crowd will be more about popularity, merch sales, kids, etc., while the SD crowd will want workrate, sophistication, international wrestlers, etc.

As to the multiple PPV's (why do we still call them that when the majority of people who watch them don't actually pay per view anymore but subscribe to the Network?) in a month, the problem with the branded PPV's in the past was that WWE was asking you to throw down $40/month for half the roster and half the storylines. With the Network, it becomes a bonus special show to watch every month. If you don't want to watch the glitz and glamour of Raw, you won't be as inclined to sit through 3 hours of the Roman Reigns...........er, John Cena Comedy Show. If you don't care to watch the gritty, rough, stiff work of workrate-judged pro wrestling that Smackdown provides, you won't be as inclined to sit through 3 hours of Sami Zayn vs. Shinsuke Nakamura.

Either way, this brand split seems to be hedging toward offering two distinct products to WWE fans in a situation in which not every WWE fan is going to watch every hour of WWE programming.

And, by the way, what's with this "dedicating 3 hours a week to Raw plus a further 2 to SD plus PPV's......"? It hasn't taken me 3 hours to watch Raw in a couple of years and it doesn't take me 2 to watch SD, unless I have the option of watching live (which is more normal during the summer when I have less going on in the evenings). Even so, it's wrestling, guys...it's entertainment. Don't let it run your whole life.

wk