MikeRaw
Guest
Which way do you prefer the brands to be?
Ok, well back before Smackdown and Raw got separate rosters, we had it where superstars could appear on different shows at different times. Sure, they’d have a show their on more regularly than the other, but at any time they were "allowed" to go to the other show.
Then, they got separated, and for a few years, each brand had a credible, believable GM (Bischoff and heyman/stephanie) and it was an actual "brand extension".
Noone appeared on the opposite brands shows, also, I actually liked it with each brand having separate PPVs except for the big 4. It gave everyone a chance to get on the ppv, and if you didn’t like smackdown, you didn’t have to worry about missing the PPV, cause Raw guys wouldn’t be on it, so you wouldn’t miss them. But now, you have to order like every PPV because they're all tri branded and each one will have a WWE and WHC title match.
But back on topic, during that time, there was a kayfabe competition between the two brands, and it made things like Survivor series and summerslam seem more important with the brands being in the same arena.
It also made the draft lottery mean something, and each brand was like a team.
But now, WWE is caught in the middle. They have all tri branded PPV’s, which IMO takes out some of the specialness of the PPV when you’re seeing all three brands on PPV once a month. And they also have no barriers between the brands it seems.
So answer the poll and post here as to which of the three ways you prefer WWE brands to be.
For the record, I think WWE will completely end the brand extension soon, but IMO, they need to either choose to completely end it, or start it up again with actual rosters, because this thing where they're stuck in the middle sucks.
I want the separate brands back.
Ok, well back before Smackdown and Raw got separate rosters, we had it where superstars could appear on different shows at different times. Sure, they’d have a show their on more regularly than the other, but at any time they were "allowed" to go to the other show.
Then, they got separated, and for a few years, each brand had a credible, believable GM (Bischoff and heyman/stephanie) and it was an actual "brand extension".
Noone appeared on the opposite brands shows, also, I actually liked it with each brand having separate PPVs except for the big 4. It gave everyone a chance to get on the ppv, and if you didn’t like smackdown, you didn’t have to worry about missing the PPV, cause Raw guys wouldn’t be on it, so you wouldn’t miss them. But now, you have to order like every PPV because they're all tri branded and each one will have a WWE and WHC title match.
But back on topic, during that time, there was a kayfabe competition between the two brands, and it made things like Survivor series and summerslam seem more important with the brands being in the same arena.
It also made the draft lottery mean something, and each brand was like a team.
But now, WWE is caught in the middle. They have all tri branded PPV’s, which IMO takes out some of the specialness of the PPV when you’re seeing all three brands on PPV once a month. And they also have no barriers between the brands it seems.
So answer the poll and post here as to which of the three ways you prefer WWE brands to be.
For the record, I think WWE will completely end the brand extension soon, but IMO, they need to either choose to completely end it, or start it up again with actual rosters, because this thing where they're stuck in the middle sucks.
I want the separate brands back.
