TUP Wrestling Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Wrestling > General World Wrestling Entertainment
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Every Pay Per View Dual Branded
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Every Pay Per View Dual Branded

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
Kondor View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Ticket Wars Founder

Joined: 02/June/2010
Location: Right here
Status: Offline
Points: 6554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kondor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16/February/2018 at 12:07
Originally posted by Fletch Fletch wrote:

The problem with the brand extension is it becomes stale and repetitive far too quickly. With each brand only having access to half the roster it’s a matter of time before they are recycling the same matches over and over and fresh feuds and storylines become hard to find.

I think the only way to keep things interesting would be to have a roster shake up at least every six months, but that would kind of defeat the object of having a brand extension.

I can see the advantages to split brands, more tv time for the top guys and more exposure for the talent lower down the card, two sets of World titles effectively creating two sets of headliners at all times. The other thing is it allows for brand vs brand rivalry on one off occasions which produced the excellent Survivor Series last year.

But as discussed people will always see Smackdown as the B show anyway so you’re only really considered a true headliner if you’re main eventing on Raw.

Having dual branded PPV events every month seems like step one of ending the extension. Ending it would freshen things up and would help the women’s and tag divisions which suffer from a lack of depth on each brand, the only real talent to lose out from ending the extension would be the top guys vying for those coveted main event spots.

Wouldn’t it be possible to have just one roster exclusive to Raw and Smackdown but just rotate the talent? I mean like in NXT with a one hour show each week they can’t feature every talent every single week. Do we need to see Roman Reigns on every episode of Raw and Smackdown? For example if the current top feuds were say Reigns vs The Miz and Seth Rollins vs Bray Wyatt you simply let Reigns and Miz have the spotlight on Raw one week and then Rollins/Wyatt on Smackdown and vice versa. This would ease the strain on the talent as well allowing them to work lighter schedules perhaps.

THIS^^^^

Everytime I have ever seen someone attempt to defend the brand extension, they said pretty much what you did in your opening paragraph and bring up how with a unified fed people will see the same people time and time again each week and that less stars will have a chance to shine. In fact that what Tom did in the women's division thread. But all that is is an excuse for WWE based upon their lazy reliance on a small core of the same people over and over again and their complete incompetence in spreading out talent week to week. 

But I've been saying for years just what you did here, that all they have to do is keep track of who has been on the show one week and then put (mostly) different people on the show the week after, still keeping main eventers up there but spreading appearances as evenly as possible for the mid and lower card. 20+ years ago the WWF was very good at showcasing different wrestlers week to week and having multiple clearly defined levels of where every singles competitor and tag team was in the pecking order. There were even different levels of jobber status.   

The counterargument, and I'm sure where people are coming from who defend the brand extension, is that as the WWE is incompetent this is unlikely to happen. Thus if the brand split were to end, we would indeed see the same people over and over again, the same feuds all the time, less different talent being featured, and some worthy talent being dropped off the radar altogether. 

But every defense of the brand split is thus still based upon WWE's incompetence and if one is stating what they do wish to see WWE do (which is what we do here) once we say we want the WWE to end the brand split it isn't too much of a stretch to also add "oh, and also try to spread appearances out and feature different people each week."  

And yes, roster shake ups or whatever they call it, yearly scheduled drafts, people leaping from one show to another all the time, makes a farce of the whole idea of having two allegedly separate brands; as does "free agents." Which is all why as I mentioned before I call Raw and Smackdown shows and not "brands." 

I do prefer one World Title, one Women's World Title, and one set of World Tag Team Titles to bring added value to the belts. 

I meant to put this in the actual brand extension thread one day but the subject was being brought up here. 

As for the actual subject of the thread, how ever many "dual branded" pay per views they have or don't have makes no difference to me. As I said in the second post of this thread the brand split doesn't exist for the aforementioned reasons I and others touched upon. Whether I want to see a pay per view or not depends on the card and format of specialty matches. 


Edited by Kondor - 16/February/2018 at 12:12

Back to Top
GoldenGamer30 View Drop Down
OVW
OVW
Avatar

Joined: 15/November/2017
Location: Henrico, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GoldenGamer30 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17/February/2018 at 17:16
I wonder if this means all PPVs will be four hours long?
It's over. It's ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL over!
Back to Top
#Heel View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar
Winner of TW VII & Co-Winner of TW VIII

Joined: 03/January/2012
Location: Newcastle, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 10394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote #Heel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17/February/2018 at 19:34
Originally posted by GoldenGamer30 GoldenGamer30 wrote:

I wonder if this means all PPVs will be four hours long?

Meltzer seems to think so
Back to Top
admin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Open To Bribes For Favours

Joined: 01/October/2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 46153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote admin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 10:52
Originally posted by GoldenGamer30 GoldenGamer30 wrote:

I wonder if this means all PPVs will be four hours long?
 
As long as it doesn't mean every month is filled with title matches for both brands for just about every title.
 
Quote

As expected, WWE officially announced plans to end the brand-exclusive pay-per-view model.

WWE.com released the following announcement today:

WWE pay-per-views just got bigger for 2018!

After WrestleMania, you’ll get the best of both brands – Raw and SmackDown LIVE – every month, on every pay-per-view. Catch every event streaming live on the award-winning WWE Network.

WrestleMania 34 - April 8, 2018

WWE Backlash - May 6, 2018

WWE Money in the Bank - June 17, 2018

WWE Extreme Rules - July 15, 2018

SummerSlam - Aug. 19, 2018

WWE Hell in a Cell - Sept. 16, 2018

WWE TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs - Oct. 21, 2018

Survivor Series - Nov. 18, 2018

WWE Clash of Champions - Dec. 16, 2018

Schedule last updated: Feb. 17, 2018

 
I would rotate booking so everyone gets a chance and storylines get a chance to progress without being rushed.
 
So no more than one brand per type of title. So if a PPV only has on the card one main title, one tag title match, one womens match etc, it gives undercards a chance to still be involved.
Back to Top
#Heel View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar
Winner of TW VII & Co-Winner of TW VIII

Joined: 03/January/2012
Location: Newcastle, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 10394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote #Heel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 10:54
The big PPV's were dual branded anyway and it will only benefit the likes of MITB etc having them dual branded.

They need to make sure we dont get 12 months of the same talent on the card every single event or people will stop watching
Back to Top
Fletch View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
TUP Hall Of Fame 2009

Joined: 06/January/2006
Location: Portsmouth UK
Status: Offline
Points: 16601
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fletch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 12:47
I dont see it as a bad move because ultimately there were plenty of single brand PPV events I had little interest in because of the lack of depth which meant the card was weak.

For the single brand formula WWE would have been better bring back something shorter like Saturday Nights Main Event or In Your House for the brand exclusive shows then maybe run 6 dual brand shows through the year. But they wont do that because they would see it as a money loser, they want all PPV's to be as big and as long as possible.

WWE just need to make sure they rotate the talent so its not always the same guys with everyone else left out in the cold. Somehow though I think we will see Roman Reigns headlining every event no matter what.

On the plus side if Lesnar remains as champion or becomes champ again it will compensate for him only working 4-5 shows a year as the Smackdown champion can headline.
Back to Top
xXDemon_DuckXx View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar
A new TUP legend: Mr. 100,000!

Joined: 01/April/2009
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 2757
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xXDemon_DuckXx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 3 hours 3 minutes ago at 14:46
Originally posted by Fletch Fletch wrote:

I dont see it as a bad move because ultimately there were plenty of single brand PPV events I had little interest in because of the lack of depth which meant the card was weak.


That's what happens when you have the same guys showcased week in and week out.

The lower guys get zero on-screen time and zero character development. If they aren't seen, it shouldn't come as a surprise when they get little to no crowd reaction. Tye Dillenger is a perfect example of this: over as fuck in NXT and got one of (if not THE) loudest pops during last year's Rumble. Gets moved to Smackdown and then what? He's on TV for a few weeks then disappears.

That said, might as well do away with the brand split altogether if this is the route they're going to take. Part of the appeal of the split (to me, anyway) was that it was an opportunity to showcase the depth of the roster a little more. Develop characters. create more stars, and maybe justify what they're paying. Instead, the rosters got so thinned out that the Raw tag team title picture has essentially been The Bar v. Rollins and Dean/Jordan/Reigns for what seems like the past year. The Smackdown tag team roster has 3 serious tag teams and 2 that are practically jokes.

4 hour PPV's are way too long. Bad enough that Wrestlemania and Summerslam are 5-6 hour events. Some people cannot devote 10 hours (Raw, SD, NXT, and the PPV) in a week for the product. If WWE can barely keep 3 hours of Raw entertaining (and I use that term VERY loosely), why would I have any faith that they can do that AND a 4 hour PPV in the same week?

Smackdown will obviously get the short end of the stick on this one. Everything the WWE Champ does will be taking a backseat to whatever Braun, Lesnar, and/or Reigns are doing. It's obvious now with the way Wrestlemania is panning out. Styles/Nakamura will be lucky to even be 3rd from the top.

I still believe WWE should have went with the bi-monthly PPV's that they did during the last brand split.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.