All PPV to be dual-branded, AND BE FOUR HOURS LONG

[TheManTheyCalledNorCal]

With a one hour pre-show !!

Every day we stray further from God.

This is a goddamn atrocity on many fronts, the first being the lack of star building opportunities.

Further, it's very disheartening that their answer to poor sales was this, instead of working towards building new stars.

Also who the hell wants 5 hour shows every month...

[HBK-aholic]

Ok, so, are they also changing the PPV schedule? Because its one thing to have a PPV every 2-3 weeks when its a Raw or SD only PPV, but will they really keep the current ridiculous schedule but also have all of them dual-branded? Because 2 weeks is not enough time to build a damn PPV.

I do prefer dual-branded PPVs though, timing aside. 4-5 hours plus overrun is ridiculous however. My original hope was we'd get better quality shows because we'd have less mid/low level guys and nothing matches. But with the time increase, theyll have to fill it somehow. Makes no sense to anyone.

[mysteryman]

I don't understand this move at all, and to me it defeats the purpose of having so many titles. Why have separate world, women's and tag team titles if they're all going to defended on the same shows every month? Instead of having 4 hour shows with all of these titles being defended, how about consolidating the titles and have them be more coveted and prestigious?

It also feels like they're giving up on the brand split to a certain extent, and it hasn't even been two years. I was hoping for a proper WWE draft sometime around late April, like we had up until 2011. I'm sure we'll still get that, but it makes me wonder if WWE is already ready to pull the plug on the brand split.

[Spidey]

A guaranteed way to eliminate any individuality a program already had. This devalues the times that dual-branding makes sense, like Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania. Let's just do this and run for a godawful length of time to make sure fans are exhausted enough not to be interested the next time we do this. Ridiculous and definitely on top of the list of things I hate about WWE right now. They seem to care about advertisement more than people. Four hours is garbage.

[The Bearded One]

I welcome the idea of dual-branded PPVs, just not at four hours long. There have been some weak matches on PPV due to the brand split, so I'm happy that this should bolster each card with top talent. But I'm afraid they're going to really start to drag at four hours long. WrestleMania is the only PPV that should be that long.

I was against the idea of the brand split from the start, and it hasn't taken long for the cracks to show in the foundation. A brand split is just a poor idea. They need to go back to having one roster for both Raw and Smackdown. Five hours of television between Raw and Smackdown, plus whatever B-shows and YouTube videos they have, is plenty of time to get talent over.

[klunderbunker]

I'm surprised it took this long to set up. Really, WWE has given up on improving their product and seems to think the answer is just more content. This is going to turn the shows into more of a chore and is going to include several instances of asking "how long is this match going to go", which isn't the kind of thing you want to see on a pay per view.

As for it being dual branded, that's not going to help much either as people like Elias aren't likely to get a chance to shine as they'll have to pack in all the title matches and top stories. But hey, this is going to raise ticket sales....somehow, right?

['Ravishing' Ned Flanders]

Unless they change up their schedule I don't see myself watching anymore. I can only see the same people doing the same thing month after month before i just stop caring.

Looks like it's NxT and old shows on the Network for me.

[Skairipa]

I see both good and bad with this. The good being more matches that matter and likely have better quality making the shows better and easier to sit through. But the bad is we're likely to see a lot of the same people all the time and you can almost guarentee that at least one of the midcard belts (US, IC, Cruiserweight) get stuck on the pre show most of the time. If they reduce the number of PPV's this shouldn't be too bad, but if they keep the same number of PPV's this is going to very exhausting.

I do hope this doesn't signal the beginning of the end of the brand split, I'm really liking it overall and it's led to quite a few people breaking out that wouldn't have had the chance to before.

[ShinChan]

I liked the earlier schedule WWE decided much better than this. Dual branded is something what just Big 4 or 5 PayPerViews should've used. Not each and every PayPerView. And then, 4 hours is surely too much of time. And I think that we won't get much personal grudge matches either. Mostly title matches unless and until they are actually ending brand split.

[Gazprom]

I don't care if PPVs are dual branded or not, but there are way too many of them. I used to just watch the PPVs, but now there are so many of them that even that is a chore. Quantity isn't quality, and wrestlers having to compete to get on the card in the first place will see them up their game. Still do two house show tours, so there will still be enough dates to make a living.

[Uncle Sam]

I hate the brand split. Like, revile it. While I appreciate Raw wrestlers and SmackDown wrestlers won't mix, it's the first step on the creep towards a singular roster - the creep that we saw end up with "Raw Supershows" and the end of the brand split before. Perhaps that means I've only got another six or seven years of this nightmare left, and that's a comfort.

The idea of a four hour long pay-per-view every month - or two weeks, or three days, or whatever the schedule is these days - sounds absolutely exhausting though, and makes me cling that much harder to Mama NXT's skirt.

[John]

If this was to be handled correctly I'd have no problem with it. But as it stands right now (and as it has for many years) Raw and Smackdown exist for nothing more than filling dead air between PPVs. If they repurpose the televised shows - i.e., stop having main event players like Roman and Styles wrestle every week and allow lower card feuds to main event - then having one big PPV per month that only features the top guys could work. For example, Matt Hardy vs. Bray Wyatt exists just to build the Woken Matt Hardy character and give Bray something to do. The blowoff to that feud does not need to take place at PPV - who in their right minds would sign up for the Network to see that match? Instead have their big match be a Raw main event. Have commentary act like it actually matters and build up to it with promos.

But it's the WWE so what we're going to get is massive bloated matches with as many guys thrown in as possible and probably Seth fighting Sheamus in some capacity.

[John]

I hate the brand split. Like, revile it. While I appreciate Raw wrestlers and SmackDown wrestlers won't mix, it's the first step on the creep towards a singular roster - the creep that we saw end up with "Raw Supershows" and the end of the brand split before. Perhaps that means I've only got another six or seven years of this nightmare left, and that's a comfort.

The idea of a four hour long pay-per-view every month - or two weeks, or three days, or whatever the schedule is these days - sounds absolutely exhausting though, and makes me cling that much harder to Mama NXT's skirt.

Did you think things were better before the brand split? There was zero reason to watch Smackdown up until last summer. To me it was on the same level as Superstars, just extra content that rehashed what we already saw on Monday night. And with the roster as bloated as it is, I don't think having wrestlers appear two nights a week makes any sense.

[Uncle Sam]

There only being one roster didn't force them to make SmackDown a rehash show, nor did it prevent them from using it to showcase different talent in different ways from Raw. Similarly, having two rosters hasn't stopped SmackDown being uninspired, repetitious, or - to paraphrase the late Buddy Rogers - being absolute dogshit.

[John]

There only being one roster didn't force them to make SmackDown a rehash show, nor did it prevent them from using it to showcase different talent in different ways from Raw. Similarly, having two rosters hasn't stopped SmackDown being uninspired, repetitious, or - to paraphrase the late Buddy Rogers - being absolute dogshit.

True, and admittedly I didn't watch when the previous brand split ended so I'm not sure how they handled having two shows. I was pleased when they announced the new brand split as it gave me a reason to actually watch two nights a week but I'm mostly off Smackdown at this point anyway.

[Gelgarin]

I hate the brand split. Like, revile it. While I appreciate Raw wrestlers and SmackDown wrestlers won't mix, it's the first step on the creep towards a singular roster - the creep that we saw end up with "Raw Supershows" and the end of the brand split before. Perhaps that means I've only got another six or seven years of this nightmare left, and that's a comfort.

The idea of a four hour long pay-per-view every month - or two weeks, or three days, or whatever the schedule is these days - sounds absolutely exhausting though, and makes me cling that much harder to Mama NXT's skirt.


Christ this place is ugly.

I like the brand split. It let me follow a wrestling continuity without having to watch five hours of TV a week or go near the idiosyncrasies of RAW. Defend your position on its suckitude this instant.

[klunderbunker]

Christ this place is ugly.

I like the brand split. It let me follow a wrestling continuity without having to watch five hours of TV a week or go near the idiosyncrasies of RAW. Defend your position on its suckitude this instant.

There are different skins available. You can switch it in the bottom left hand corner of any screen.

[Uncle Sam]

I like the brand split. It let me follow a wrestling continuity without having to watch five hours of TV a week or go near the idiosyncrasies of RAW. Defend your position on its suckitude this instant.

Firstly, if it's a relaxed viewing schedule you desire, and a television show that's eminently watchable, dare I say there's a show other than SmackDown that I can think of. It can be yours for just £9.99 a month.

Secondly, please don't ask me to do anything after ten o'clock, because I will do it and sacrifice my beauty sleep in the process.

Thirdly, my problems with the brand split include but are not limited to: ten million varieties of title belt; five million of those varieties being the same belt in a different colour; the spreading of the female roster thin when it had the historic opportunity to have an actual midcard; WWE's failing to maintain the illusion of separation; there therefore being no justification for separation (would one not prefer a collection of undisputed champions rather than double the amount of semi-champions?); failure to capitalise on opportunities afforded by two rosters, e.g. building of new stars (with one notable exception); focus on the insufferable McMahon children - and that's just what I can think of in bed.

In short, separate brands are stupid. Long live NXT.

[Dagger Dias]

Disappointing. The Big 4 were that much more special when they were the only dual-branded shows. Plus, it allowed more chances for others to get a shot at PPV's that they now likely never will. I really liked the PPV structure we have had since the new brand split began. Having the Raw exclusive shows and Smackdown exclusive shows was a good thing. Now we're surely to just get the same people over and over again at every PPV. They should do a Big 6. The original 4, Money In The Bank, and Night Of Champions. Every other PPV should be Raw exclusive or Smackdown exclusive.

[Gelgarin]

I'm gunna chop a concise response down into tiny pieces for the sake of nostalgia.
Anyway, having subjected your opinions to critical analysis, I'm happy to report that some of them are wrong.


Firstly, if it's a relaxed viewing schedule you desire, and a television show that's eminently watchable, dare I say there's a show other than SmackDown that I can think of. It can be yours for just £9.99 a month.

Sam. I hate to tell you this, but Lucha Underground is both unavailable on UK Netflix without the use of a VPN, and shite.


Secondly, please don't ask me to do anything after ten o'clock, because I will do it and sacrifice my beauty sleep in the process.

Sleep is for the weak. I have it on reliable authority that James Ellsworth does it almost every night.


Thirdly, my problems with the brand split include but are not limited to: ten million varieties of title belt; five million of those varieties being the same belt in a different colour;

The Universal Championship is both unique and grammatically logical. But anyway, given that in the pre-brand split world we used to have the European, Light Heavyweight and Hardcore belts floating around, I'd wager that we have fewer championship belts per hour of watchable TV now than we used to. They certainly look like shit, but that's been the case since John Cena decided that the title belt needed to look like it had a biscuit centre.


the spreading of the female roster thin when it had the historic opportunity to have an actual midcard;

Before the brand split there were 13 women on the roster, half of whom hadn't been featured on TV in months. In fact, between Wrestlemania and Summerslam that year, only about six women made it on to PPV at all. If there were the foundations for some impressive midcard then I definitely missed them.
The brand split has facilitated a roster of something like 23 women, the cross band PPVs have highlighted the women's rosters significantly more, and the inflated numbers have allowed us to have the first [probably only] female Royal Rumble, Money in the Bank and Elimination Chamber matches. Mostly I'm being flippant for the sake of Slyfox parody, but I don't see how it can be argued that the brand split hasn't been of a huge benefit to the advancement of women's wrestling.


WWE's failing to maintain the illusion of separation; there therefore being no justification for separation (would one not prefer a collection of undisputed champions rather than double the amount of semi-champions?);

I'd honestly prefer more undisputed champions. I've never been able to really invest myself in Intercontinental or US programs, because they're so transparently runner-up championships. This is what the brand split gives us. AJ Styles can be world champion, having legitimate world championship matches, precisely because he is insulated from the Brock Lasnar experiment by dint of being on a separate brand.
I hate John Cena deciding that he's a free agent as much as the next man who really fucking hates it, but that's a problem with the WWE's booking; not with the brand split itself. If we're going to throw things away every time the booking committee undermines them then there's not going to be much left.


failure to capitalise on opportunities afforded by two rosters, e.g. building of new stars (with one notable exception);

Irish and I went round and round on this years ago in reference to the original brand split. The upshot was that, after the discontinuation of brand exclusive PPVs the first time, the WWE managed to put a non-pre-established star in a PPV main event on exactly two occasions over two-and-a-half years. Had we not been having the debate two-and-a-half years after the end of exclusive PPVs, I suspect the numbers would be even more skewed in my favour. I'm not going to go back and check.

During the second run of exclusive PPVs, which I remind you has been happening for a little over a year, we've seen the elevation of Kevin Owens, Braun Strowman, Jinder Mahal, Samoa Joe and Shinuke Nakamura into the main event scene, and that's with my willful ignoring of multi-man bullshit main events and the fact that AJ Styles and Dean Ambrose were elevated to prominence entirely for the purpose of facilitating the brand split in the first place. Also; Sami Zayn is going to be a profoundly mediocre world champion before the end of the year - that doesn't happen without the brand split.

The WWE is not making stars as quickly as some people would like, but that's been the case for literally the entire history of the company. There's a finite number of guys you can have at the top of the card, and the brand split makes that number bigger.



focus on the insufferable McMahon children

Didn't Stephanie McMahon and HHH open, like, 200 consecutive episodes of RAW prior to the brand split? Saying the programming has become more focused on McMahon escapades since the brand split seems spurious to me. Admittedly, we've acquired an additional McMahon, but Shane occasionally jumps off something and is marginally lass annoying than his sister, so it's still a net benefit.



- and that's just what I can think of in bed.

In short, separate brands are stupid. Long live NXT.

This was fun. We should do it again some time.

[Uncle Sam]

Keeping in the spirit of nostalgia, I'm going to cherry pick a single sentence out of your lengthy post to respond to:


AJ Styles can be world champion, having legitimate world championship matches, precisely because he is insulated from the Brock Lasnar experiment by dint of being on a separate brand.

You saw Survivor Series, right? You really should because the match to which I'm referring was a cracker.

And if you thought you could make me openly admit that Sami Zayn's world title run will be mediocre but that I'm not disheartened because I subscribe to the frankly Marxist belief that any indie darling must first have a mediocre run as a secondary world champion before they achieve full communism (I mean, uh... true success) then you are sadly mistaken.

P. S. You should really just watch NXT.

[Storm Trooper]

I understand the idea of wanting to do dual brand PPVs. They want the stars on the shows to get more buys and more views on the Network. People want to see Rollins, Reigns, Balor, Styles, etc. every month. Not every other month. The problem with this scenario is that people DON'T want to see the mid-card guys every month. So with that being said there's an easy solution.

Keep 3 hour, single brand PPVs and give the off brand one match on the show. That would take up 20-25 minutes of the show with more stars, and it would keep the midcard feuds on the PPV. Hell give the off brand 1 PPV match and 1 kickoff match if you want. You then get rid of the filler content, keep the show a manageable 3 hours (1 hour kickoff), and you don't sacrifice the mid-card.

[Undying]

I'm fine with the 4 hours thing. If anything the pay per views I have found to be an absolute chore to get through are the single branded ones, because let's be honest if i'm sitting through a dull match and the main event is Randy Orton vs Jinder Mahal, I really don't have a lot to look forward to. Now if that match was on a duel branded pay per view and the Raw main event is like John Cena vs Samoa Joe or something I don't mind.

[FalKon]

I am all for removing the massive amount of PPV's and limiting them down to a much more digestible number. Hopefully, with these dual-branded PPV's, we will get to see the likes of Hell in a Cell and TLC removed from the line-up down the road to bring back their uniqueness for matches that truly call for one of those matches. Hosting a Hell in the Cell match because the PPV is a Hell in a Cell feels forced and takes away what made that match special. When someone challenges another person to a Hell in a Cell match, it should be done by the wrestler, not the PPV or GM, because they utterly hate the other wrestler and would risk anything to hurt them. Make those hatred-filled feuds mean something again!

I am concerned for time, though. Whilst the PPV's will be four hours long, they will need to make some cuts. With the amount of talent, divisions and titles on the roster, some of those will need to be cut, too. Do they make room for TWO World titles, TWO midcard belts, TWO women's titles, TWO tag team titles and a Cruiserweight championship every PPV? If so, that's NINE matches already and that doesn't include the regular feuds.

Bright side is that those featured on the PPV will feel like they deserve the time because they've earned the spot, rather than just finding people to fill time. I'd rather watch RAW to see up-and-coming guys make a name for themselves and watch the PPV to see major matches resolve. Similar to what NXT is doing... or, y'know, how wrestling should be booked.

[Dave]

I don't have a problem with this really. I've often thought that both brand PPV's have lacked star power to a certain degree. It doesn't matter how good the story between Zack Ryder and Mojo Rawley was, for example, I'd much rather see Seth Rollins take on someone like Finn Balor for those 15-20 minutes.

There are obvious upsides and downsides to the move but I'm willing to let the cards fall where they may before I make a decision. What I'm not really keen on, however, is every PPV being of the same ilk. There's what, 9 Championships in the WWE now and they'll likely want most of them defended at the PPV. They run the risk of it being a copy and paste job every month.

[Undying]

They run the risk of it being a copy and paste job every month.

To be fair thatâ??s how itâ??s been with the single branded pay per views. How many times did Charlotte and Sasha Banks wrestle between Raws and pay per views? How many times did Ambrose and Styles go at it? Iâ??m also pretty sure there was some combination of Reigns/Rollins vs Jericho/Owens every single week throughout the fall up until the Rumble.

[Theo]

I have zero issue with this. There were way too many PPV to begin with. I swear it seemed like every other week there was a PPV coming. Going to one a month is perfect. I'd rather see them alternate months and do 5 dual PPV bit that requires long term booking and we know that likely wouldn't turn out so hot.

[Slyfox696]

So is this supposed to start tonight?

[Awesome_Miz]

So is this supposed to start tonight?

No this PPV still a Raw exclusive show while Fast lane will be a Smackdown exclusive. This two PPVs will be the last of the separate brand exclusives.