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

[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.