Both TV shows need 3 singles titles, a tag title and a woman's title.

[lostsoulforever]

So, for example, Raw should have the WWE title, United States title, and the European title*, as well as a tag team title and woman's belt.

Smackdown should have the World Heavyweight title, Intercontinental title and Television title*, as well as tag team and woman's titles.

The reason I think this is that there are too many superstars not doing anything, not getting pushes or having meaningless matches every other week. Look at the rosters, and there are plenty of guys who just don't get to do very much.

The two new belts should only be defended on television, that way every few weeks, there would be a title match on Raw or Smackdown, with a real chance of a new champion being crowned. Both belts for the woman's division should only be defended on TV too.

And the IC and US titles should be defended at every PPV, as well as the tag and world titles. That would give each PPV 6 matches, leaving room for two or three non-title matches.

Having more titles would allow more superstars to be on TV more often, and give them the chance to have gold around their waist and carry a division, forcing them to improve in-ring and on the microphone.

There's no point in having unified tag titles either. What's the point of being a tag team on Smackdown right now, if you're not going to get the chance to win the titles?

There are about 50 men on both rosters, so there's more than enough talent to make competition for four titles realistic. It's about a 50-50 split, so that's enough for four tag teams and each title having 5 or 6 guys competing for it.

So that's my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to agree, disagree or call me names.

*not necessarily those titles, but another belt none-the-less.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Nope. And there are plenty of reasons why.

First of all, having that many belts in the company, not to mention one show, would lower the prestige of winning a belt. The entire point of only having two singles titles on each show makes it that much more special when someone wins a title. The number of titles they have now is perfect.

Next, they don't have time for all of those belts. Look at TNA. They have 6 belts on their show (World, X, Global, Tag, Knockout, Knockout Tag) and 2 hours per week to showcase them, and you know what, they never can. Plus, WWE generally puts much more time into developing all of their storylines than TNA does making it that much more difficult to fit everything into a two hour show every week.

Finally, you don't need to feud over a belt to be "doing something." JBL-HBK, Punk-Mysterio, HBK-Undertaker, etc. are all very good feuds in the last couple years that were not over a belt. Look at Orton-Edge right now. It is one of the best things going right now, but the title is nowhere in picture.

There's no point in having unified tag titles either. What's the point of being a tag team on Smackdown right now, if you're not going to get the chance to win the titles?

The Unified Tag Team titles can be defended on either show, against teams from either show. That's how Jeri-Show worked, because Show was on Raw but Jericho was on Smackdown.

There are about 50 men on both rosters, so there's more than enough talent to make competition for four titles realistic. It's about a 50-50 split, so that's enough for four tag teams and each title having 5 or 6 guys competing for it.

Raw has 33 active wrestlers, while Smackdown has 31.

Sorry, but this is just not a good idea. A wrestler should try to improve their game in order to earn an opportunity to hold a belt, not try to improve after winning it. Having that many belts takes away from the belts being seen as something held by the most elite members of the roster.

 

[ABMorales787]

You have 2 singles belt and a womens belt on both shows yet you still can't find the prestige for something that doesn't carry "World" in its name. Having 3 singles belts would be a total waste of time. They stand a better chance unifying the two Diva belts. No way in hell should any WWE show have 3 singles belts. Didn't work too well back with the European and Intercontinental days and it sure as hell won't work now when its one belt per show.

 

[Loveless]

The WWE don't have a clue on how to use the midcard, tag and women's title's that they already have. Adding another belt to each show would add nothing, infact it'd make things worse by cluttering the shows up even more and unofficially creating a lower card.

 

[JackGallow]

The issue with having that many belts in the company is it devalues the prestige and honor of winning a championship. The tag titles have just become relevant again and hell even the I.C. is starting to get that feel of importance back. However i do agree with you 100% there are too many guys that have matches to have matches. I believe the WWE should start having more lower card fueds again with guys who want to work with each other. To me that is a great way to keep entertaining television throughout the night and it gives the wrestlers a reason no to be chasing a championship.

 

[Gerald Brisco]

They need to use the IC/US titles better before they want to throw in More Titles

They just throw titles on guys they want to push of Late, Kofi/Miz/Mcintyre/Morrison are prime examples of 3 guys who probably didnt deserve the titles but the WWE wanted to push so they gave them title runs

 

[LegendKiller716]

I think that they should keep the raw titles the way they are, since the draft i have found RAW very enjoyable and i don't think another title would help, I think it would just be another segment forced into the show.

however, i do think smackdown should bring back the light heavyweight belt for the high flyers.

and I would also like to see a TV title introduced on Superstars, so lower tier guys can get a championship and if its on superstars it could transfer from raw guys to sd! guys

 

[lostsoulforever]

The Unified Tag Team titles can be defended on either show, against teams from either show. That's how Jeri-Show worked, because Show was on Raw but Jericho was on Smackdown.

I know the tag titles can be defended on either show, but what's the point of having them unified?

Are the Hart Dynasty showing up on both shows?

Each show should have it's own tag titles, with their own teams competing for it. There's no point in having drafts and seperate rosters if titles can be fought for anytime between both shows.

 

[CuddleBuns84]

It would be nice to see a bunch of titles, but it would also take away from the product. If NXT becomes something else, like a new promotion or something, Then I could see a second belt, but till then. No I don't want to see that many titles.

I know a lot of people are thinking, "Well the tag team division isn't that good right now." Well, I hate to say but legendary tag teams are a thing of the past. Yes Hart Dynasty got a run finally as the champs, but it's always a matter of time before a team splits up. Thats why the WWE doesn't put that much time into the tag division. I know it sucks for guys who enjoy the old school tag mathces, but the crowd prefers the one-on-one matches. I don't like it either, but that's how it goes.

Now, when the WWE starts a new promotion I hope they get a crusierweight and television title. But only if it's a third show. Let's hope something fun happens after NXT is done with.

 

[GeneralKarim]

Well i think this has been discussed and the answers are always the same.
Creative cant make up good feuds for every belt so having more titles would be a waste.
Plus as many said it loses its prestige.The best bet would be to have the cruiserweight title again so talented peeps like Even bourne and such can have sth to do besides sell good.But i m sure if they reinstated it, it would be poorly handled.

By all means if they make another 2 Hours show Raw smackdown and "WWE Warriors=)" or sth ( which isnt unlikely in a few years or even more ) I m sure they will debut new titles for that.
But right know having 1 World title for each brand for the big names and upper-midcarders to fight for, 1 Mid card for everyone else and 1 women is the perfect combination.

 

[hewittor]

That diminish if it's too many titles crap is old and lame now. Who's to say it would'nt work. A match without a title on the line on Raw is almost as boring as watching the NWA. The holder gives the title prestige, not the other way around. I think it would work. Anything to make you watch, that's what I say.

 

[Thriller Ant]

I know the tag titles can be defended on either show, but what's the point of having them unified?

Are the Hart Dynasty showing up on both shows?

Each show should have it's own tag titles, with their own teams competing for it. There's no point in having drafts and seperate rosters if titles can be fought for anytime between both shows.

Both shows had their own tag team titles, and they went to shit because there aren't enough tag teams, thrown together or otherwise, for each show to have two sets of belts. Look at it this way, Raw has the Hart Dynasty and JeriMiz right now. Smackdown has the Dudebusters, Hawkins and Archer, and the SES. Neither show has a real tag team division, but combined, there is a decent one. By having on one set of tag team belts, WWE is hiding a major weakness in their roster.

 

[Savage1]

I think that they should keep the raw titles the way they are, since the draft i have found RAW very enjoyable and i don't think another title would help, I think it would just be another segment forced into the show.

however, i do think smackdown should bring back the light heavyweight belt for the high flyers.

and I would also like to see a TV title introduced on Superstars, so lower tier guys can get a championship and if its on superstars it could transfer from raw guys to sd! guys

I agree with these ideas somewhat. I have always hoped the WWE would try to build a better cruiserweight/ light heavyweight division and adding a title for those guys might do some good as far as making it a more legitimate division. And I have always been a fan of the T.V. Title but it is a very thin line bringing in anymore titles to WWE without making them seem meaningless or taking away from the existing titles...BUT...I think that having a title like the T.V. title on Superstars might be a good idea for mid to lower card talent. It would be a great idea if the NXT rookies and most of the young guys were the main guys to fued over the T.V. Title. It would give the fueds more meaning and help make the young guys seem more legitimate...at least in my opinion. But it would have to be a title that is strictly for Superstars and not to be used on Smackdown or Raw. You could defend it on PPV's on the undercard matches but thats it. Anyway thats how I feel but it's a very fine line to walk.

 

[DL23]

No, WWE is a company, with two brands, join up the belts so you have ONE world champion, one IC Champion, one tag and one womens.

then add a Light Heavyweight title to the mix, for the Primo's, Bournes, Rey's, Punk's (give it some cred)

WWE needs to mix up the belts for a change, they've done the PPV's, the Rosters, now the titles, even bring in new title belts would be a start, malgimate the belts up and bring in one or two new titles that fresh and interging like the old Hardcore title, and Lightweight titles they really pushed them for a while then lost interest after a while.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

This discussion has been mentioned in many threads...to be honest, it would b too much of a mess, if wwe didn't have smackdown and raw as separate brands then it could work...too many belts and you don't know what to concentrate on..it would be like TNA trying to get 50 superstars on tv in 2 hours...the belts they have now are the important ones..any more and it would be a mess..

 

[Greenlight13]

1. Title Importance: The more belts you have, the less each one means.

2. Roster Size: By my count there are 24 male wrestlers on Raw. About 7 or 8 of them are in the main event consistently. To have decent tag division you need 4 regular teams, which takes away a further 8 wrestlers. There are not many left to compete for the US Title and your proposed additional title. Sure, those who aren't doing much can pull double duty in other divisions, but generally speaking... just not enough.

3. Time in each episode: Look at how much time is devoted to each division on every episode of Raw;

- Those 7-8 main event guys tend to eat up an hour of the show when you take into account their matches, promos, backstage interviews etc.

- Ted DiBiase/The US title take up a further 10 minutes.

- The tag division usually takes 10-15.

- The divas take another 10. That's about 90 out 120 minutes used.

- Oh. Don't forget commercials, that's got to be at least 20 minutes.

- That leaves around 10 minutes, plus the 10 minute overrun for the guest hosts and Santino & his comedy players.

I know the immediate solution would be dump the guests and kill the comedy to get the 20 minutes back and devote that to the new title that you're proposing, but those hosts and comedy get the WWE media attention and the comedy is good as often as it's bad, so... I wouldn't be so hasty in cutting it. Plus, the above issue of spreading the roster thin.

People complain that the tag and mid-card divisions aren't given enough attention as it is, by adding another title you're taking even more development away from those two divisions.

Smackdown doesn't have the guests or the comedy, but it also doesn't over-run to my knowledge, and they give that addition 10 minutes to the matches from top to bottom, which is why it's praised for having better wrestling. It devotes more time to telling stories in matches.

I just think that combination of factors makes it impossible to have main event, mid-card, under-card, tag team and women's titles. There aren't enough wrestlers to allow for every belt to have multiple contenders, there isn't enough time in the show to accommodate another belt, and the mid-card title barely means anything as it is, imagine how little a third belt will mean. This is why they merged the European, IC and later Hardcore titles. There just wasn't enough room.

 

[SFC]

Couldn't disagree any more. Mid-card titles have already lost their prestige, and adding more would only further make this the case.

Remember the days when Angle took pleasure in being the Euro-Continental Champion? That's when they meant something. Adding more would only lessen the credibility of the belts, so trying to push guys with belts that have no meaning is worse IMO than not pushing them at all.

 

[fenfool]

I think the 'unified' tag title idea has been working well, the titles seem to mean a bit more now. The women's titles need to be similarly unified...it's just a bunch of random, generic divas at this point, the titles means nothing. Collapse them into one, have the champ annoy people on both shows, maybe some of the divas will single themselves out in the hunt for that title. As far as the IC & U.S. titles go...what exactly is the criteria? We know they are lesser titles, but there is really no rhyme or reason as to who can and can't fight for them. Bring back the cruiserweight or light heavyweight titles, where you can at least distinguish that only those below 210 lbs or whatever can go for them. Even a TV title that can only be defended on television would be a step up...at least there is some semblance of distinction there.

Adding more meaningless titles isn't really going to help anyone...giving meaning to the ones they have should be a higher priority.

 

[Coco]

The thread starter was so close.

Yes, more belts makes sure everyone has something to do that people will care about. His premiss is correct. However, the way he's gon about solving the problem doesn't do enough. IMHO, half of the roster should have titles. That way, every match is a title match and everybody is always doing something important. Edge vs. Orton tonight is kinda pointless, but if it were for the WWE Big Ben Championship, that feud would be on fire right now. It would be high stakes.

You're onto something, but you need to make it broader.

 

[LegendKiller716]

i know this is a little off topic, but with all the talk of unified tag titles i thought it would be appropriate to ask...

would it be good to add 1 or 2 more titles if all the titles were unified?

i like the idea of the tag champs on both shows, but i never understood why the tag champs have more meaning than the world champs, why can the harts go show to show, but cena and swagger are stuck on their respective shows....just something to think about

 

[Ducey13]

Gotta say I really really disagree with you, sorry. Here's why:

#1 Adding another title to each show to get more superstars on TV doesn't mean that the show will be any longer. Its still going to be just two hours. So you can't squeeze any more wrestlers on tv then what they have now

#2 You said that with more wrestlers having Gold around their waist that it would force them to get better in the ring and on the microphone. Thats the complete opposite of how this should be done. You shouldn't be a champion of anything until you've proven that you are a good worker and talker. They don't promote you at work and then expect you to suddenly start trying to improve. You work at getting the promotion/Belt first and then after you've proven yourself you might be rewarded with it. Look at Drew McIntyre right now. He was pretty much given the IC title without really working for it or proving anything. WWE actually took your advice, gave him the belt to help get him over, and it hasn't worked.

#3 You the unified tag titles are pointless then said whats the point in being a tag team on Smackdown if you aren't going to even get a shot at the belts. THATS NOT TRUE. The Unified Tag Team Champions are allowed to be on both shows. So the Hart Dynasty can show up on Raw or Smackdown and defend against any Team. Duh! Don't you even remember Jericho & Show being on both shows every week?! And as far as having two sets of Tag Teams Belts again...There is just not enough teams to support ONE Division let alone two. Besides the Hart Dynasty and the Dudebusters how many legit teams can you name? Jericho & Miz are a team for now, and MVP seems to have a different partner every week, and now there is Archer and Hawkins trying to make an impact. So if you put The Hart Dynasty and Dudebusters on Smackdown, and MVP & ? and Archer and Hawkins on Raw, then you now have two teams per show. WOW, so i guess they just feud against each other every month.

#4 Having One Heavyweight Title and one Mid-Card Title per show makes winning a championship on any kind that much more special. When there are too many titles they become less meaningful.

Lastly I would point out that you don't need to have a title to be involved in a feud or Program. Look at this months PPV Over the Limit. Edge Vs Randy Orton, Ted Dibiase Vs R-Truth, and espcially CM Punk Vs Mysterio are all non-title programs.

Maybe in a perfect world you could do things your way, but the reasoning for alot of these changes aren't logical.

 

[Travaje]

OP would have had a real problem with WWE in the 1980's. They had at least 50 wrestlers on the roster, and just 2 singles titles and the tag titles. Guys like Ted DiBiase, Jake Roberts, Brutus Beefcake, Big Boss Man, guys on the Legends of Wrestlemania video game never had any of those titles in the 1980's. There were lots of guys who were over that never even got a title SHOT, much less a title.

But back then, they really didn't need titles to get over, just a good gimmick. And drawing money is, has, and always will be more important than winning titles. Belts don't draw money. Wrestlers do. And titles don't really mean much in today's market when it's more about entertainment than sport.

The rosters being divided, there aren't enough wrestlers for the champions to defend all the titles they already have, especially the women's titles. If there were a way to do it, I would have only the WWE title, a mid-card title, the Diva's title, and one tag-team title, and have the title-holders wrestle on both shows. I would create a new belt for the tag titles and they'd just be known as the WWE tag team champs. As for the mid-card belt, not too sure. They wrestle all over the world, but the TV shows are mainly in the U.S., and more in Europe than in South America. I know the IC and US belts have prestige, but maybe it's time for a new belt that makes more sense.

 

[lostsoulforever]

1. Title Importance: The more belts you have, the less each one means.

2. Roster Size: By my count there are 24 male wrestlers on Raw. About 7 or 8 of them are in the main event consistently. To have decent tag division you need 4 regular teams, which takes away a further 8 wrestlers. There are not many left to compete for the US Title and your proposed additional title. Sure, those who aren't doing much can pull double duty in other divisions, but generally speaking... just not enough.

I made it 24 guys on the Raw roster, and 25 on Smackdown.

If you have four tag teams (8 stars) on each roster, that leaves 16 guys on the Raw roster, and 17 on Smackdown. That's enough for 5 or 6 guys in each title division (if there are three titles of course).

It's rare for there to be more than three stars involved in a title feud (at any level) at any one time (For example, there's Sheamus, Cena and Batista on Raw involved in the WWE title battle right now).

So with three titles and a maximum of three guys feuding for them, that would leave at least 7 guys on the Raw roster, and 8 on Smackdown's roster, not feuding for titles, but with each other.

As it stands, it's very difficult for some guys to not only get TV time, but to build any kind of momentum towards the two singles titles. How often have the IC or US titles been defended in recent months? Having more clearly defined divisions (established guys feuding for the World title, up and comers for the IC and US, and new/under-used guys for the TV/European titles) leads to more meaningful action across the rosters.

 

[lostsoulforever]

Perhaps I used the wrong word when I said holding a title would 'force' guys to improve on the mic and in the ring.

But look at it this way, when a title is on the line, the way to crank it up is to have superstars talking trash at each other, and staking their claim for the title through interviews and promos. More titles would allow more guys to get the chance to get their point across and highlight why they deserve to be there etc.

When it's just A.N. Other match for guys that aren't in the picture for any of the current titles, no-one really cares what they have to say, because it's a one-off match, not part of a feud. It's easy enough to show you have in-ring ability in any given match, it's much harder to get the chance to show you've got a personality outside it in WWE.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

After combining the two tag titles to create one single title, though represented by having two different belts, that leaves the WWE with a total of seven and there's really no need for anymore. Having 9 or 10 titles on the WWE roster would be a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Even though the WWE has 6 hours of weekly television, that's still not enough time to give all the titles enough time that they need in order to help get them over, build up matches for ppvs, etc. There'd be weeks upon weeks at a time in which some titles probably wouldn't even be seen on WWE television, maybe even longer. TNA has been a good example of having too many championships and not nearly enough tv time to promote them.

There have been times in TNA in which the X Division, Global and Knockout Tag Team Championships haven't been seen in the longest time. TNA tries to pack so much content into iMPACT! in the first place that it's not surprising that such a thing happens. The Knockout Tag Team Championship is pretty much useless at this point, it's little more than a prop used just to give someone the appearance of being successful. Such a jumble of titles would be no different in the WWE.

Also, as has been said a huge number of titles can bring down the number of titles already active.