Experiment: Take the big belts off of TV

[HeenanGorilla]

I have been reading several posts, most recently one about putting the Universal Title on Jericho, where people are arguing who needs/doesn't need the title and who should have the title and who shouldn't.

As I have said before, I am not a full-time fan anymore. I haven't been a diehard fan since 1986-1992. I was very interested and very entertained on Mondays during the Wars, but only watched SmackDown/Thunder if I had nothing else to do. I also never bought into the monthly PPVs--I was a Rumble/Mania/sometimes SummerSlam fan, which I continue to be to this day for the most part. I also usually check out Raw for a segment or two, and was VERY LUCKY to stumble upon the Festival of Friendship this past Monday--which was extremely entertaining and seemed like an exceptionally done turn for Owens. I only mention what kind of fan I am because my idea below is admittedly unorthodox for today's product, as it stems from the Hulkamania Era. But, I am wondering if you guys see any value to it.

When Hulkamania was red hot in the mid 80's, Hogan hardly ever defended his title. These were the days of between 1 and 4 PPVs a year and Saturday morning shows like Superstars of Wrestling and Wrestling Challenge. On these shows, almost all of the matches were superstars squashing jobbers, while the commentators and taped/live interviews furthered feuds and storylines. Occasionally, you would get superstar vs. superstar, but almost never was Hogan one of those superstars competing. The IC title and Tag Team titles would sometimes be defended and even change hands on Saturday mornings, but not the big belt. Hogan's title matches were, for the most part, saved for the big shows--either Saturday Night's Main Event or a PPV. (The only example I remember right now was a title defense against Cowboy Bob Orton that had instilled NO fear into a kid who wanted Hulk to retain)

Afterwards, with the addition of monthly PPVs and Raw/SmackDown, the champion(s) would defend the title more often. I understand the business end and realize monthly PPVs, though watering down and rushing storylines, mean more revenue. I also see how a 2- or 3-hour Raw requires more than just jobber squashes. I get all of that. And I am not speaking to the IC, US or Tag belts, or whatever else they have now.. Cruiserweight, Women's, etc.

I am only talking about the WWE Championship and the WWE Universal Championship.

Why don't they leave these titles, for the most part, off of Raw and SmackDown? I am not saying leave the champions off of the shows, but leave the title defenses off of TV. Hulk Hogan (and, again, I am in no way comparing today's product to that of the Golden Era, logistically) would be on TV either on the interview podium with Mean Gene, or on a show like The Snake Pit, Brother Love Show or Funeral Parlor. That was enough to fuel his storylines and programs. Meanwhile, other storylines (Martel blinding Jake, Boss Man/Mountie, Rhodes/Savage, etc.) were able to grow and gain heat without having titles on the line. Yes, there were also IC and Tag Title vendettas, which is why I say to leave the lower belts on TV. But many programs were successful, entertaining and had nice payoffs without a title match. It was easier to focus on these non-title angles because Hogan was not defending his belt every week.

I seem to be in the minority, but I do not think most angles/wrestlers need a belt to make their storyline interesting. Granted, I dismissed the value of belts during the hot potato portion of the Attitude Era. But, even today, I think the major belts should not be defended each week.

I am proposing the idea of keeping the two main championship titles off of TV and saving them for PPVs. Ideally, it would be major PPVs only, but I am willing to settle for all PPVs. The feeling of an underdog chasing a belt that he won't have a chance to win week after week would add to the championship matches, in my opinion. The feeling of "He can try again tomorrow on Raw" or "He'll have a shot to regain it in 3 weeks at whatever lower-level PPV is due next." takes away from the immediacy of winning the belt in the match you are watching right then. A championship match loss should feel like a lost opportunity. A championship win should come with a big exhale, knowing that person will have the belt for a few weeks. Any title win, while some are big moments on their own (like Bryan at Mania XXX), needs a bit of finality to it--not ultimately, but at least for a while. Having the chance to lose it right back the next night and the week after that and the week after that...it stops people from investing their fandom and passion into a champion. Kind of like "If this guy might only be champ for a night or a week, why should I care if he wins or loses this main event I am watching right now?"

Bring back the days of the champ being unreachable, especially in the case of a heel champ. Build the heat! This nonsense of the main event wrestlers of Mania facing each other as part of a tag team match on Raw 6 days earlier is NOT the way to go. Keep the title and the champ out of matches and make fans crave that the face finally gets their hands on the heel or use the time to build doubt that a face champ can retain. The face/heel part isn't as vital as the championship. Keep it special.

 

[Hello... I'm Awesome]

I agree... It used to be special back when Hogan and the likes were champions and it were only defended at PPV's. Heck, I would be ok with even the big PPV's Only. But with one PPV a month for each brand now, it is all about the money with them and I guess they don't think people want to watch a PPV without THE championship defended. The caveat to that is the major selling point of a lot of faces now days is that they want to be "fighting champions" defend the title every week, compete against all comers, etc. But there has to be a medium to it because especially now with 2 different brands and each having their own title then the championships seem to lose legitimacy

 

[Psykohurricane55]

i completely agree with you on this. But i would also do that for the women's division especially on raw which have seem to be completely lost as far as creative is concern. How much greater would the feud between Charlotte and sasha banks would have been if they did trade the championship back and forth like they did. If Charlotte would have been the chicken shit heel that don'T want to defend the title and decide when she going to defend it like it was back in the hogan era, everytime a heel had a title.

I get that in this current era of wrestling you have to have the wrestlers wrestle each other multiple times before the big PPV or now network special match, but their other way to advance storyline that seem to be lost with the current guys working in creative.

Also let's look at another current example, kevin owens universal title run. Personally, i really like kevin owens as far as a performer especially what he did as a heel, but the way he got booked felt like he was just another mid card guy holding a title. His title run wasn't that great and it did hurt the credibility of the universal title because the title felt like just another title and not a big world championship. That's we're the old school booking comes in. Make Owens fell like a big star, i know he was part of a team with jericho before they we're forced to change plan after balor's injury but plans can be drop in my opinion. To make him fell like a big Heel, have him barely wrestles on TV. Make him feel like the biggest dick in the world by refusing to wrestle on Raw. you can have him cut promo's or have backstage attack on his opponent and maybe sometimes have him wrestle a squash match here and there but never put him in a big match on tv. So that when he defends the title on PPV, it feel like something special and you're hoping that the babyface will beat him. That way the title fell like a big deal and not just like another title which it is right now.

That's why, i really hope that goldberg wins the belt at fastlane and then lesnar get it a mania, because it will make the belt feel special and feel like a world title mostly because the belt will be on a part timer which is a good thing for everybody.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

They took the WWE Championship off the air for a good period of time when Brock Lesnar won it a few years back and if things ultimately go down like many are thinking they will, it'll happen with the Universal Championship as well.

There were weeks and even months at a time in which the WWE Championship wasn't on TV, nor was it defended at house shows. Lesnar's last run as WWE Champion lasted 224 days and he appeared on WWE television a total of maybe 6 times or so during his run and a LOT of fans didn't like it. I was against Lesnar winning the title because I knew, based on how his deal was structured, that he wouldn't be around very much. For a lot of people, it was during Lesnar's title run that their enjoyment of the novelty and formula for booking Lesnar went away.

I remember reading some posts from posters who said that they wanted Lesnar to win the title because of how dominant he was but turned around and bashed WWE for putting the title on a guy who showed up once every 8 to 12 weeks. If that happens with Lesnar winning the Universal Championship, expect more of the same because I think most fans want to and expect to see the main event champions on TV often. Keeping the title off TV for months at a time won't jack up the ratings, it might pop a rating the first time when the champ comes back to make an appearance a few months after winning it, but that's as far as it'll go.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

They took the WWE Championship off the air for a good period of time when Brock Lesnar won it a few years back and if things ultimately go down like many are thinking they will, it'll happen with the Universal Championship as well.

There were weeks and even months at a time in which the WWE Championship wasn't on TV, nor was it defended at house shows. Lesnar's last run as WWE Champion lasted 224 days and he appeared on WWE television a total of maybe 6 times or so during his run and a LOT of fans didn't like it. I was against Lesnar winning the title because I knew, based on how his deal was structured, that he wouldn't be around very much. For a lot of people, it was during Lesnar's title run that their enjoyment of the novelty and formula for booking Lesnar went away.

I remember reading some posts from posters who said that they wanted Lesnar to win the title because of how dominant he was but turned around and bashed WWE for putting the title on a guy who showed up once every 8 to 12 weeks. If that happens with Lesnar winning the Universal Championship, expect more of the same because I think most fans want to and expect to see the main event champions on TV often. Keeping the title off TV for months at a time won't jack up the ratings, it might pop a rating the first time when the champ comes back to make an appearance a few months after winning it, but that's as far as it'll go.

That's fair, but a major difference would be the champ would be on TV. He just wouldn't be defending the belt. He wouldn't disappear, he just wouldn't defend. Those same people may still dislike the new approach. But, it would be much different than the champ AND the belt being gone for an extended period.

 

[Bernkastel]

I'd be fine with it as long as the champion appeared on TV and maintained a consistent presence. That was my biggest complaint during Lesnar's run. He never maintained a consistent presence. And because of that I found myself caring less and less about his title defenses. WWE is entertainment; not a real sport. The champion has to maintain a presence with the audience. Otherwise what's the point in investing in story lines and being emotionally connected to someone who will disappear the next week?

The difference between then and now is that there are two world titles. The RAW champion could effectively disappear like Brock did and we'd still have the SD world champion to watch every week.

 

[Aeon Mathix]

Unlike many I was completely fine with Lesnar not being around very often with the title. The stupid rematch clause is one of the most annoying things in WWE (wrestling? not sure if it's used anywhere else) for me because like we saw just recently with Sasha Banks and Charlotte, it's a cop out for creative to take a break and just let one feud continue forever. Usually that's what we get in WWE 90 percent of the time is rematches for months on end because of the title in that someone loses it, or is screwed so we sit through the same match again.

I was fed up with Kevin Owens vs Seth Rollins/Roman Reigns around September and that stuff carried on for another 5 months or so. Having the champion defend at every single pay per view gets annoying for me because it's usually the same guy he/she is defending against. At least with taking the world championship off TV for a while it creates some fresh match ups and actually makes creative get off their ass and come up with something. Hell even if the World champion is feuding with someone and then leaves for months on end it's still better than watching the two of them fight time after time.

 

[Navi]

I'd be fine with it as long as the champion appeared on TV and maintained a consistent presence. That was my biggest complaint during Lesnar's run. He never maintained a consistent presence. And because of that I found myself caring less and less about his title defenses. WWE is entertainment; not a real sport. The champion has to maintain a presence with the audience. Otherwise what's the point in investing in story lines and being emotionally connected to someone who will disappear the next week?

The difference between then and now is that there are two world titles. The RAW champion could effectively disappear like Brock did and we'd still have the SD world champion to watch every week.

This and then some.

For the record I was one of the most vocal about Lesnar not being around and sitting at home with the belt. What is the point of having a title when it isn't being defended for months on end. Unfortunately the WWE is either, let it go missing or balls to the walls with a title defense every week.

I'm fine with the champ being around and having matches, every week DOES NOT have to be a title defense. That is lazy booking on the part of the creative team. What they should do more of is build other wrestlers up to actually have a good feud with the current champion. I get the feeling though their meetings are in reality naptime. Once a wrester has been in a feud with said champion that person should maybe just drop back down a step or two and give someone else a chance.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I'd be fine with the Universal Championship and World Heavyweight Championship not being defended on Raw and Smackdown, but only if they were still defended monthly on PPV. The whole point of being a wrestler within kayfabe is to become a World Champion so the belts need to 100% absolutely be up for grabs at PPV events. I detested it when Lesnar held the title hostage a couple of years ago rarely defending it. It was like.... What was the point of anyone being there when they couldn't win the title? Having the Universal Champion only defend his belt at Raw PPV's and the Big 4 events is fine. So is having the World Heavyweight Champion only defend his belt on Smackdown PPV's and the Big 4 events. Defending them less than that would NOT be sufficient. The WWE is in a different place than it was during the Hogan era. Today's fans are not as patient and want to see opportunities given to their favorite wrestlers. Doing it only about once a month on PPV provides the title shots but also makes it more special by not doing random world title matches on TV. My bigger pet peeve is when wrestlers who have an upcoming PPV match face each other in some capacity on a Raw or Smackdown beforehand. If they are PPV opponents they should NEVER wrestle each other during that PPV cycle until the PPV, and this goes across the board whether it is a World Championship feud or two guys lower on the card. It's hard to care about a World Championship match on the PPV if they already faced each other on the last two Raw's before the PPV, so I to an extent see where the threadstarter is coming from.

 

[OYDK]

I'd go a step further, don't even have the champions compete on Raw or Smackdown or only very rarely. As long as they show up in some capacity and make themselves known, that's all that's really needed. That'll never happen in this day and age but it would make their matches, and especially their title matches seem much bigger than they seem currently. Also, it would make the champion seem more important.

 

[Ex-Degenerate]

Back in the 80's and early 90's, they kept the big main-event style and title matches off free TV, because the feeling was no one would buy pay-per-views or go to the live shows if they could see it for free. It was a much different time for the business.

Once the weekly live shows of Raw and Nitro started, ratings were more important than pay-per-view buys,and they had to get the big stars on TV and the title matches to get ratings.

Now, its more about WWE Network subscriptions than anything else, with Pay-per-views now exclusively on the network.

 

[stingray11214]

You want to see the World/Universal strap defended? I have 4 words for you: PAY FOR IT, PERIOD! Straps like the US/InterContinental/Women's/Tag Team ones are built for TV. Nobody on Raw or SD will be confused with the Road Warriors, Hart Foundation, or the Four Horsemen. You do not pay to see The Miz defend the IC strap against X. You pay to see the World/Universal champ.

Andm you do not even have to defend on the PPVs. You can defend actively on House shows. By having the Champ face the #1 contender at a House show, you are also boosting numbers. You can have your Champ push the event on Raw/SD. For example, you can have Bray Wyatt cut a promo like this: "AJ Styles, you want a shot at immortality? Follow the buzzards to the Gaylord Arena in Nashville this Thursday night." With this you are doing two things: A) you are putting the belt on the line. B) You are alos pushing a House show that nobody may give two craps for. Now, they want to go knowing there will be a Title match. It can work.

 

[Spencesc11]

This makes a lot of sense. I have said for years there isn't enough squash matches on either brand on live shows. To many repeat and title matches every week. And clearly the big belts should be house show or PPV only. Great column!!!

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The way I've suggested in the past would help this along... Have the midcard belt/belts reset at Night of Champions, as their respective holders are guaranteed to face the brand champions there. Whoever wins, the lower belt for each brand is vacated as the IC champ becoming World or World becoming IC champ forces it.

Crown new mid card champs on Survivor Series and have the story be about those titles and NOC... If you have to hold it for 10/11 months to get your title shot.... that means holding it THROUGH Mania season etc... making the tradtional multi-man matches mean more... Meanwhile the Champs only defend on the PPV's - the majority of the action on RAW and SD would be centered on the US and IC and much more exciting. Also adds more intrigue to the year rather than "win the Rumble, go to Mania" or win MITB... What if MITB cashed in on the IC on RAW/SD right before the Night of Champions title match for example?

That way not only do RAW and SD have a better way of doing things, but more PPV matches mean more. Suddenly NOC becomes an A-List show, Survivor Series means something again and all those interim PPV's are important... they could lose the belt, get it back etc but it means more cos they want their title shot.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I have had a similar idea since the original WWE Brand Extension. I agree that by not having the Champions defend their Belts on the weekly shows can add more “prestigious” to the prizes of this industry. I also think every PPV should be a Night Of Champions, where every Championship Title is always defended exclusively on every WWE PPV / Special Event.

My idea would be for Raw and Smackdown to have monthly tournaments, starting the day after a pay per view, to determine the # 1 contenders for each Title. To determine which SuperStars are in which bracket could be settled by polls voted on by the WWE Universe. Here’s how it would be laid out.

1st Round

Universal Championship # 1 Contender Tournament (Raw)
# 1 seed (top vote getter from Raw) vs. # 8 seed (8th most votes from Raw)
# 2 seed (2nd most votes from Raw) vs. # 7 seed (7th most votes from Raw)
# 3 seed (3rd most votes from Raw) vs. # 6 seed (6th most votes from Raw)
# 4 seed (4th most votes from Raw) vs. # 5 seed (5th most votes from Raw)

United States Championship # 1 Contender Tournament (Main Event)
# 1 seed (9th most votes from Raw) vs. # 8 seed (16th most votes from Raw)
# 2 seed (10th most votes from Raw) vs. # 7 seed (15th most votes from Raw)
# 3 seed (11th most votes from Raw) vs. # 6 seed (14th most votes from Raw)
# 4 seed (12th most votes from Raw) vs. # 5 seed (13th most votes from Raw)

Raw Women’s Championship # 1 Contender Tournament (Raw)
# 1 seed (top vote getter from Raw) vs. # 8 seed (8th most votes from Raw)
# 2 seed (2nd most votes from Raw) vs. # 7 seed (7th most votes from Raw)
# 3 seed (3rd most votes from Raw) vs. # 6 seed (6th most votes from Raw)
# 4 seed (4th most votes from Raw) vs. # 5 seed (5th most votes from Raw)

Raw tag Team Championship # 1 Contender Tournament (Main Event)
# 1 seed (top vote getter from Raw) vs. # 8 seed (8th most votes from Raw)
# 2 seed (2nd most votes from Raw) vs. # 7 seed (7th most votes from Raw)
# 3 seed (3rd most votes from Raw) vs. # 6 seed (6th most votes from Raw)
# 4 seed (4th most votes from Raw) vs. # 5 seed (5th most votes from Raw)

World Championship # 1 Contender Tournament (Smackdown)
# 1 seed (top vote getter from Smackdown) vs. # 8 seed (8th most votes from Smackdown)
# 2 seed (2nd most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 7 seed (7th most votes from Smackdown)
# 3 seed (3rd most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 6 seed (6th most votes from Smackdown)
# 4 seed (4th most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 5 seed (5th most votes from Smackdown)

Intercontinental Championship # 1 Contender Tournament (SuperStars)
# 1 seed (9th most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 8 seed (16th most votes from Smackdown)
# 2 seed (10th most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 7 seed (15th most votes from Smackdown)
# 3 seed (11th most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 6 seed (14th most votes from Smackdown)
# 4 seed (12th most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 5 seed (13th most votes from Smackdown)

Smackdown Women’s Championship # 1 Contender Tournament (Smackdown)
# 1 seed (top vote getter from Smackdown) vs. # 8 seed (8th most votes from Smackdown)
# 2 seed (2nd most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 7 seed (7th most votes from Smackdown)
# 3 seed (3rd most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 6 seed (6th most votes from Smackdown)
# 4 seed (4th most votes from Smackdown)vs. # 5 seed (5th most votes from Smackdown)

Smackdown Tag Team Championship # 1 Contender Tournament (SuperStars)
# 1 seed (top vote getter from Smackdown) vs. # 8 seed (8th most votes from Smackdown)
# 2 seed (2nd most votes from Smackdown) vs. # 7 seed (7th most votes from Smackdown)
# 3 seed (3rd most votes from Smackdown)vs. # 6 seed (6th most votes from Smackdown)
# 4 seed (4th most votes from Smackdown)vs. # 5 seed (5th most votes from Smackdown)

2nd Round

# 1 or # 8 seeds vs. # 4 or # 5 seeds
# 2 or # 7 seeds vs. # 3 or # 6 seeds

...and so on...

This would give the fans a chance to voice their opinions on every SuperStar, but yet still gives WWE complete control over who advances and gets the push. This gives each match some meaning and something to fight for without having to overthink the whole thing. Storylines outside of the tournaments can still take place for those eliminated in early rounds.

The Champions should still make appearances on Mondays and Tuesdays, but only for interviews backstage, or in the ring, or at the announcers table doing commentary during their respective division’s tournament matches.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

So you just won the WWE Chamionship but don't even care enough about it to have take it to the shows? I just can't get over that. Things are just too different now, and there's no way to get around that. There doesn't have to be a title match every week, but the champion should definitely show up with the belt every week.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

So you just won the WWE Chamionship but don't even care enough about it to have take it to the shows? I just can't get over that. Things are just too different now, and there's no way to get around that. There doesn't have to be a title match every week, but the champion should definitely show up with the belt every week.

This is an interesting response. You first disagreed with a point I didn't make and then ended it by stating the precise point that I did make.

The only thing I can come up with is that you read the title of "take the big belts off of TV", took it way too literally and didn't read my post. I in no way asked that the champ be on TV but leave the belt itself home. Haha! My God...why would anyone suggest that? I meant taking the big championship title matches off of TV.

I suppose you could have taken the literal interpretation a step farther and wondered why I had belts on my TV set in the first place and then was asking that someone remove them. So, kudos there.

But, the idea was to keep the WWE Universal Championship and WWE Championship matches off of TV, saving them for the PPVs. (I almost wrote "saving them for the big show" but I feared you would then attack me for wanting to give the belt to Paul Wight.)

 

[Gallops77]

It won't work with the way the promotion was run with Hogan.

We are in an era with live television Mondays and Tuesdays, at least 1 Sunday a month, and other programming throughout the week.

I agree that titles shouldn't be defended as often on Raw or Smackdown, but they need to make the matches BIG if they are. Look at the attitude era. Some big title changes happened on Raw. Austin won the title back from Kane on Raw. Foley won his first WWE Championship on Raw. If there's going to be a WWE/Universal Championship match on Raw or Smackdown, it needs to be something where there can be a legitimate title change. I think that's what has happened with the Women's Championship. Charlotte has lost the title on Raw 3 times now. Her defending the title on Raw isn't a slam dunk to retain.

I did like when Lesnar was WWE Champion and he was on TV rarely. It elevated the US and IC titles at the time. If they were to unify the WWE and Universal Championships, that would be the best idea to do. Otherwise, keep the champs on TV, but rarely defend.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

This is an interesting response. You first disagreed with a point I didn't make and then ended it by stating the precise point that I did make.

The only thing I can come up with is that you read the title of "take the big belts off of TV", took it way too literally and didn't read my post. I in no way asked that the champ be on TV but leave the belt itself home. Haha! My God...why would anyone suggest that? I meant taking the big championship title matches off of TV.

I suppose you could have taken the literal interpretation a step farther and wondered why I had belts on my TV set in the first place and then was asking that someone remove them. So, kudos there.

But, the idea was to keep the WWE Universal Championship and WWE Championship matches off of TV, saving them for the PPVs. (I almost wrote "saving them for the big show" but I feared you would then attack me for wanting to give the belt to Paul Wight.)

Oh goodness I'm sorry. I actually did read all of your opening post, but I'm just tired and can be kinda of an idiot sometimes. My bad.

As far as defending the world title on telvision, you just don't want to overdo it. 3-4 title defenses per year on TV is fine, but anything more and a bunch of changes destroys the value of the championship and its holder.

 

[TeamAwesome]

Since 2010 the WWE World Championship has been defended on either RAW or smack down 28 times, changing hands 4 times I believe? Which I'll list here, please add any that I may have missed...

2010

6 Times and the title changed hands once when The Miz cashed in his MITB briefcase.

2011

5 Times and the championship changed hands twice both times on the same night on RAW, once in the Tournament Final for the vacant championship and again in the main even when Cena won the title.

2012

The title was defended by Punk 5 times on RAW throughout the 'Summer of Punk' including RAW 1000 which was supposed to be booked as a PPV. The title never changed hands.

2013

The WWE Championship was defended once - Punk retaining in a TLC match vs Ryback in January.

2014

Again defended once, the night after WrestleMania no less. Daniel Bryan Vs HHH ended in a no contest

2015

There were 4 title matches on free TV in 2015 with the belt changing hands once when Roman Reigns defeated Sheamus in December.

2016

5 in 2016 including Dean Ambrose Vs Seth Rollings on the 1st edition of SDL and AJ Styles twice defending the belt against James Ellsworth

2017

Wyatt defends.

So the title has been defended 28 times on TV so far this decade

If you were to count RAW 1000, the 1st episode of SDL and MITB cash-ins that’s still 25 times in 6 and a bit years that a title match has been booked on TV for no particular reason.

To my point, I think it would be again idea to keep title defences to PPVS only, but it should be every PPV. This would add an extra element of excitement and unpredictability to the matches. Obviously everyone knew that AJ Styles would beat James Ellsworth and Sheamus would beat Zack Ryder, but if you were to have a championship rematch at the next PPV instead of the night after the win it may not be seen as a forgone conclusion that the champion would retain.

Doing this would give more time to develop a championship feud, leaving you wanting to buy the PPV or pay for the network to see the match, and that should be the point, right? paying for the bigger matches?

The same should apply to the women’s championships instead of the hot potato that we are currently seeing on RAW

I see no problem with an IC title match or US title match main-eventing RAW or SDL. These belts have changed handset quite often on free TV and are not as important as the world belts.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Absolutes and ideologies are generally a bad idea in life. This is one of those absolutes that seems pointless. Why handcuff your self with this rule when you can balance between whatever WCW was trying to accomplish with their oversaturation of the title during the Monday Night Wars (which is unsustainable) and nothing?

It's not like the top titles get defended that much (see the post before mine). Yes, there are some instances where you wonder why WWE is doing this now but no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Raw and SD have value too. They deserve some level of special attention. This is going too far.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

Absolutes and ideologies are generally a bad idea in life. This is one of those absolutes that seems pointless. Why handcuff your self with this rule when you can balance between whatever WCW was trying to accomplish with their oversaturation of the title during the Monday Night Wars (which is unsustainable) and nothing?

It's not like the top titles get defended that much (see the post before mine). Yes, there are some instances where you wonder why WWE is doing this now but no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Raw and SD have value too. They deserve some level of special attention. This is going too far.

I have to say, I have seen your posts forever and I can't remember one where I thought you had a good idea, or a point I agreed with, or weren't being contrary. So, the fact that you disagree reassures me that this is a good idea.

One point that you--and more importantly, others who have had worthwhile contributions to the thread--made is that there have not been many title defenses on TV. That is true, but doesn't exactly go against my idea. I know the champ has to be on TV nowadays much more than Hogan did in his era. But, he does not need to fight every week (title match or not). I think keeping him out of the ring MORE OFTEN (not always and not forever) would bring more value to his matches when they happen. I don't see anything absolute about this theory, but like I said, if that guy doesn't like it, it makes me think I am on to something.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I have to say, I have seen your posts forever and I can't remember one where I thought you had a good idea, or a point I agreed with, or weren't being contrary. So, the fact that you disagree reassures me that this is a good idea.

It's not a good idea. While it may help make PPV events seem more important it is likely to hurt your gate, merchandise sales, and viewership for Raw and SD. While wrestling die-hards will continue to tune in, your average fan may figure, "Why should I watch if I know nothing big is going to happen?"

Lose that average fan for Raw and SD and you're more likely to lose them entirely as they find interest in other things.

One point that you--and more importantly, others who have had worthwhile contributions to the thread--made is that there have not been many title defenses on TV. That is true, but doesn't exactly go against my idea. I know the champ has to be on TV nowadays much more than Hogan did in his era. But, he does not need to fight every week (title match or not). I think keeping him out of the ring MORE OFTEN (not always and not forever) would bring more value to his matches when they happen. I don't see anything absolute about this theory, but like I said, if that guy doesn't like it, it makes me think I am on to something.

Again, you have to remember your live audience who paid a heck of a lot more than the $10 a month PPV fan and may spend more on merchandise at the event. If you limit your champ more than necessary you run the risk of turning off your fans and losing them. You also hurt your champ's merchandise numbers.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I went to a SD taping and a champ AJ wasn't there only to cut a promo.

There are ways to make your champ seem more important but you don't need to limit their exposure.

And I'm not being a contrarian for the sake of it. You may think I dont know what I'm talking about but if you look in the grand scheme of things, Vince also doesn't agree with you.

P.S. - we agreed on Shaq at Mania.

 

[Wildcat66]

I'm personally going to say yes, but with a slight catch. If a world champion does defend on TV; they should only do it once every several months so it feels more special or interesting. And if the champion defends his world title, then it should either be between, A; a plot point to continue a feud or B; against a throw away opponent who has no chance of winning but is here for the fans enjoyment or disgust. (Depending on if they are face or heel)

 

[Navi]

One point that you--and more importantly, others who have had worthwhile contributions to the thread--made is that there have not been many title defenses on TV. That is true, but doesn't exactly go against my idea. I know the champ has to be on TV nowadays much more than Hogan did in his era. But, he does not need to fight every week (title match or not). I think keeping him out of the ring MORE OFTEN (not always and not forever) would bring more value to his matches when they happen. I don't see anything absolute about this theory, but like I said, if that guy doesn't like it, it makes me think I am on to something.

GSB is correct, the champion needs to be there, let's face it that's who people pay money to see. If the company thinks this guy is the best one to hold their title belt, then I too would be pissed it I showed up and the champ didn't.

Lesnar having the belt wasn't a great idea as I said before. He disappeared for months and we never saw him or the title. What's the point of feuding away each week if the champ doesn't care about being there, and obviously the company feels the same way.

Now in the case of Owens, no he shouldn't have to put the title on the line every week because let's face it we and the crowd know he's not going to lose it. Very few times does the title change hands on RAW or SD, well except in the case of Charlotte but that's why she has going on right now.

What isn't a great idea is to have whoever is champion and the number one contender having a match each week. As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't even be in the same ring until the title fight. That's the problem the WWE has created for itself and something they can't seem to find their way out of. When the number one contender continually wins the TV matches, you pretty much know that guy ain't going to win at the PPV.

Keep the champions around, have them in matches, but don't have the title on the line. That way most fans should be happy.