Originally Posted by AlternateDemise
If you're going to continue to plague topics with your constant complaints about them not killing the brand split, then my response is absolutely necessary.
WHEN DID I COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM NOT KILLING THE BRAND SPLIT IN THIS TOPIC?! Because I said that rotating the rosters would work better if they kill the Brand Split? That's NOT complaining!
I was actually, yes. I was one of the people who kept saying a brand split was needed, but not because of the roster size (because Smackdown needed relevancy and I for some stupid reason thought they'd make Raw two hours again if they did it).
You should've known WWE wasn't getting rid of that third hour. Even I knew that when I was arguing AGAINST the Brand Split. SmackDown needed relevancy? 1999-early 2002 says hello.
Except the problems went away for a while when the brand split first happened. Not on Raw of course, but on Smackdown? Yeah, the problems most certainly went away. Smackdown was a breath of fresh air and one of the best consistent shows WWE had in a very long time (main roster anyways, not counting NXT). Things went downhill fast the moment Road Dogg stepped in, but it's still helped make Smackdown not only relevant but a better show overall due to the increased focus. It's laughable to even suggest this hasn't been the case.
A while? The argument was that the Brand Split was supposed to fix everything, not a small (or a half) portion of the product or a short term fix.
SmackDown was a breath of fresh air because they actually put effort into the show. They didn't even try to put effort into SmackDown after they killed the Brand Split. They were replaying RAW segments and having rematches from RAW for crying out loud. SmackDown could've easily stayed relevant had they treated it like a continuation of RAW (just like in the Attitude Era), use wrestlers that didn't appear on RAW, etc. WWE has 5 Hours of Television every week, that's more than enough time to utilize your roster without splitting them up.