Argue this idea- Different weekly rosters - Page 4 - Wrestling Forum: WWE, AEW, New Japan, Indy Wrestling, Women of Wrestling Forums

 14Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #31 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-18-2019, 03:14 PM
 
birthday_massacre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: #WWFuckery
Posts: 37,417
Points: 77,720
                     
Re: Argue this idea- Different weekly rosters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Abigail View Post
Ok so one of the arguments fans have is that talent (eg Sanity) is often left off shows, itís the same matches over and over and the wrestlers are unhappy not being used.

So how about this- Rotating rosters. Week one you have a certain group of wrestlers doing the show, and then the next week you change them out for others and another set of stories. Itís still Monday Night Raw, but two or more shows in the same time slot. Next week back to the first group.

Sort of like if Smackdown and Raw rotated weeks.

Itíd also give talent a chance to rest for a week or so at a time.
I agree but just do that with the mid and lower card wrestlers.

You have your main event storyline that should be every week, then you can have the other storylines be every other week.

That do that now randomly, when like DB will be on TV one week but not the next. Just have a method to the madness. It would also give wrestlers time to rest every other week and let all their talent be used

birthday_massacre is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-18-2019, 07:07 PM
 
troubleman1218's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,330
Points: 3,607
                     
Re: Argue this idea- Different weekly rosters

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlternateDemise View Post
Never once claimed that you said that.
My point is that your response was unnecessary and had nothing to do with the topic. I know WWE isn't going to kill the Brand Split (unfortunately) just like the OP knows that WWE isn't going to rotate the roster every week.

Quote:
But in every other post you make in any thread regarding the brand split, your first action is to say they should end the brand split. They aren't going to do it. Not to mention, it would only make things worse. Enough with this gimmick of yours. It's getting old.
So what? It's my opinion and IMO the Brand Split is garbage and should've stayed dead. Has nothing to do with a gimmick. I highly doubt you had this same energy towards the people who wouldn't shut up about the Brand Split/Two World Titles after WWE put a stop to it. Their writing is going to make things worse, not whether or not they have a Brand Split. All of the problems that you Brand Split defenders thought the Brand Split was going to fix, is still present in both shows.
troubleman1218 is offline  
post #33 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-18-2019, 08:42 PM
Greek God of Knowledge
 
AlternateDemise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 6,651
Points: 22,231
                     
Re: Argue this idea- Different weekly rosters

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
My point is that your response was unnecessary and had nothing to do with the topic. I know WWE isn't going to kill the Brand Split (unfortunately) just like the OP knows that WWE isn't going to rotate the roster every week.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
So what? It's my opinion and IMO the Brand Split is garbage and should've stayed dead. Has nothing to do with a gimmick. I highly doubt you had this same energy towards the people who wouldn't shut up about the Brand Split/Two World Titles after WWE put a stop to it.
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
Their writing is going to make things worse, not whether or not they have a Brand Split. All of the problems that you Brand Split defenders thought the Brand Split was going to fix, is still present in both shows.
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace View Post
WWE ending TNA's decade long year of dominance
Never change
AlternateDemise is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-18-2019, 09:30 PM
 
troubleman1218's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,330
Points: 3,607
                     
Re: Argue this idea- Different weekly rosters

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlternateDemise View Post
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!

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
troubleman1218 is offline  
post #35 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-18-2019, 10:55 PM
Fingerblasting Ricochet's Tight Arse with Scott Steiner
 
LouEW on TNT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 6,100
Points: 9,804
                     
Re: Argue this idea- Different weekly rosters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Abigail View Post
Ok so one of the arguments fans have is that talent (eg Sanity) is often left off shows, itís the same matches over and over and the wrestlers are unhappy not being used.

So how about this- Rotating rosters. Week one you have a certain group of wrestlers doing the show, and then the next week you change them out for others and another set of stories. Itís still Monday Night Raw, but two or more shows in the same time slot. Next week back to the first group.

Sort of like if Smackdown and Raw rotated weeks.

Itíd also give talent a chance to rest for a week or so at a time.
They might as well do it because there's almost no story to follow anyway.

LouEW on TNT is offline  
post #36 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-19-2019, 02:48 AM
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,751
Points: 10,845
                     
The reason Raw can’t work like NXT is because one is one hour, and the other is three hours.
The Wood is offline  
post #37 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-19-2019, 07:11 AM
Greek God of Knowledge
 
AlternateDemise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 6,651
Points: 22,231
                     
Re: Argue this idea- Different weekly rosters

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
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!
Yes, that is literally the definition of complaining. We know what your intention is. We know you dislike it. You're complaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
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.
Yeah...honestly don't know what I was thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
SmackDown needed relevancy? 1999-early 2002 says hello.
You're really doing to try to use Smackdown from a decade ago to disprove my argument? Do you understand how laughable that is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
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.
But the problem with this is when you do so, you give WWE the option to be complacent. And you should know by now that complacency is what they love to go with nowadays.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace View Post
WWE ending TNA's decade long year of dominance
Never change
AlternateDemise is online now  
post #38 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-19-2019, 10:59 AM
 
Ray McCarthy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Cork
Posts: 623
Points: 75
                     
It’s actually not a terrible idea. Each week could have a different half of the brand roster performing live, while briefly recapping (and progressing) the other half’s storylines through vignettes and interviews, like how Mean Gene and Sean Mooney would recap us from behind their desks back in the day. More time for matches.
Ray McCarthy is offline  
post #39 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-19-2019, 12:57 PM
 
troubleman1218's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,330
Points: 3,607
                     
Re: Argue this idea- Different weekly rosters

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlternateDemise View Post
Yes, that is literally the definition of complaining. We know what your intention is. We know you dislike it. You're complaining.




Yeah...honestly don't know what I was thinking.



You're really doing to try to use Smackdown from a decade ago to disprove my argument? Do you understand how laughable that is?




But the problem with this is when you do so, you give WWE the option to be complacent. And you should know by now that complacency is what they love to go with nowadays.
You really need to look up the definition of "complaining" again. If I was complaining, I would've said that WWE is stupid for bring back the Brand Split or the Brand Split is ruining my enjoyment of the product Which is what I DIDN'T do. I was simply giving an idea to another poster who didn't think the rotating roster idea would work.

The same way I think it's laughable that you think SmackDown can ONLY be relevant if they have a Brand Split. Doesn't matter how long ago the Attitude Era was, the point is that it could work.

They are already careless with the Brand Split! RAW still fills like filler and they fuck over SmackDown every chance they get. What is your point?! Unlike you, I actually acknowledged this by saying that the problem is with WWE's writing. My point was that it always COULD work!
troubleman1218 is offline  
post #40 of 51 (permalink) Old 04-19-2019, 03:58 PM
Greek God of Knowledge
 
AlternateDemise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 6,651
Points: 22,231
                     
Re: Argue this idea- Different weekly rosters

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
You really need to look up the definition of "complaining" again. If I was complaining, I would've said that WWE is stupid for bring back the Brand Split or the Brand Split is ruining my enjoyment of the product Which is what I DIDN'T do. I was simply giving an idea to another poster who didn't think the rotating roster idea would work.
We know what your true intentions are. This isn't something you can hide or pretend to not do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
The same way I think it's laughable that you think SmackDown can ONLY be relevant if they have a Brand Split. Doesn't matter how long ago the Attitude Era was, the point is that it could work.
It absolutely does matter because those were much different times with a different roster and a different mindset. Raw wasn't three hours back then. Smackdown was much newer and served a different purpose, a purpose they can't go back to because they aren't putting in the effort they once were anymore. Smackdown for a long time now has been given this reputation of being the B show, and that hasn't changed. You think it can happen all of a sudden overnight? Doesn't work like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by troubleman1218 View Post
They are already careless with the Brand Split! RAW still fills like filler and they fuck over SmackDown every chance they get. What is your point?! Unlike you, I actually acknowledged this by saying that the problem is with WWE's writing. My point was that it always COULD work!
I never said WWE's writing wasn't the problem. That isn't the main issue at hand. It's their overall lack of interest in doing any better than what they are given. The build to Wrestlemania 35 alone demonstrates how little of a fuck they give nowadays. You think they're going to put in the effort to make Smackdown relevant again with one roster? They can't even give proper continuity with their top wrestlers, what makes you think they can pull off something like that?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace View Post
WWE ending TNA's decade long year of dominance
Never change
AlternateDemise is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome