Was "WWE Superstars" Necessary?

RKO's Priceless Numba1Fan aka Dashing Marina MtzCorrespondent IApril 23, 2009

369656 03: World Wrestling Federation wrestler Triple H poses May 18, 2000 in New York City during the UPN television network's announcement of its fall lineup. UPN will continue with the highly successful 'WWF Smackdown' on Thursday nights. 'Smackdown' has helped UPN boost its ratings 1,063 percent among teenage viewers. (Photo by George De Sota/Newsmakers)

Hello fellow writers! I am back with another opinion article, and I am hoping you will take part.

As you may or may not know, a new WWE TV Show has emerged. It is called "WWE Superstars" and it is on WGN America. I was wondering:

Was it necessary for WWE to put out another show?

We already have RAW on Monday, ECW on Tuesday, and SmackDown on Friday. Do we really need another show?

I'm kind of torn on this issue because I love WWE programming and I love to watch it every chance I get. But then, how much is too much?

I was skeptical about it, but i think that it's OK. I honestly thought when I seen the first commercial that "WWE Superstars" was going to be a highlight show like WWE A.M Raw or The WWE Experience.

These are some questions that I have for you: Does WWE really have the money to put another show with the economy the way it is? Will "WWE Superstars" last?

Also, Without Canada and some parts of the U.S, is "WWE Superstars" on WGN America a good idea?

I do think that the main event tonight is a three-star match. I seriously think the matches need to get better! Anyway, don't forget to comment! 'Till next time!