After the death of WCW and ECW in 2001, the WWE had a problem.
It had a lot of professional wrestlers under contract and not enough TV time. Granted, it's not a bad problem to have. But for a couple years, nearly every professional wrestler in the country could only make a full-time living from Vince McMahon.
So, WWE decided to split the company in two. Raw became the exclusive home to half the roster, while the other half lived on SmackDown.
If you wanted to see The Rock, you'd watch SmackDown. If you wanted to see The Undertaker, you'd watch Raw. That's the way things were, and fans grew to adapt. On rare occasions, wrestlers would show up on the other brand. These moments felt like a big deal.
Over the years though, the distinction between the shows softened. Guys would jump back and forth with no explanations. The company got lazy.
Eventually, the idea died. The rosters merged, and the ratings continued to slide.
Ending the brand split was a short-term solution to some much bigger problems that the WWE has. But whatever benefits that were incurred by the merge are long gone now.
Here are five reasons why the WWE must separate their roster again.