Why Three WWE Brands?

jason savageCorrespondent IOctober 19, 2008

Of course we wrestling fans know that the WWE is broken into three "brands," Raw, Smackdown, and ECW. I understand the concept, three completely different shows with their own stars and storylines. However, the WWE doesn't stick to their own rules!

There are constantly crossovers from one brand to another, sometimes with little or no explanation. I say either keep the brands completely separate and have matches from each brand at the pay per views and keep the annual draft, or just drop the concept completely.

Perhaps a good third option would be to keep ECW as a "minor league" and merge the other two brands.

Having three brands gives us too many titles as well. Why do we need a World Tag Team Champion and a WWE Tag Team Champion? A Women's Champ and a Diva's Champ?
Less titles makes the ones that remain mean something. Fighting to win a title was always a great storyline and a way to begin a feud.

Plus a Raw/Smackdown merger on Pay Per View would be awesome as well!
A Champions vs. Champions night like they did for Smackdown's debut on My Network TV a few weeks back, only this time the winner becomes the "undisputed" champion and one of the belts goes away.

Right now that card would be pretty good (Smackdown and Raw merger only)...

Triple H vs Jericho
Santino vs Shelton Benjamin
Beth Phoenix vs Michelle McCool
Carlito and Primo vs Rhodes and Dibiase

Take the poll and let me know what you think!