The Thin Blue/Red Line: Does WWE Need to Bring Back the Brand Extension?

Which show is Daniel Bryan a part of, Raw or SmackDown?

I ask this question because it does not seem to be clear since he jumped from the World title to a feud for the WWE title with nobody batting an eye at it.

The brand extension is dead, and really, it has been for quite some time. Nobody should be under any illusions that it is still in tact.

The whole "RAW SuperShow" concept is what put the final nail in the coffin for the brand-extension by allowing both rosters to appear on one show.

This does not even matter, though, as we see Raw superstars on SmackDown even when it is not a "Super SmackDown" show.

The Tag Titles and Divas title have been shared across the brands for quite some time and the singles champions bounce from show to show regularly without any of their GMs making a fuss about it.

Last week on SmackDown, we saw both the US and IC champions in action. Which title belongs to which show again?

The last time I checked, the IC title was a SmackDown belt, and yet we saw it change hands on Raw.

The WWE Champion is supposed to represent Raw while the World Champion is supposed to represent SmackDown, but does it mean anything when they both regularly appear on Raw?

WWE needs to decide what it is—A brand with two separate shows or two separate brands with their own shows.

There are arguments for both sides as to which decision would make more sense. The successes WWE has seen with both separate and combined rosters is a hard way to judge this situation.

Having the shows have separate rosters gives off more of an impression that the two top titles are equal because wrestlers can only compete for the title on their show.

The other side of that argument is that having the rosters combined offers WWE the chance to feature their biggest stars where and when they please.

Here is why the ides of separate brands would make more sense.

When WWE has two title matches which are supposed to be of equal value the commentators often sound like they are contradicting themselves.

Michael Cole will say that the World Title is the most prestigious prize in WWE while the match for the title is going on, but then two hours later, he is saying the same thing for the WWE title. How can it be both?

We certainly don't have two SuperBowl Championship teams, two World Series winning teams or two Stanley Cup winning teams, so how can WWE have two titles of equal value unless they have some sort of separation between them?

Before anyone points out the obvious—Yes, WWE is indeed predetermined and those other titles are for legitimately determined championships, but the whole point of WWE is to portray as realistic a product as possible, which means these details matter.

If WWE is going to continue to blend the two shows into one roster then they need to bring back the Undisputed Championship. It is as simple as that.

There is really no need to combine the mid-card titles because having two of them on the same show is nothing new.

In fact, if WWE combined the World and WWE Titles it would give them the opportunity to bring back another defunct title like the Cruiserweight or TV Title.

With Raw going three hours it is even less likely that we will see any kind of distinction between the two brands going forward.

What do you think—Does WWE need to distinguish the two shows from each other or does it even matter?