WWE Quality Control Check: The Two Brand Format Is an Entertainment Killer

If it ain't broke don't fix it.  That's an adage that gets stated so often that it is stale, yet applies in nearly every situation which its used.  As human beings, we are innovators, and we have a natural inclination to seek change.

Sometimes, however, we confuse change and evolution.  Often, a product is much more better served to simply evolve than to change altogether.  And, this is where the WWE's famed following of the 1990's and general star status of that "Attitiude Era" withered.  Opposed to allowing the natural evolution of wrestling to take place, WWE decision-makers radically redesigned the entire concept, creating two brands with "Smackdown" and "Raw." 

At the time, it may have made sense, with an abundance of talent on the roster.  It seemed likely that each brand would see more airtime for its best stars.  Yet, with only enough star power right now to field a full and single roster, some wrestlers are coming into the limelight prematurely- if not mistakenly.  I'll elaborate.

Wrestling was in a proverbial climax at the turn of the century.  A new era blended stars, like the anti-heroic, straight-forward persona of Stone Cold Steve Austin, with larger than life entertainers, like the Undertaker. 

The Rock, Mick Foley, Chris Jericho, and Triple H were among the many stars who interacted for four weeks per month leading into a respective pay-per-view event.  Raw and Smackdown both saw potential for any member of the WWE roster to see action, and the business's best entertainers rose to the top, showcasing their talents on both weekly installments of wrestling action.

Vince McMahon had the attention of wrestling fans and moderate enthusiasts.  I vividly recall those days, my latter teenage years into my early college education, and the excitement that was generated by professional wrestling.  There was a draw to the event. 

One morning I went through my routine, discussed weekend plans with my mother, and in mentioning I was going to a friend's place for the pay-per-view, she responded, "Oh, you mean wrestling?  Isn't Hogan fighting the Rock in that?"

If she were to have any idea of whose names were scribed on the championship card of an event today, I'd implore her to play the lottery, as it would be nothing more than a lucky guess.  I doubt she could name three wrestlers on the roster.

The point isn't that my mom isn't interested; she never truly was.  It's that when the entertainment value reaches a premium, people notice.  The word gets out, and you hardly have to try...

Many will argue in simplicity that it's not to be overcomplicated- that the roster simply isn't what it used to be.  Those folks would likely be correct.  The wave of stardom that WWE boasted in the "Attitude Era" was unlike anything before it, and it'll be unlikely that anything like it is yet to come. 

Nevertheless, I think the issue of decline in the interest of fans for professional wrestling in 2011 does not stem exclusively from the talent.  The structure creates confusion and dilutes roster quality. 

Please consider this as an illustration:

Forgetting whether or not it would ever happen (clearly not), suppose the NFL chose to create two "brands," ala the WWE toward the end of its uber-popularity.  Let's call these brands the American Football Conference (AFC) and National Football Conference (NFC).  So, now the two halves assume the roles of two wholes (whole brands or "league of football, opposed to conferences of one NFL).

Once each conference developed a new structure (let's call the conferences in each the North-West Conference and South-East Conference), you'd have two conference championship games (one for each league, the AFC and the NFC), and eventually, two champions. 

In this case, for the sake of comparison, we'll say that the NFC, originating mostly from the original workings of the NFL tapestry, will be the NFL Champions, a slightly more coveted trophy in the same vein as the glorious WWE Championship Belt.

The AFC would also have a champion, called the World Champion, drawing on a parallel to the World Heavyweight Championship (or former WCW title).  Each conference, in similar keeping to how the WWE has comprable belts for both brands, would field twelve playoff teams. 

If you're realizing the math, essentially, the former NFL (now the AFC and NFC, separate entities) sees 24 of its former teams getting spotlighted. where in the past they'd have not earned it. 

The point is:  THE STANDARD.  If you merge, wrestlers lose jobs.  This isn't the "save a wrestler from a new career path" club.  It's the WWE.  Only the finest stars should excel, and the only alignment should be one that cuts the waste and brings the best wrestlers together into the forefront.

In my hypothetical example, it would not be long before the NFL merged back together.  Fan confusion would be overbearing:  who is the champion?  Wrestling is not scripted, and as sport entertainment, you can easily make the point that the perception is different.  Wrestlers understand the concept and wouldn't demand a final game to determine one champ.

Yet, among both casual and passionate fans of the WWE, I still hear confusion regarding what the titles truly mean, where they rank, and how the "double-vision" of two wrestling brands diminishes the impact of either belt as per their individual tastes.  

I suppose that is natural.  The belt had so much impact when 'Taker, Hart, Michaels, Austin, Triple H, and a slew of others sought after the one and only coveted title.  Now, with two championships, it's a natural condition to feel that one offsets the other, even to the most microscopic degree.

However, the bigger impact isn't with two champions or two programs divided against each other.  The main issue draws from a diluted talent pool. 

Using our NFL example, instead of 12 of 32 making the playoffs, 12 of 16 would make it in each new league.  I realize the math isn't perfect, and this is a general example.  Nevertheless, the point is simple:  lesser talents would share a greater deal of the limelight as an issue of circumstance. 

In the 90's, the best talent carried the shows, great stars fought for one supreme spot, and those who were up and coming continued to work hard in order to get there.  Now, they are hurried into the spotlight out of a necessity to promote two ongoing, exclusively orchestrated (yet interchangeable) rosters. 

More wrestlers are in the mix, and while the cream still rises to the top (John Cena would have been a huge star then or now, like it or not), the Khali's and R-Truth's are promoted more quickly. 

The question is: is it too quickly?  And, as many of yesterday's stars perfected their craft over the course of years of necessary development, could the modern state of two wrestling products be cutting this natural genesis short?

I realize that WWE makes bank from both products.  Yet, I feel wrestling could vastly improve by merging the brands together into one exclusive WWE.  The best would vie for one championship, keeping the main event fresh, while other great wrestlers would be able to promote belts that are currently obscured by mundane talent and shtick-less characters.  Those great wrestlers are currently occupying their time competing for one of two nearly duplicate belts, one for each show. 

I remember when the story was driven by rivalry, and when your favorite wrestler would bide time for his next title opportunity.  You were excited when that match was realized, even for the biggest names on the roster.  "The Rock" wasn't always forced into the main event to fulfill two separate main events.

Now, John Cena headlines the title match at ten pay-per-views per year.  The talent doesn't stretch enough to allow rotation amongst two headline events monthly. 

Can we really say with any certainty Alberto Del Rio would have headlined a WrestleMania even as recently as ten years ago?  Just imagine a second merger of the belts, pitting Edge against Randy Orton in the match preceding The Rock vs. John Cena. 

That's wrestling gold.

While there are pros and cons to both, it seems that the WWE could benefit from an exclusive roster of stars relegated to "the brand" instead of one of "the brands."