|
|
Post by Versus & Tiger on Aug 24, 2010 18:48:54 GMT -6
FX is awesome! I love it to death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bubba JD on Aug 24, 2010 19:45:23 GMT -6
next thing you know their gonna put nxt on fx don't be surprised if it happens. you see the stuff that gets on many of the networks put out, right? History Channel has Ice Road Truckers & Pawn Stars.....2 shows that are hardly related to History. A&E has gotten away from being about Arts & Entertainment, a long time ago. i believe Jon & Kate Plus 8 was on TLC (or was it Discovery?). either way, that show hardly fit the themes of those stations. i believe the Duggers have their one reality show on one of those damned networks. think it's called 50 & still popping out kids. if that isn't enough, i've seen Spelling Bees on ESPN. soon, you'll be seeing tributes to the good ol' southern boys on BET. |
|
|
|
Post by freak on Aug 24, 2010 22:19:58 GMT -6
You know, Ravencroft, you don't have to watch if it bothers you that much.
(Honestly...is this REALLY that big a deal?)
|
|
|
|
Post by robertravencroft on Aug 24, 2010 22:36:23 GMT -6
honestly if i had to chose
i'd always pick smackdown over raw
but that's just me
i find raw to be a little too hollywood and about the promo's
i only bring this issue up because i've always preferred smackdown over raw
even when the roster's weren't always balanced
but there's only so much one man can take before he gets sick of seeing dolph ziggler vs kofi kingston
and i really don't want to watch super cena every week so despite the larger roster
raw has less variety(shocking i know but it's the truth)
|
|
|
|
Post by Bubba JD on Aug 25, 2010 19:41:13 GMT -6
Smackdown is generally the better brand. even when things are hard to watch, i'll usually take Smackdown over Raw. i miss the days when Heyman was in charge of booking Smackdown. every show was pure awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by mem4life on Aug 30, 2010 22:46:15 GMT -6
i think they are leading to make it one roster because of the diva's woman's championship unification match at Night of Champions. so if that happens, i could see so many fued oppertunities
|
|
|
|
Post by robertravencroft on Aug 30, 2010 23:28:32 GMT -6
if they make it one roster then we're just gonna see the same thing happen over and over again
cena overcomes the odds and becomes champion
any young wrestlers will be fed to cena orton or sheamus
not to mention with one roster
you won't be able to give everyone enough time
|
|
|
|
Post by freak on Aug 30, 2010 23:48:02 GMT -6
They did it for years with one roster...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bubba JD on Aug 31, 2010 19:06:28 GMT -6
the single roster could be possible. rumors on the net about a bunch of title unifications over the next year, ending at Wrestlemania. if this is true, a single roster would be plausible.
if a single roster does happen, all i can say is "big deal". WWE isn't any better off with seperate rosters. they had a good run with seperate rosters, having a good idea with it for awhile. WWE has failed to maintain the integrity of the seperate rosters for so long now, it no longer matters to me if they stay seperate or not.
besides, there could be a benefit to going back to a single roster. maybe WWE will finally cut out the crap & focus on actually putting on a decent product.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reaper on Aug 31, 2010 20:22:43 GMT -6
Most fans over the years have voiced that they liked the single roster better. A bunch of people have wanted an end to the brand splits, and nothing came of it. So we all know they gave up, BUT should they stop the split and go back to one big roster... all I can say is.... TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. I don't see it helping get those fans back because they've already written wrestling off or switched to TNA (why choose TNA over just watching Indy shows, I don't know but whatever). The problem I see with it is, I think the WWE would almost try to play it off like its a new thing for WWE, since they've been marketing to children and families. So if that happens, they will continue to alienate the fans that have stuck with them over the years. Take me for example, take the roster and throw them together, because they've been running both Raw and Smackdown as 2 clusterfucks, and its easier to keep track of just 1 big one. Another thing: if they make it one roster then we're just gonna see the same thing happen over and over again cena overcomes the odds and becomes champion any young wrestlers will be fed to cena orton or sheamus not to mention with one roster you won't be able to give everyone enough time Honestly... THEY'RE GONNA DO THIS ANYWAY! If you've kept up with the rumor mills theres one out now thats discussed Cena's record this year... He's like 100-5 this year... THIS YEAR. But something you haven't thought of is this, they're gonna push Wade Barrett down our throat as a new Main Eventer. So now, you have a collective (if one roster happens) of Cena, Orton, Sheamus, Edge, Jericho (if he doesn't leave), Triple H, Barrett, The Miz (soon), Del Rio, Kane, Taker, Punk, Big Show, and Rey Mysterio ALL as possible headliners. Theres enough feud mixing in that to at least attempt making it fun again. Then theres the second tier: Ziggler, Kofi, MVP, Cody Rhodes, Dibiase, Daniel Bryan, NXT 2 winner, McIntyre, Hardy, Swagger, Christian, The Nexus guys that don't get fired, Morrison, Henry, Bourne, and probably Ezekiel Jackson all going after the second belt. I'd RATHER have one roster because its easier to mix up the feuds without doing a bullshit "draft" every year and wasting peoples time. And of course, theres the womens division, but until theres some decent women wrestlers in WWE, I will continue to not give a shit. |
|
|
|
Post by freak on Aug 31, 2010 21:45:42 GMT -6
I'd add a third belt if I was WWE...I know they did it before but why not have a TV title? Always would've liked to see that on WWE programming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Versus & Tiger on Sept 1, 2010 9:44:39 GMT -6
Yeah, they really have too large of a roster to not have another title belt.
|
|
