Posted by Bob Cavicchioli
Bear with me folks, this is going to sound flat out bizarre. I sincerely hope you are sitting down… and if you’re not, why in the world would you use a computer to read a blog while standing up??
Let’s take a look at the four major American sports for a second. Each are broken down into leagues/conferences and then again into divisions. Major League Baseball has two leagues, each with three divisions each. The National Basketball Association has two conferences, three divisions each. The National Hockey League currently has the same. And lastly, the National Football League has two conferences with four divisions each. What’s my point? Every season, the MLB has six division champions. Through competition, this eventually leads to two league champions, and finally one World Series Champion.
(bonus if you can identify the origin of this pic)
Now, for my bizarre idea… What if WWE was broken down into divisions? I know we’ve done this before with the Raw and Smackdown brands, and we’re breaking away from that mold with superstars from both rosters appearing on both shows. And, the titles aren’t even brand specific any more. I’m not suggesting separating the rosters on separate shows. But, what if it was structured differently? What if superstars belonged to a specific division but competed with everybody? This is how the four major sports do it. The Boston Red Sox are not in the same division as the Oakland Athletics, but they play each other during the regular season. In the same way, C.M. Punk and John Cena could be in separate divisions and still compete against each other.
The number of divisions is definitely up for discussion. For the sake of argument, let’s say there would be four. We could divide the roster into four divisions. Most rivalries would exist within these divisions, but not necessarily because superstars will compete interdivisionally as well. But, here is where this plan differs from anything else we’ve seen before: Each division would have it’s own champion. On top of that, there would be one overall champion. One of these division champions would have to be the WWE Champion. Perhaps periodically, the division champions would meet to determine the overall champ, but not necessarily.
This accomplishes a few things. First, it makes every title relevant. The Division Titles become a step towards a greater goal. It also creates better opportunity for mid-card stars to be in the overall picture. Right now, a Heath Slater isn’t in a conversation with Cena and The Rock, but if his Division Champion was Zack Ryder, Slater would be in the conversation with his Division Champion. Finally, it gives the titles some structure. Right now, technically the WWE Title and the World Heavyweight Championship are supposedly equal. If that is the case, then what is the logical point of having both of them? I know for storytelling purposes and to give opportunity to guys they both exist, but in the real world, there would be no reason to do so. And the IC and U.S. Titles, regrettably, are currently borderline irrelevant.
To keep things interesting, it would be preferable to allow for the occasional change of division for superstars. And, for the most part, each division would have a main face and a main heel. This creates more opportunity for the superstars to shine. And, we would still have an overall champion.
I’d be curious to hear your reactions to this. I recognize this is very unorthodox, but it is a way to keep more guys relevant instead of WWE focusing on the same handful of guys every week. Am I on to something here? Or, am I completely nuts?
Download - iPhone | Android | iPad