If only they had a title specifically designed to be defend on TV, a TV title, if you will...

In the post-PPV era in which WWE actually makes more profit from TV than they do from the PPVs/Network, I don't really mind title matches being on TV. Far more problematic is that the champions aren't protected and aren't consistently treated as being above the non-champions, making the titles rather meaningless.

The concept you reference is certainly a problem, but I would still rather only have title matches on TV on special occasion. Regardless of where the profit is the greatest, the creative model for the company is still for TV to build the PPVs rather than the other way around. The PPVs need something to set them apart as the most important shows, rather than just being an extra monthly show that happens on Sunday night instead of Monday or Tuesday.

Several things set the PPVs apart, including:

More buildup for PPV matches
Better matches on average
More wrestling (less time on non-wrestling segments)

It isn't as cut and dry as they just build to the PPVs though. Some of the stuff that happens on PPV builds to stuff that happens on TV, some TV stuff builds to other TV stuff. The creative model is closer to: 'various stories that can end or twist at any time' as opposed to a model of TV being completely subservient to PPVs.

Wrestlemania exists to build to the post-WM Raw, which is the best night of the year.

Most of us have the network and PPVs are really specials now. I basically don't care if I see it on USA or WWE Network anymore because it's not really giving it away for free concept that bothers me as much as just throwing it out there without a build up.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there were several things that if built up right, could have made this week an epic SD.

The Alphas make their return to get their revenge on the Uso.
Dolph's shot at the IC belt.
Randy Orton's first match since SS with Bray lurking.

I knew none these things were happening and therefor didn't have the experience of anticipating and wanting to see them for a while.

Agree with this, and I will add as much as I also agree with everyone here about next week's title match, at least they announced it last night. They could have waited until the opening segment next week to handle all of this business.

I do agree that announcing it a week in advance is better than just doing holonaminutplaya nonsense.

Smackdown does show real symptoms of having an actual creative vision above and beyond bull**** same-day booking, which is a good thing even if I don't like everything that plays out. I thought Halpert was crazy at first when he was doing the #TeamSmackdown thing, but I actually think that he's right now.

This is crazy.

I wonder how many of Cena's losses at Summerslam have been clean. He loses every year at Summerlsam for some reason (last win was a decade ago) despite the Big Match John title.

Cena lost clean last night? Wow.

Remind me why (in kayfabe) Cena deserves a title shot at this point?

Remarkable that we are now asking this question about the man once known as Super Cena.

I agree that lack of buildup is a big issue. That feeling of anticipation is key in wrestling, and WWE puts too much emphasis on trying to be unpredictable at the expense of building anticipation and wrestlers. To be fair though, WWE build ups often aren't very good anyway.

The problem with protecting champions is, if you're going to have them defend titles on TV, and you're going to have them be treated a above the non-champions, how do you ever change titles barring some stupid dusty finish bull****? If (hypothetically) Dean Ambrose is booked as being better than John Cena and Dolph Ziggler, both of whom are booked about the same, and then you want Roman Reigns to be the champ, but he's been fighting Cena and Ziggler more or less to an equal level, how do you sell Reigns as suddenly being better than Ambrose?

(There are clearly SOME ways -- see, e.g. Darren Young being treated as competent after being paired up with Backlund -- but you can only go to that well so many times in a given time frame.)

WWE doesn't care about this kind of logical consistency/progression stuff; a guy loses a middle of the card match one day and is the number one contender (or the champion) the next anyway.

Setting that aside, it is simple anyway. One person wins the championship from a once protected chamion because: they improved, the champion got worse, or it was a fluke/luck. No need for a dusty finish or even any kind of dirty finish necessarily. You just need to tell stories that actually relate to athleticism as opposed to random nonsense.

It can't be a fluke because by definition you aren't booking your champion above others.

It can't be the champ got worse because then he's not being booked above everyone else.

So it's either you mega hotshot a guy (at which point you then have to do this again and again), you import new talent without a track record, or you leave the champ as champ for a very very long time

He's not the champ anymore. Because he got worse. Think you misunderstood.

About the fluke part, you can have an undeserving champion, particularly a heel champion, once in awhile without undermining the title. For example, the Honky Tonk Man when the champions before and after him were protected. Titles die when champ after champ is undeserving. Like today's titles, especially the IC title.

Since the start of 2015 the champs have been Wade Barrett (83 days), Daniel Bryan (43 days, vacated), Ryback (112 days), Kevin Owens (84 days), Dean Ambrose (64 days), Kevin Owens (48 days), Zack Ryder (1 day), The Miz (170+).

That's a pretty good run. Barrett should have been pushed afterwards. Daniel is obviously great and only lost to his injuries. Ryback wasn't great but he had been in the WWE Title picture beforehand at least. Owens is now the Universal Champ. Dean went on to be the World Champ. Zack Ryder was a multi-way ladder match fluke. The Miz has been a great champ so far. It might not always be booked perfectly but at least they're mostly putting the belt on the right people lately.

When I say "undeserving" I mean undeserving in kayfabe. That's what an underserving champ is; somebody who isn't better than the competition, and therefore doesn't deserve to be the champion. Wade Barrett may be great by some external standard, but he lost non-title match after non-title match during his secondary title runs. Kevin Owens ran away from his matches. Zack Ryder was a jobber who suddenly got the belt in some cluster multi man match.

Though the IC title was dead as a drawing card or a serious belt long before 2015 anyway.

I think we can all agree that title holders having non-title matches on a frequent basis is pure AIDS (and losing those matches regularly is even more ebolaids). The ONLY time that should happen is when there's some grudge match against a heel champ who refuses to give the chaser a title opportunity by shady actions.

I sometimes feel like measuring title reigns in days is inaccurate and we would be better off measuring them in terms of number of successful (televised or otherwise acknowledged) title defenses.

Cowardly heel running away from his matches/walking out on matches/intentionally eating a DQ seems to be standard and approved behavior if we're talking about every other generation.

And yes, the Ryder thing was obviously a fluke, in a match that pretty much demands flukiness, and was booked as such. It's okay to have flukes once in a while! You even suggested it as a way to get the belt off the current champ, while insisting the champ had to be stronger in kayfabe than the others! I'd argue that it would have been better if Zack Ryder then improved as a wrestler somehow (another way in which your champ can become better, even if he wasn't when he became champ, right?) and actually held the belt for a few months instead of handing it to Miz one night late. Or if they'd made something ... useful out of it.

So, OK, they should have booked Barrett stronger, I guess?

So he can tie Ric Flair's record?

It doesn't really matter, because the IC title would have to be booked well for years and years in a row to mean anything again. The world title doesn't even move the needle anymore; awhile ago Meltzer crunched some numbers, and Ambrose was drawing as well as Reigns as a headliner even though Reigns was champ. Right after that though, Ambrose became champ, and wasn't drawing anymore than he was before he held the belt. Historically, almost everyone draws much better when they hold a top title, but WWE has booked the titles into oblivion.

Once in awhile, you can have a title be held by a chicken ****, but historically titles have drawn better when they are almost always on someone who is protected. Even Flair drew best in his career during his early to mid 80s title runs, especially in St. Louis were he was booked strong, as opposed to as a cowardly undeserving champ.

Rusev jobber entrance in first match of night

How is that possible

guess i'm the only idiot watching...

show opens, reigns' music hits and he comes out with the belt.

as he's walking down the aisle you hear JoJo say "and his opponent, already in the ring, RUSEV!" and the camera pans to rusev lol

title match, opening match on RAW and they have a jobber entrance, presumably to save time for the hugely important goldust/R-Truth backstage silly segment later tonight