'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
Disclaimer: The views of the author do not necessarily represent that of Sportskeeda
Since 2016, WWE's Survivor Series pay-per-view event has been centered around brand supremacy. It's an interesting concept when done sparingly, or when wrestlers stick solely to their specific shows and never interact with the exception of events such as the Royal Rumble match. That has not been the case for the majority of the last brand split (2016 until... some point in 2019) and the current draft happened so recently that nobody has even had a chance to settle into their new show yet. Thankfully, WWE has the added element of NXT this year, which is absolutely brilliant. It should also be the final time that Survivor Series should be the home of the brand versus brand bragging rights contest.
Trending
We've seen some great matches over the years -- Brock Lesnar's matches with AJ Styles and Daniel Bryan were particularly outstanding. The Usos had a great match with Sheamus and Cesaro, and the SmackDown vs. RAW 10-on-10 elimination match in 2018 was also particularly enjoyable.
One of the biggest issues, however, is that there are no stakes. They hype up, for weeks and weeks, that it's all about brand supremacy, and the best brand will come out on top, and then, the next night on RAW, it's like none of it ever happened. The winners aren't happy to have bested the other brand and the losers aren't upset that they came up short. Nobody wins anything, nobody loses anything -- it's just... there. That's only one reason that this year should be the final brand vs brand (vs brand) edition of Survivor Series. Here are 5 more.
#5 Wrestlers appearing on other shows would have a bigger effect
WWE has always hyped the two different brands up to be a really big deal. They had split pay-per-views (an idea that they tried during the original and most recent versions before giving up due to low interest), the General Managers would argue over who would win the Royal Rumble match, and occasionally someone would show up on the other show as a big surprise.
The concept of splitting up the roster eventually started to disappear, and while WWE kept up the illusion that there were three brands (RAW, SmackDown, and ECW in that timeframe), stars from each show turned up just about every week on other shows, with some guys even showing up on all three. The Wildcard rule was just an excuse to have wrestlers show up whenever and wherever. Changing RAW's name from RAW to "RAW SuperShow" was the mid-to-late 2000s version of the Wild Card.
If WWE doesn't run a brand vs. brand show every year, it makes surprise appearances on different shows much more exciting. If it's rare, it's fresh.
#4 Raise the stakes, just on a different event
A decade ago, WWE tried out the concept of a brand supremacy pay-per-view event, and called it, fittingly, Bragging Rights. They only did it twice, in 2009 and 2010, when the brand split was already in shambles, but at least there was an attempt to make it important. Well, in 2009, the winners got a trophy. In 2010, they got, actually nothing. Scratch that. They didn't try to make it important. It was a gimmick to try to get people to watch. That's the same thing they have been doing for the last few years, only better, because the vast majority of the event is predicated on brand versus brand matches, which was not the case for the Bragging Rights event.
WWE has a chance to use the brand versus brand concept in a meaningful way. For example (and this comes from Ember Moon's appearance on WWE Backstage), the winning team of one of the 5-on-5 elimination tag matches could earn a chance to wrestle each other on a different night with the 30th spot in the Royal Rumble on the line. Another way to shake it up would be making the champion vs. champion matches more than just exhibitions. Don't give the winner both titles, but have the losing champion lose his belt, and have a tournament or other type of match (that he/she isn't allowed to part of) to crown a new champion. Stakes! Make it important!
Just don't do it at Survivor Series. The event already has a great selling point. Much like the Royal Rumble, WWE has an eponymous match that can be used. By having the event dominated primarily by 4-on-4 and 5-on-5 elimination matches, you bring back the concept that WWE created in the first place, and it makes the event different, and therefore more meaningful. That brings us to our next point.
#3 What's old is new
The original concept for the Survivor Series pay-per-view was putting together a series of matches in which teams of 4 or 5 would battle it out until one team had lost all of its members. It was something completed new and different for the (then) WWF, and it served to break up the monotony of regular wrestling matches.
They say "what's old is new" because, after a period of time, people forget about how things used to be, so when you bring something back, it feels like a new, or at least very fresh, concept. WWE does indeed run a few elimination tag matches every year (2 in 2017, 3 last year, and 2 this year, for recent history), the first editions of the show saw the majority of the matches play out under this format.
It's a very fun format, and can be a great way to take a break from the normal and do something truly different. Even the "gimmick" or "concept" PPV events such as Hell in a Cell or Elimination Chamber aren't really all that special. They do a couple of matches that involve the concept of the show, and everything else is just normal and often forgettable. They're just regular shows with a bit of sugar sprinkled on top.
Why not run a show with mostly elimination tags? You can put one, or even both, of the World Titles on the line, but everything else can throw us back to the original concept. It would be something truly different to look forward to every year, and the possibilities are endless in regards to stakes. Some matches are just for fun and some could have bigger prizes at stake.
#2 NXT/WWE TakeOver: Brand Warfare
If WWE is truly serious about making NXT a true 3rd brand, they have to start treating it that way. Over the past month, that has definitely been the case, but will the trend continue after this weekend? It's hard to say, but conventional wisdom points at no.
With the concept of brand warfare at Survivor Series being a tired one, why not use an NXT Takeover special to bring all three brands together under one roof for a cross-promotional melee? This adds importance to the NXT brand and allows them to do something similar to 2019's mid-year NXT TakeOver: XXV event. It doesn't have to be attached to a WWE PPV, just let it stand alone on a Saturday night, like usual, but have RAW and SmackDown bring representatives to the party to make it something special for the NXT brand.
As a matter of fact, does it even have to be brand warfare? Why not bring everyone together and have NXT wrestlers team with RAW and SmackDown wrestlers? Do some brand vs. brand matches, which would include RAW vs. SD, RAW vs. NXT, and SD vs. NXT, and maybe even a triple threat involving all three, but they don't all have to include all three brands.
It's all about getting creative. You can make it about brand warfare, or you can make it a celebration of the entire company getting together to put on the best wrestling show possible. These days, NXT Takeover events are known for being just that, so why not let RAW and SmackDown share some of that glory?
#1 You can spread it out over a few weeks
You can't really call it the World Cup, since that's not what it really is, and also since they already did that for last year's Crown Jewel event, but it's an intriguing concept. TNA, for many years, did things like the World X Cup, which saw teams with representatives from all over the world compete in different types of matches over the course of a few weeks to determine a winner. There weren't a ton of stakes, but it was a fun, exciting, and different concept. There were singles matches, tag matches, Ultimate X matches, and more, and it was one big event spread out over the course of a number of weeks.
Instead of relegating it to one night, why not spread it out? WWE always has a down period following WrestleMania and there's a bit of a lull in the action before they start ramping things up again for SummerSlam. There's Money in the Bank, but I would argue that MITB could move back to WrestleMania in order to allow WWE to run a series of different match types on RAW, SmackDown, and NXT television throughout the month of April and into early May, culminating in a big PPV event at the end of May in which the finals are held.
Do something completely different. Use a points system. Use all sorts of different match types. Going this route gives you around six weeks of entertaining, special television that only comes around once a year, and comes to a conclusion with a big event that crowns winners for different things. The winning brand gets something, such as their choice of wrestler (or wrestlers) to join their brand, maybe take the championship from one of the losing brands and make it their own -- the possibilities only end where your imagination ends. Certain Superstars could get extra rewards by being the MVP for their brand, such as a title shot at the championship of their choosing, and so on, and so forth.
Why limit brand warfare to one night?
Have you checked out Sportskeeda's new feature here? Vote for your favorite match at this location, folks.
