PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE



By Dave Scherer on 2016-07-31 10:00:00

You can send us questions for the Q and A by clicking here.

Is the WWE Universal Championship a World Title, or is it something else?

WWE is making it a “championship” on par with The WWE Title.

If WWE is taking the split rosters after the draft so serious then why do they have cross brand matches for dark matches after Raw and Smackdown every week?

The only thing I can think of is to give little extra to the fans in attendance.  The problem will be putting Smackdown talents on Raw dark mains will deprive people at the Monday house shows of seeing talent there.

While I thought the "New Era" of both shows started things in the right direction, I immediately was irked that Raw is introducing a WWE "Universal" Championship.  I feel like it diminishes the current WWE Championship, and hurt Dean Ambrose as the title holder.  I would think the idea would be for Raw to build up #1 contenders to try and capture the WWE Title away from Smackdown.  It would be considered bragging rights (please don't bring this PPV title back) that one show holds over the other.  Plus, as champion, Dean could be "invited" to Raw to cut promos against potential opponents (not wrestle, since that could still be exclusive to Smackdown).  The same should also apply to the Women's Title and the Tag Team Titles.  Your thoughts?

I too would have preferred that the WWE champion defend against challengers from both brands and been the only top title holder, but WWE didn’t see it that way.  I have said from the beginning that I wanted to see the WWE champion defend against people from both brands and when he lost the belt, he went to the brand of the person that beat him.  But, WWE wants a top belt on Raw.  I don’t think it hurts Dean however.  He retained THE belt and took it to Smackdown.

I know this is beating a dead horse, but in regards to Lesnar's failed test, it makes no sense why they couldn't suspend him.  Even if his contract says he's exempt, it was a simple PR move.  They could have suspended him, retroactive to the date of the test, and that would include 30 days he wasn't even booked for WWE.  If he was supposed to be paid for that time period, who says they can't give him a bonus equal to that pay at the next PPV?  This would have been a short conversation with Brock to explain what would be happening.  No one would have been punished, no business lost, it would have been a simple 2 sentence statement on their website, and there would be no story.

I couldn’t agree with you more.  And frankly, the fact that they let Brock fight in UFC and create this issue in the first place, I think he should have realized he blew the lid off of the fact that some guys don’t get tested and should have volunteered to be suspended.  Had WWE not agreed to let him fight, this would have never happened.  Since he caused it, I think he should manned up and told WWE to suspend him so that he didn’t cause them any bad PR.

Following on from Roman Reigns suspension one would assume he is in the doghouse.  At Battleground was it a slight on Roman Reigns having the USO’s lift Dean Ambrose onto their shoulders to celebrate his victory or just another case of there being little logic in WWE?  After all he had just beaten their family member and denied him the WWE title.  Guessing the Smackdown brand is thicker than blood...

I got a lot of people emailing me about that and I didn’t see it the way you did.  I know I have played sports against my cousins for years and my team beating their team was what I wanted to do.  I just saw the Usos as being happy that their team won.

You can send us questions for the Q and A by clicking here.

If you enjoy you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more, right now for THREE DAYS free by clicking here!