WWE's idea behind splitting Otis and Mandy Rose between brands explained  

WWE's decision to trade Mandy Rose to RAW caught everyone off guard. Rose and Otis' storyline relationship was going along just fine until the news of the trade was first announced by The Miz.

Mandy Rose was mysteriously absent on the most recent episode of RAW, however, what's WWE's idea behind splitting up the on-screen couple between brands?

Dave Meltzer provided an explanation behind the angle in the latest edition of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter:

Meltzer noted that the idea is that Mandy Rose and Otis will have a long-distance relationship. They won't be allowed to be together due to the brand restrictions.

Meltzer explained the idea:

The idea is Otis and Rose are now going to have a long distance relationship given that no world exists in these characters except Monday and Friday night and they aren't allowed to be together

The trade happened after Miz was able to get Mandy Rose on RAW due to his' connections in high places.' The angle is a part of the ongoing feud between Otis & Tucker and The Miz & Morrison. The A-Lister and his tag team partner have tried to steal the Money in the Bank contract on multiple occasions, but they have been outsmarted thus far.

What's next for Otis and Mandy Rose?

Mandy Rose clearly stated in her statement following the move that her relationship with Otis is here to stay.

"If I'm going to RAW, that's great. I'll do bigger and better things on Mondays then I've done on Fridays. Oh, and if you think you're going to split Otis and I up, thing again Miz. There are 7 days in a week and me and MR. Money in the Bank are as tight as ever."

Based on all the reactions as well as WWE's current booking direction, Otis and Mandy Rose will continue to be an on-screen couple but things won't as they were before.

The storyline should have more twists and turns in the weeks to follow, and it's still too early to determine the endgame. What are your predictions? What happens to Otis and Mandy Rose's relationship in the long-run?