'%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)
Ever since WWE has had two shows in the form of RAW and SmackDown, there have usually been two sets of tag team titles. It has provided the opportunity for teams to be recognised as champs on both shows. Some teams like The New Day and The Usos have become legendary for their exploits in the WWE tag team division.
They have helped carry the division but there have also been teams like Heath Slater and Rhyno and Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder who have also won belts within the last three years.
It's good to get the titles on some other people, but in the context of the history behind the titles, will those title wins be remembered as fondly as the eight reigns of The New Day?
The point is that it is nice for both brands to have a set of tag team titles, but the current structure of the company isn't really as conducive to that as it could be. If the company had an embarrassment of riches in the division, like the NXT Women's division, then it would be totally feasible to continue working with a set of titles for each show.
A good way to make the titles seem even more prestigious would be to consolidate the belts into one entity (again). There are usually about five tag teams per brand and when a year or two passes, practically every team on either RAW or SmackDown will have won those titles. I think it's time for WWE to only carry one set of tag team titles for its tag teams and here are five reasons why.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the article belong to the writer and doesn't necessarily represent Sportskeeda's stand.
#5 It takes away the depth problem
With all of the recent roster moves, all divisions have been slightly reshuffled. The SmackDown tag division primarily now consists of The Usos, The Forgotten Sons, The Miz and John Morrison, New Day, Heavy Machinery, The B-Team and The Lucha House Party. In the last few months, we've also seen the teams of Dolph Ziggler & Robert Roode, Cesaro & Shinsuke Nakamura and Daniel Bryan & Drew Gulak.
RAW has consisted of AOP, The Viking Raiders, The Street Profits, Cedric Alexander & Ricochet and Austin Theory & Angel Garza. All but the last two teams in the RAW division have been Champions. With SmackDown, a good part of its mid-card is tied up in tag teams.
If there was only one set of titles to fight over, then it would make the depth on each show less of an issue. Every team would eventually get a shot at the titles at some point but it would allow the mid-card to be more varied. SmackDown's mid-card can have many alliances but it needs Superstars that are primarily singles competitors.
#4 They won't have to constantly pair two singles Superstars together
One of WWE's answers to any questions raised about the tag team division has been to pair two singles competitors together. It's either because of necessity or to give some Superstars new direction. They've done it forever and will continue to do so.
If depth isn't an issue, then the necessity to bolster the division's depth would be moot. If injuries or departures are a problem, then it makes sense to pair two Superstars together in the tag team division. But SmackDown's current landscape is overrun by teams rather than Superstars in the singles division. Bryan and Gulak have an alliance but could feasibly be thrust into the tag team scene. Cesaro and Nakamura have been both singles competitors and tag team participants lately. With almost seven teams, they could be primarily featured in the mid-card.
RAW's tag team division is a little different with two teams featuring pairings of singles Superstars. AOP is currently a man down due to injury whereas the Viking Raiders and Street Profits have already won gold. Austin Theory and Angel Garza competed for the titles at WrestleMania 36, but were unsuccessful.
If depth is indeed an issue, then it makes perfect sense to pair two Superstars together. But as things sit on Friday nights, there are four teams that are comprised of singles competitors. Nakamura, Cesaro, Morrison, Miz, Bryan, Gulak, Ziggler and Robert Roode should be competition for singles gold. If the need arises, then form one team. But the entire mid-card on Friday nights is lacking due to an overabundance of tag teams.
#3 Every team on the roster won't necessarily get a run with the titles
On RAW, three of the current five teams have been tag Champs. On SmackDown, due to greater depth, five of the ten teams that have at least competed together this year have held tag team gold. If the titles are so prestigious, then why has half of each division already had runs as Champions?
The New Day and The Usos have become synonymous with the tag team division for the last seven years. It makes sense that they are consistently in the title picture. But just throwing a title reign the way of the B-Team or giving one to Ryder and Hawkins isn't necessary. Every title is special and if most of the teams/Superstars on the roster have had a run as Champion then it takes away the luster of being the best.
The same thing happened briefly after the brand split in 2016. The SmackDown Women's division consisted of Becky Lynch, Naomi, Carmella, Natalya, Alexa Bliss and Eva Marie. Of all of those women, only Eva Marie failed to capture a title. If everyone on the show has been a Champion, then what really sets them apart? It's does give the commentators the right to call the women a "former Champion" but the accomplishment is lessened if more than half of the division can claim that. Titles are important and should not be given to anyone and everyone.
#2 They won't have to run the same match-ups
While the talent of The New Day and The Usos is apparent and useful, there are only so many times that we need to see them fight each other. A new team might get added into the feud to bring a new wrinkle to the pairing, as The Miz and John Morrison were on the build to WrestleMania 36.
When The Revival was still a part of WWE, they were often feuding with one or both of the teams. The action always delivered but it kept other teams from getting a chance. Too much of the same thing can become stagnant.
The same hasn't happened a lot of the main roster yet but the Street Profits and the Viking Raiders fought in NXT a few times. Erik and Ivar bested Ford and Dawkins each time and it was woven into their upcoming match on RAW next week. When we constantly see the same two or three teams always battling for the titles, it only usually works if there is a drastic change in the dynamics of the feud (heel/face dynamics).
By having only one set of tag team belts, it would allow different teams that are worthy to get a chance. It would also prolong the potential pairings of teams that always face each other by offering up a break from constantly facing each other.
#1 It makes them seem more special
When antique hunters find a rare item, it makes it more special because there aren't so many of them. The value is higher due to fewer being available to the masses. With wrestling, there are usually four main titles in a promotion - the World Championship, the Women's title, a mid-card belt and tag team titles.
In a company as big as WWE, there are two sets of four titles each for RAW and SmackDown. At various times in the last few years, there were also the 24/7 Championship and the Cruiserweight title. Altogether, that was 10 titles on the main roster.
WWE has about 10-15 teams on its roster and that means that almost every one of those teams has a chance to hold the gold with two sets of belts. Adding another worthy team into the mix every once and a while works so that we aren't always having the same Champions.
Only one set of titles would make them more prestigious as every team would be gunning for them. It would make qualifying matches to challenge for them more meaningful. WWE could also cut out the usual "the challenger has pinned the Champion" tactic that is often used to build to a potential title match.
With Brock Lesnar as a part-time Champion, it was frustrating because he was not a weekly presence on TV. But what it did do was make any time he did show up seem even more special. The title wasn't defended every month, making the times it was defended all the more important.
If WWE only had one set of titles, it would also allow the Champions to moonlight on both shows and have feuds with a varied lot of teams. The pairings would be determined by the PPV cycle, but it would allow WWE a lot of freedom creatively.
