'%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)
WWE's next big pay-per-view is Survivor Series, which will take place in Chicago towards the end of November. It will be the first major show, barring Crown Jewel, after the WWE changes once again and the rosters are definitively split. The concept of Survivor Series in recent years has been brand warfare, with Superstars of RAW and SmackDown doing battle in various Champion vs Champion and 5-on-5 elimination matches.
It has been entertaining, especially in 2016, but the concept has become rather tiring for the fan to watch. There are many factors that lean towards SmackDown vs RAW actually being a bad idea for this year's Survivor Series pay-per-view.
On the night, the matches will almost certainly deliver if the pairings work. But on the whole, WWE needs to re-think the entire brand warfare concept. Maybe it's best to drop it for just this one year, if not more.
Here are five reasons why Survivor Series 2019 should not feature any brand warfare.
#5 No real logic
The segments leading up to Survivor Series are pretty entertaining more often than not. Almost every Superstar on the brand unites to fight a common enemy, but why are they doing that? It honestly does not make much sense, especially when two feuding Superstars are magically on the same page because they are loyal to their brand.
In 2016, and even 2017 to an extent, the concept was fresh and SmackDown had a point to prove. But in 2018, the entire pay-per-view seemed thrown together for the sake of brand warfare.
As the years have gone by since the start of the second brand split, this concept has felt more and more thrown together. Brand warfare makes even less sense this year, in particular, but more on that later.
#4 Forced matches
Just like the forced nature of last year's Survivor Series, some matches generally miss more than they hit. WWE introduced the format of having four Champion vs Champion matches between RAW and SmackDown at Survivor Series. The initial lineup for the 2017 edition did not seem good on paper.
Matches such as Natalya vs Alexa Bliss, The Miz vs Baron Corbin, and especially, Brock Lesnar vs Jinder Mahal. Luckily, WWE booked title changes to two of those matches. The entire 2018 Survivor Series PPV felt forced. The most eagerly awaited match between Ronda Rousey and Becky Lynch did not even happen at the show.
However, we still got some interesting matches. The two main events of Ronda Rousey vs Charlotte Flair, Lynch's replacement, and Brock Lesnar vs Daniel Bryan, saved a dying concept.
But for all of the quality, we got a lackluster Men's 5-on-5 elimination match which was miles away from the standard set in the 2016 match, and a match between AOP and The Bar which did not click at all, probably because of what happened to Drake Maverick during the match.
This year would probably see some similar situations, possibly in the tag team division again.
#3 It detracts from ongoing storylines
Every November, since 2016, WWE has focused mainly on the brand warfare storyline, more often than not. In fact, the only non-SmackDown vs RAW matches on the Survivor Series main card since then have been Buddy Murphy vs Mustafa Ali for the Cruiserweight Championship and Brock Lesnar vs Goldberg.
Every other feud has taken a backseat, delaying worthy pay-per-view matches for many hot storylines. And while WWE does well to incorporate the brand warfare factor into various storylines, it doesn't always become a hit with the fans. Last year, it looked like we would get a Survivor Series match of some sort between Kurt Angle and Baron Corbin, but it wasn't to be.
Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose were in a similar position, as a match between the two at the November pay-per-view probably would have helped their feud. However, Rollins, who was the Intercontinental Champion at the time, faced Shinsuke Nakamura at Survivor Series and his story with Ambrose became ice-cold by the time they had a match at TLC in December.
The worst part is that, nothing ever comes of this month of putting storylines on hold, after the show is over. WWE should allow some of its developing storylines to grow instead of lazily throwing together Champion vs Champion matches.
#2 No consequences at all
For all these years, WWE has constantly stressed the importance of brand supremacy. And from the buildup to Survivor Series, more often than not, you would be inclined to believe that.
Stephanie McMahon threatened to fire every member of Team Raw if they failed to beat Team SmackDown in the 5-on-5 men's match in 2016, while The Undertaker promised pain on Team SmackDown if they didn't win.
Team Raw lost on the show, everybody kept their jobs and it was never talked about beyond that week. The confusing finish to the 2017 pay-per-view between Triple H, Shane McMahon and Braun Strowman was also never even brought up.
Last year, Shane McMahon, fresh off winning the WWE World Cup, promised serious consequences if SmackDown would have lost on the night. They did, losing every single match on the main card. What did Shane O'Mac do following this major embarrassment? Nothing at all.
Raw's clean sweep did not even help them as the Red brand entered a dire month of television following the show. The lack of stakes and consequences puts fans off from the entire concept. There needs to be some sort of incentive for the winning show if the concept of brand warfare is to continue.
#1 The Wildcard Rule
While the previous four points focus on the general flaws of the SmackDown vs RAW concept for Survivor Series, this one is specific for 2019. The biggest reason why WWE should not book brand warfare for this November is the Wildcard Rule. A concept initially brought in by Vince McMahon to improve falling ratings, the Wildcard rule ruined the sanctity of the brand split.
Superstars appeared on both shows, overexposing themselves, and a lot of names went completely off TV. It did not even help ratings. Watching SmackDown Superstars fight RAW Superstars every week, the Wildcard rule has defeated the purpose of modern-day Survivor Series.
WWE is finally ending this rule in October, as we are gearing towards the Draft. Hopefully, the company can maintain their discipline in keeping both brands separate. But even then, Survivor Series should not feature any cross-brand matches.
After the confusing nature of Superstars floating between the two shows, it is hard to determine who is on which brand. We do not need any more confusion just a month into the new WWE rosters, especially since it feels like everybody has fought everybody at some point in the past five months.
Giving them time to breathe on their own would be the best possible way of re-instating the glorious feel of brand warfare.
WWE should seriously consider taking a break from that chaos this year and focus on differentiating RAW and SmackDown from each other.
