The Pros and Cons of WWE Ending the Raw and SmackDown Brand Split

As we get closer to October when WWE SmackDown will move from USA Network to Fox, the line between Raw and the blue brand continues to get blurrier with each passing day.

Vince McMahon recently created a wild-card rule to allow up to four Superstars from Raw or SmackDown to appear on the other brand each week. The problem is management has featured more than four Superstars from one brand on the other show every week since the stipulation began.

Fox and USA are both going to want the biggest stars in the company to appear on their networks. This puts WWE in a tough place when it is trying to maintain some semblance of the brand split. 

A lot of people assume it will end at some point anyway, but it's always possible WWE will find a way to make things work. Let's take a look at the pros and cons of ending the brand split.

The wild-card rule was something that came across as poorly thought out from the moment McMahon explained it would include three Superstars before quickly changing his mind to four after getting a glare from Lars Sullivan.

The execution has been even worse because WWE has ignored its own regulation every week and featured as many Superstars from one brand on the other as it wants.

As wrestling fans, we put up with a lot, but there is a certain point when you start to feel like the company is insulting your intelligence by being so sloppy with something that should have been cool.

If Raw and SmackDown shared the same pool of talent, the wild-card rule could go away and we could go back to seeing people show up when they are needed.

The last time WWE merged the rosters from Raw and SmackDown in 2011, a lot of superstars in the middle and lower end of the card started getting less TV time.

If all of the biggest stars from each show suddenly need time on both brands, there are a lot less minutes to go around for everyone else.

This led to the U.S. and Intercontinental Championships losing a lot of prestige and the tag team division going through one of its worst periods in history.

Keeping the rosters separate means there is guaranteed to be some time for WWE to work on building new stars so it doesn't have to rely on the big guns like Roman Reigns and AJ Styles to carry the company.

The wild-card rule has allowed WWE to book just about any feud it wants, but the company is still keeping a lot of the midcard talents on their specific shows.

Removing the invisible barrier between brands would allow WWE to put together any combination it wanted at any time, and with the number of great wrestlers the company has right now, that would lead to some great feuds.

We could see new alliances form and new vendettas created. Guys such as Andrade and The Viking Raiders could find themselves getting more TV time if they are always at both shows.

WWE has a lot of titles in circulation, especially if you count NXT and NXT UK, but with the size of the roster, it needs a lot of gold floating around.

The last time WWE merged the brands, a few championships went away. It took some time before different unifications took place, but it happened eventually. The WWE and World Heavyweight Championships became one in 2013.

WWE even merged the women's and Divas titles in 2010 at Night of Champions. If Raw and SmackDown went back to having one roster, all of this would happen again.

Even if some champions aren't always being pushed, having that belt around their waist gives them an immediate credibility.

Other than one or two times throughout the year, WWE never acknowledges the fictional competition between Raw and SmackDown for supremacy.

This fake feud only seems to pop up when WWE does a themed event like Survivor Series or Bragging Rights. A few people invade the other brand before the event and cut some promos about why their show is better, but that's about it.

This is another one of those things WWE does that feels like it is designed to please nobody. People aren't clamoring for a Raw vs. SmackDown feud because everyone knows it's all one company.

Merging the rosters will end this ridiculous farce and allow WWE to put together Survivor Series Elimination matches that make more sense instead of just lumping together several stars from each show for a one-off alliance. 

One of the biggest complaints from WWE fans is how repetitive the storylines feel, but it would be even worse if the same top stars are expected to carry two shows instead of one.

Roman Reigns is already pulling double duty on a regular basis and so have people such as Becky Lynch, Samoa Joe and Finn Balor.

Having two brands usually means we have two distinct sets of top stars from every division. If that goes away, the biggest names will rise to the top while everyone else fights for what limited time is left every week.

When you look at it from every angle, there are just as many cons to ending the brand split as there are pros. It's not an easy decision because it will affect a lot of people in different ways. Let's hope WWE has a plan in place for the future.

What do you think? Should WWE end the brand split?