When the brand split began again, I knew WWE was gonna be stupid and create redundant belts. Before the "Women's Revolution" like six women got meaningful TV time at one time. Now, six women get meaningful TV time on two different shows. Based on that, it doesn't make much sense for there to be two women's championships. WWE hates leaving tag teams intact. You get MAYBE a year and a half as a team, then you have a cold feud where no one REALLY wants to see them fight, because we still want them to team together. Like how we were all clamoring for Jason Jordan's singles push, right? There are maybe four tag teams on either show. You know where I'm going: no need for two tag titles. So. Raise your hand if you're excited for cruiserweight tag championships and a North American championship!
Because we marks are not actually smart, we have stupidly accepted the necessity for a "midcard" championship. We accepted that hell, even with no brand split, there still needed to be two. Talk to wrestling fans long enough and you'll hear phrases like this: "So and so doesn't need to win the belt" "So and so is too over to be going for THAT belt" "It's a demotion for so and so to be challenging for that". So on, and so forth. So. In kayfabe, this is a prestigious belt, previously held by luminaries now enshrined in the WWE Hall of Fame. YOU think that such a prize is beneath so and so because he can get the marks to chant things. Or maybe so and so is at a main event level but they're pushing someone else. IF the belt means something, is it not better to have someone who ALSO means something hold it and add to its prestige? I'm telling you right now, the reason you don't see it that way is because there are too many belts for any of them to mean anything. Does the NFL have a midcard Super Bowl or just the one? There are too many belts in boxing, BUT if you win one of the world championships, you ARE a world champion. There ain't no midcard.
There is an expression: "If everybody is somebody, then really nobody is anybody." Most marks think wrestlers are interchangeable, that all you need to do to make someone a star AND KEEP THEIR STAR SHINING BRIGHT, is to book them strongly. Give them the right name and gimmick. So on and so forth. To piggy back off my last piece: you liked Roman Reigns in The Shield........ until it became popular to hate on the man Vince chose. The reality is, sometimes someone will get a push and people will hate that person for getting a push. Other times, someone will get a push out the blue and the people will accept it, but that person was not really worth pushing. Like Jinder Mahal. A lot of wrestling fans are under this mistaken impression that if you slap a belt on someone, they matter. Jinder Mahal... does not matter.
You know one of the things that makes marks say NXT shows are better than WWE shows before they ever even happen? Everything that happens on an NXT show matters. There are no filler matches. Very rarely is there a squash match or a jabroni anywhere to be seen. There is a brevity and conciseness to a 2.5 hour Takeover that even the 3 hour WWE shows lack. It has NOTHING to do with booking, or writing. There are usually five or six matches that are given time. Every match having 15-30 minutes to tell a story with every hold, as opposed to cramming 12-15 matches into even twice the time. One match might get around 25 minutes, some matches might last a minute or three. I'm not so much arguing that every match needs a long time. Maybe you're reading this and wondering what it has to do with my larger point. The connection I want you to make is this: LESS. IS. MORE. THAT is why NXT is received more favorably than WWE proper. One show a week. One hour. Four or five PPVs a year. Less overexposure of the product. The second NXT starts doing Takeover every month, it means less. When they add hours and matches, those hours and matches mean less.
If I was an authority figure in WWE, there would be ONE world champion. No midcard belts. ONE women's belt. ONE cruiserweight belt. ONE pair of tag team belts. When there are too many belts, it's almost like a participation trophy. You get a belt. She gets a belt. He gets a belt. EVERYBODY gets a belt. If everybody has a belt, what even does having a belt MEAN? HMM!?!