Daily DDT
Fansided

WWE: SmackDown Live’s Top 10 Will Only Work If It’s About Competition

By Christopher Jeter

facebooktwitterreddit

For the past two weeks, WWE SmackDown Live’s Top 10 rankings have had little bearing on the storylines. Vince McMahon’s booking philosophies are a major reason why.

A couple of weeks ago, SmackDown Live General Manager Daniel Bryan introduced fans to the SmackDown Live Top 10 rankings via a cellphone promo. Like a lot of WWE’s ideas, it seemed pretty interesting at first. Then, Bryan started explaining the criteria for the poll, which included “talent”, “locker room leadership” and “athletic skill”.

Looking at those prerequisites, I thought “that doesn’t make much sense”, but I wanted to see the first rankings before I passed full judgment. After WWE released them, I was still scratching my head. Why were all of SmackDown’s champions included? How will the rankings determine who fights for a championship? But then I calmed down and decided to wait and see how the rankings would play out in storylines.

Again, WWE disappointed me. The rankings got a passing mention from Tye Dillinger (who ranks tenth on the list, get it?) and spawned a confounding verbal exchange between United States Champion Bobby Roode, Randy Orton, and Jinder Mahal. Otherwise, it was the usual dull Shane McMahon/Daniel Bryan/Kevin Owens/Sami Zayn nonsense.

WWE had a chance to give its Tuesday night show a realistic, sports-like feel, but Vince McMahon’s reticence to promote his product as anything but a “male soap opera” pigeonholed this concept from the beginning.

What the list missed

There were two problems with these rankings from the start. The first was the proclamation that the SmackDown wrestlers would vote for their colleagues. Apparently, neither Bryan nor SmackDown Live commissioner Shane McMahon could see the problem with this, in-universe. What keeps someone like, say, Sarah Logan, from voting for her Riott Squad stablemates? What’s stopping Kofi Kingston from voting for Xavier Woods or Big E? From the start, WWE turned this list into the wrestling equivalent of the college football/basketball coaches poll, rendering it worthless.

More from Daily DDT

Second, WWE failed to incorporate the most important part of wrestling into the rankings: wins and losses. You know, the thing that determines how good a wrestler is. Whenever a SmackDown competitor referenced the Top 10, in-ring success never entered the conversation. Sadly, this development shouldn’t surprise longtime WWE viewers.

The company has always used wins and losses when it best benefitted their stories and outright ignored them elsewhere. Look no further than Jinder Mahal’s ascent to the main event scene last summer, for example. WWE figured they could transform career jobber Mahal into a legit WWE Champion at the snap of Vince’s fingers. Shockingly, that didn’t work.

Need more examples? Look at how WWE books their 50/50 midcard, or how they have booked almost every Money in the Bank winner since that gimmick’s inception. Just last Monday on RAW, Kurt Angle placed Seth Rollins in an Elimination Chamber qualifying match, not because “The Kingslayer” won a bunch of high profile matches, but because Rollins didn’t have a bout signed for the pay-per-view.

Lackluster storylines

WWE’s first use of the Top 10 for their storylines misfired last Tuesday. Here’s what happened, Mahal interrupted a potential Roode/Orton confrontation and mentioned “The Viper’s” low placement in the rankings and used that to try and stir the pot between two men who were already looked like they were going to fight. Roode then brought up Mahal’s absence from the rankings (everyone in the Top 10 was a babyface) and said Mahal wasn’t on the list because no one likes him. That’s a ridiculous reason to keep a former WWE Champion off of the list (even one lacking in credibility).

The list also had no impact on the main event scene. As Bryan Heaton pointed out in his piece last week, all of WWE Champion A.J. Styles’ Fastlane challengers failed to crack the Top 10. If wrestlers–particularly ones that Shane doesn’t like–can earn a WWE Title shot without making the Top 10, what’s the point of having a list?

Can WWE fix the Top 10?

WWE has a knack for making simple concepts more complicated than they should be. All Vince and the creative team had to do was mirror college football/basketball’s Associated Press Top 25. While some inherent biases exist in those polls, the AP Top 25 bases their rankings on win/loss record, quality of opponent and margin of victory. Those three criteria are more than enough to craft compelling stories week-to-week.

A better defined Top 10–perhaps one that’s divided into specific divisions–would ease WWE’s creative burden. It would better define the wrestler’s positioning on the card, make match results matter, and create tangible reasons for specific matches. Heck, it could create stories out of matches based on how long they last.

WWE will probably never abandon the sillier aspects of their product, and they don’t have to. Even the more sports-heavy promotions like Ring of Honor and New Japan Pro Wrestling feature lighthearted characters. However, both of those feds have a solid storytelling foundation based on wrestlers proving who’s the best. WWE strays from this simple yet effective base far too often.

Next: The Pros And Cons Of The New PPV Format

The SmackDown Live Top 10 can only work if WWE commits to presenting their product as an athletic competition rather than a three-ring circus. Until then, the rankings are just another way for WWE to superficially try to “put smiles on peoples faces”.