I wished they'd have gone with Raw and Smackdown belts, so you'd have a Raw champion, Smackdown champion, and NXT champion. Then kept the WWE title for Goldberg/Lesnar/Reigns/Cena and only had it defended three or four times a year.
Going a step further, Raw could have a traditional tag title and let Smackdown have a trios tag championship instead, to give it some difference. All belts would look the same (like the UFC) but would have different coloured leather. Keep the WWE title black obv.
That would widen the already problematic chasm between 'current champions' and 'actual big time wrestlers'.
I don't think it would widen it. The problem's already there between the top normal guys and the elite guys like Lesnar and Goldberg, and I think that's a problem that goes far beyond who's champion. Someone on here suggested giving Goldberg the Universal title and that would feel like a big step down for Goldberg. I think there'd be more merit from eventually giving the WWE title to the next star every year or two. What we have currently is two lacklustre world belts. At least with a Raw and Smackdown belt, you could have two lacklustre show-specific belts (essentially what the WWE/Universal are now) and still be able to retain that top belt for the big occasions (Summerslam/Rumble/Wrestlemania etc).
More than anything, the names of the current singles belts make no sense. World/Universal/Intercontinental/US/Cruiserweight. The first three essentially mean the same thing (or is Universal bigger because it can be defended throughout the universe), the US belt doesn't have any criteria that makes it US-only, and the cruiserweight title means nothing in an era when cruisers can go for the big belts.
Edited by Undefeated Steak, 25 November 2016 - 12:58.