Should WWE experiment with a non-static roster?
The WWE creative staff comes under heavy fire - which is what tends to happen when a writer scripts a line like "Empress Of Nothing" as a sick burn - but it must be a thankless and difficult task, padding out WWE television. Creative targets an audience of one which, in principle, simplifies matters. That audience however is Vince McMahon, which actually complicates matters. The man is incredibly erratic. One week, he'll book Finn Bálor to defeat AJ Styles on pay-per-view. The next, he'll book a decrepit dinosaur in Kane to undo 20 minutes of hard graft. And, since those events actually took place over the span of 24 hours, the difficult becomes impossible.
Moreover, the weekly churn demands filler, which in turn results in arbitrary win/loss records and the diminished aura that results from an all-encompassing sense of meaninglessness. A non-static roster approximating the territory days may see the end of, say, Dolph Ziggler doing the same things over and over and over again. In an indictment of the modern, competition-free system, the majority of the list entries that follow are from the recent past. Should WWE experiment with a non-static roster?
Or should they just fire the f*cking writers?