Let’s talk about titles

Hey Scott.
Which titles would you have in WWE? Bringing back a title or titles is fair game. Personally I would have 1 world title, keep both the intercontinental and US title, and bring back the cruiserweight. Yah, I know they are all
pretty meaningless at the moment, especially the U.S. Sheamus and Punk are off to good starts at the top at least, even though I hate the idea of 2 world titles. Oh, and I guess keep the tag titles:  hire back Team Angle, bring in the Outlaws for a little nostalgia, and get some current teams over! How would you book the stagnant tag division?

This e-mail is just all over the place, man.  Pick a topic and focus!  Anyway, the first question is more interesting to me.
I really liked the setup in 2002.  You had ONE World title with a champion who was multi-brand, and then the idea was going to be that the Intercontinental title was exclusive to RAW as the #1 belt when the World champ wasn't around, and the US title was going to be the #2 belt on Smackdown.  So that way you'd have the World champion wrestling only on PPV to keep it special, but you could do big TV matches based around the secondary belts.  Then from there you have the #3 singles belts to distinguish the brands — RAW would get the Hardcore title (or a TV title for the PG Era) and Smackdown would get the Cruiserweight title.  The tag champs could also work both shows, but frankly at this point I'd just kill the belts anyway.  Any belt that Titus & Young are the #1 contenders for isn't worth saving.