The Brock Lesnar experiment

Scott
I know you haven't been watching weekly (much like myself) but where do you stand on the part time Champion? Has the experiment failed, or can it be considered in any way a success? Nothing seems to be improving the ratings but has it raised the prestige of the title? Or has it not being there harmed it? I suppose the other main question would be if it hasn't worked, could it have been done differently and it absolutely could have worked? Will the part time 'special attraction' champ be more common moving forward? Thanks Scott, loving your work. (Oh and Reigns/Lesnar could be the weirdest styles clash I've ever seen. The WWE must have faith they have a **** match in them… Right?)

​I think it was an interesting and worthwhile experiment, but we really need the World champion to at least defend that sucker every 30 days.  Yes, the TV title defenses and such were deflating the importance of the belt on a weekly basis, but taking to the extremes of having Brock be gone and not even MENTIONED for months at a time is just too much and leaves the product completely directionless.  Having someone holding it and only defending on PPV is the happy medium they should have gone with, but it would have made Brock too expensive to use.  
So I'd call it a good idea in theory, put much like communism or geometry, not all theories work out in real life.  ​