Poll: Would you like to see more matches where the reigning IC or US champion challenges a world champion?

"Would you like to see more matches where the reigning IC or US champion challenges a world champion?"

Past matches pitting the two top singles champions of a single roster against each other include Bret Hart vs Shawn Michaels from Survivor Series 1992, The Ultimate Warrior vs Hulk Hogan from WrestleMania 6, and Goldberg vs Hollywood Hogan from WCW Nitro (July 6, 1998). Would you like to see opportunities for the secondary singles champion to challenge for the world title occur more often?

The choices are:

Yes, they should be TV main events once or twice a year per brand
Yes, they should be PPV main events once or twice a year per brand
Yes, there should be multiple matches per year featuring these challenges
No, wrestlers need to graduate from the secondary singles title before challenging for a world title
No, except in rare occasions
I have no real preference

cletus42o's Thoughts:
I was watching the Greatest Stars of the 90s DVD and just got to the matches..  and so I got to see bits from Hogan/Warrior, Goldberg/Hogan, and then the full match of Shawn Michaels vs Bret Hart from Survivor Series 92.

I've always been a fan of putting the champs against each other.  If the intercontinental or US title is the second-best singles title, you'd think the holder would be a perpetual number one contender.  I mean, I get why they're not considered that, but if you're not already a former world champion, I think it'd make sense for you to go after the IC title on your way to the world title. 

So yeah, I just put this poll up because it's something I'd like to see occasionally.  And I'm just curious what other people think.  I'll run through the options and my personal thoughts on each -

Yes, they should be TV main events once or twice a year per brand
It might not always be a main event quality match based on who is the current secondary champion, but it could be a good main event on an episode of Raw.  I know I'd be eager to see MVP vs Randy Orton or Rey Mysterio vs Edge.  The current champions might not always look so good together on paper as that, but on TV it's still more exciting than the standard handicap/tag team matches typically thrown together to build a storyline to a PPV.  Taking a break from the storyline process for a week here or there would lessen the amount of overexposure that's plagued most of the stories in WWE over the last few years.  And the champions' current opponents could easily make appearances during the match to further the actual feuds.

And hey, if it results in an actual title change at some point, that would give these matches purpose for being regularly-scheduled.  Who wouldn't want to hold the IC title if they knew at some point during the year they'd be getting a world title shot on Smackdown?

Yes, they should be PPV main events once or twice a year per brand
I remember a few years ago Smackdown didn't always have really long storylines for the world champion.  Some months they'd do the champion against someone who wanted to take up the challenge.  And once the month was up, the champion moved on to someone else.  I kinda liked having that break every now and then.  With three brands, one of the two main brands (Raw and Smackdown) can afford to do something like that at every part of the year that isn't from January to April.  How long does Triple H have to feud with Randy Orton?  Why don't other stars on Raw make a big deal out of someone hogging the world title challenger picture for so long?  They can always take breaks in feuds, too, and pitting the WWE champ against the US champ as a special attraction Raw main event at the next PPV would be a fun way to do it.

And like with the TV option above, it'd be nice for the title to actually change at some point in one of those matches.  Otherwise, everyone goes into them thinking it might be a great match but nothing of importance, storyline-wise, will happen because of it.

Yes, there should be multiple matches per year featuring these challenges
If they began pushing the secondary titles as "one step away" from the world titles, then it'd make sense to have the two champions battle regularly.  It'd make the secondary titles instantly interesting again, since you'd have as much reason to care about those titles changing as you do the world titles.  And if those titles started having heated battles to hold the title because of the chance to get world title shots fairly often, suddenly the world titles get a nice boost out of it. 

No, wrestlers need to graduate from the secondary singles title before challenging for a world title
If you don't really see the secondary titles as being anywhere near the world titles, then this is probably your option.  Rarely do secondary champions get the crowd as hot, only with exceptions like Ultimate Warrior, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, The Rock, and Goldberg.  The secondary titles are more like "you're #1 when it comes to the midcard wrestlers - but you're still not ready for the top of the card or even the upper midcard."  I think this is where the secondary titles are at now, but they could easily be seen as more.

No, except in rare occasions
Probably pick this one if no matter how you see the secondary titles, you think champion vs champion matches are special attractions that should only be saved for special occasions, like when there is another red-hot wrestler holding a secondary title.

I have no real preference
If it doesn't matter to you at all. :)