Entering WrestleMania 31, Roman Reigns was supposed to win the World title by defeating the man who had beaten The Undertaker the year previously. Yet reaction was so negative that WWE decided to delay pulling the trigger on Roman for a year. Seth Rollins was instead employed as what could best be described as the longest reigning transitional champion in history, a titleholder whose reign would be designed to be so cowardly, so Honkytonk Man-esque that the fanbase would have no choice but to rally behind Roman when he finally received another shot at the title.
But what if WWE had stuck to their principles and gone with Roman a year earlier? We would now be into the second year of the Roman Reigns Era, with the transition from Cena further along. Would Roman still be champion at this point, enjoying what would now be a 14 month tenture as World Champion? Who would he have beaten? And most importantly, since they made Roman the titleholder anyway, was it a mistake to not begin the process a year ago?
It was a good move delaying it, he wasn't close to ready. He's improved quite a bit since then, still don't think it's enough to demand the booking he's getting. Ideally, they should just keep Cena as the FOTC and build 3-4 guys up as potential successors and let the fans decide.
I think Roman was more ready then than he was over last 6 months. I mean this was pre-Rollins, many didn't like Lesnar having the belt, and Roman would have started off on right foot.
But instead, WWE does the right thing, only to wait a year and bone us even harder than they would have when they did "the right thing". I'm actually sick of WWE doing the right thing, only to inevitably do the opposite.
Umm Rollins cashing in wasn't the plan all along. They literally told Reigns that he wasn't gonna win the championship at the last minute, and Vince was the only one who knew it beforehand. Understandably Reigns's family is furious after seeing Reigns lose despite being told he would beat Brock Lesnar to win the title. So yeah, it wasn't the original plan for Seth to cash in, it was more of a last minute decision.
Brock would be worthless now if that happened. Keep in mind yea Cena got a win vs Brock by hitting him with a chain at ER and HHH got a win at WM29 via interference. But if Brock would have let Roman pin him clean it would have been the WOAT WrestleMania moment.
This feud wouldn't happen in the first place, I am pretty sure Sting would still work with Seth over something else (maybe stolen vibrator from his briefcase).
Same end result. Rollins only has 2.5 months left to cash in, which neuters Reigns since he needs a substantial title reign to condition the audience into accepting and embracing him.
Was definitely the right decision at the time considering the Rumble reaction despite Rock's support and, if anything, it would've been rejected much more than the original 1st WWEWHC win after Rollins injury.
They did what they had to do. Roman would have been a disaster, even though he's a disaster right now, it would have been worse then. He was so, so, so out of his depth main eventing that year.
Speaking of Reigns, can anyone tell me any feud that from Reigns is 'memorable' or has left an impact? Because the feud with HHH just didn't strike to me, neither did this feud with AJ. AJ's feud probably doesn't strike because it involves 6 people instead of 2. And i guess HHH's feud there was that large gap of no action when Reigns was out with busted nose.
I dont have anything against Reigns.. just don't like that he has 3 WWE titlereigns and yet i can't even point out a feud that would be meaningful for his career. Feud with HHH could have been it.
His feud with Brock was pretty meh... i mean their final faceoff before PPV was two guys pulling the belt like two kids fighting over who gets to use the bucket in sandbox.
He was universally rejected in 2015 and continues to be so in 2016. No real change.
The Rollins cash in is top 10 greatest WM moments of all time, so I'd rather keep everything the same, apart from Rollins' injury, as I think we were going to see a Shield triple threat at WM32.
Same end result, except maybe Rollins never gets a run with the belt. I still think it was a mistake not to have someone beat Brock at WrestleMania and that they've already diluted the mythical "Streak Heat."
Reigns wasn't ready a year ago, but still isn't in some ways. He's just working with talent now that's helping him pull off great main events, which he deserves credit for, but as a character, he still is underdeveloped and boring.
Would have been worse than it is now. Bryan's injuries hadn't lead to his retirement yet, and people hoped he'd still be back, so the boo's would have been raucous.
Styles wasn't in the WWE, so they wouldn't have had him to carry Reigns for two straight months.
He was worse in the ring than he is now. Only slightly worse, cause he's still borderline atrocious, but still bad.
His mic work, and the build up to that match was the worst mania build up in history, bar none. If he had have won, the entire world would have shit on reigns, and not just real wrestling fans.
There was way too much wrong with last year, the build, and Reigns himself for that to be the time. It's in the past anyway.
Today it feels so weird that WWE actually changed their plans with Roman Reigns because he was booed. Or rather, changed them for the time being. Nowadays, all they do is provide an excuse as to why he's being booed such as "they really like him, but they boo him because that's his thing" and "love him or hate him, you're passionate about him".
To this day i still doubt of this idea that he didn't win because he was booed, i think the main reason was because they realized it was too to early to give him such a big rub like that in his career.
Rollins would still have to cash in his briefcase before June, which means that Reigns' first title reign would not last longer than 3 months. As a result we would get Rollins vs. Reigns in June 2015 instead of a year later, and Rollins would probably drop the title back to Reigns a month later instead of having a 7-month title reign.
So in hindsight, fans helped establish Rollins as a true main-eventer. And looking at what have played out in reality, a year later in 2016 they still have the unbeatable monster in Lesnar(who destroyed both Cena and Reigns), and Reigns and Rollins are both made superstars now. So I think no one would disagree that at WM31 they've made an excellent last-minute decision.
It probably would have been more of the same to be honest. Lesnar would likely have disappeared, Reigns would have feuded with guys like Bray and Seth, potentially Ambrose, it just would have been even worse than it is now, as he was even greener back then.
If a one year less experienced Reigns, beat the freaking BROCK LESNAR at 'Mania 31, the backlash would have been so, so bad. It would have really left a bitter taste in all those who have watched the show. The ending of Rollins cash-in, Reigns eating the pin and Lesnar looking strong in defeat was what actually saved that main event.
HHH favor both guys but Rollins it's HHH personal pet project (he even gave him his finisher) his cash was destined to be successful I'm sure Reigns crowds reaction wasn't a factor (hes still getting the same rejection) , even without Rollins getting the mania moment the booking wouldn't change much.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Wrestling Forum
23.4M posts
266.5K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.