Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan
Think I'd rather see Sting as champion for a month than Rollins keep it. Since TNA doesn't exist in the "WWE universe", he's at least got some credibility as a huge star who would bring the prestige of the title up for a bit by holding it.
Honestly, I think I'd rather see Brock holding it while making his rare appearances still than have it on Seth Rollins as he jobs left and right and makes it look like a glorified title for losers. It should always be on someone ridiculously over until they're able to get someone else to that level. This "throw your world championship on a guy and hope to maybe get them over to that level later" thing is just bad for business all around and makes the title itself not draw for shit.
|
He's older than Vince when Vince won the title. How is that bringing prestige to the title? WWE has been very smart with their long term booking, I would be shocked if they did all this build up of Rollins only to have him lose to a guy that is old and past his prime. Especially if the plan would be just to put the belt back on Rollins. If they really wanted to give Sting a moment, have Seth get royally screwed. Cena runs in, and causes the pinfall, and then the next night on RAW Sheamus cashes in MITB on Sting. But even that is convoluted.
Another option if they want to get another month out of Sting, is have Rollins retain via DQ and then that justifies the HIAC rematch. In fact, if they did it where Rollins-Sting goes on before Rollins-Cena (say they flip a coin backstage to determine the order of the matches), then you can have Rollins retain via DQ, Cena beats Rollins for the US title with Sting's help. That sets up HIAC where you have Rollins go over Sting clean. That also sets up Survivor Series nicely where you can have a Rollins-Cena rematch for the WWE title.