8 Reasons Daniel Bryan Shouldn't Be Part Of WrestleMania's Main Event
8. It Undermines The Royal Rumble
The Royal Rumble is a storied tradition, dating back decades in WWE history. It began way back in 1988, with the stipulation that the winner gets a title shot at wrestlemania being added in 1993. Very few times has the finish been questionable, and only twice since then has the winner not then gone on to be a part of a Wrestlemania title match (Stone Cold Steve Austin in '97 and Vince McMahon in '99, in case you were wondering) But times are changing in the modern WWE, and the past is being forgotten. The prestigious King Of The Ring no longer exists. Survivor Series, formally one of the "big four" steeped in history has seemingly become "just another PPV" (assuming you ignore the last one) and now WWE risk doing the same thing with the Royal Rumble. For the past few years, the Rumble victors have been predictable and disappointing. That is a booking problem, and one that they need to address. But they need to address it at the actual PPV rather than chicken out afterwards. They made their choice with Reigns, and right or wrong, they should stick with it in this instance. If they take his shot away with no storyline reason, they not only make their lack of faith in their choice more obvious, they render the whole concept of the Royal Rumble pointless.
Stephen Maher has been a rock star, a bouncer, a banker and a busker on various streets in various countries. He's hung out with Robert Plant, he was at Nelson Mandela's birthday and he's swapped stories with prostitutes and crack addicts. He once performed at a Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras by accident. These days, he passes the time by writing about music, wrestling, games and other forms of nerdery. And he rarely drinks the blood of the innocent.
