To ensure a great 'Mania main event, should WWE drop the Royal Rumble angle?

[MCWAY]

Should the guaranteed WM title shot angle be dropped from the Rumble? Or should that match simply be bumped in favor of a more popular one?

Part of the issue with guaranteeing an awesome main event for the biggest show of the year is the 23+ year-old-angle that the Rumble winner gets a main-event world title shot at WrestleMania.

But, it seems the only way we get a world title main event is if it's RAW's world champion vs. someone from RAW winning the Rumble.

Only ONE Rumble winner from Smackdown was in the LAST MATCH (main event) of WrestleMania for a world title: Brock Lesnar in 2003 vs Kurt Angle. Everyone else got earlier matches (Mysterio, 2006; Undertaker, 2007; Edge, 2010; Del Rio, 2011; Sheamus, 2012). Del Rio and Sheamus got curtain-jerker matches for crying out loud.

WMs 26 and 28 had main-event matches where neither title was involved (WM26: Undertaker vs. Michaels - "Streak vs. Career"; WM28 Rock vs. Cena).

Of course, prior to WM30, if neither world title match was worth anything, you had a fallback with "The Streak" match. But,with McMahon making the STUPID decision to end Undertaker's streak, that's all up in smoke.

How would you book a main event of WrestleMania, without necessarily having one guy (from RAW) win the Rumble and the other being RAW's world champion (especially if the most anticipated match of the year doesn't involve two superstars from RAW)?

[calfzilla]

I guess I would just make it so whoever wins the Rumble gets a title shot depending on what show he's on. Smackdown WWE championship for Smackdown wrestler or Universal title for Raw wrestler.

[Playboy]

Too many titles....that's been one of the problems to the product in the past 15 years. Way to many titles. They need to retire some and keep the basic formula. Heavyweight, IC and tag. No need for any of the others. Retire them gracefully.

[TuHolmes]

Too many titles....that's been one of the problems to the product in the past 15 years. Way to many titles. They need to retire some and keep the basic formula. Heavyweight, IC and tag. No need for any of the others. Retire them gracefully.

With multiple brands, don't you have to have multiple titles?

I agree that if they consolidate brands, then you have to let them go, but with the current model, they should stay.

[Playboy]

With multiple brands, don't you have to have multiple titles?

I agree that if they consolidate brands, then you have to let them go, but with the current model, they should stay.

Not at all...you can run both brands with all or some of the talent on the show. Having too many titles for one devalues them and two it makes the winner less deserving. Very easy to predict outcomes and you see to much repetitiveness on each show. Currently the Raw rating has dropped yet again which is why they had to shake things up and put the "Universal Title" on Kevin Owens having HHH pedigree Seth Rollins in order to face turn him.

[MCWAY]

With multiple brands, don't you have to have multiple titles?

I agree that if they consolidate brands, then you have to let them go, but with the current model, they should stay.

Remember that when they first did the brand extension in 2002, the Undisputed WWF champion and WWF women's champion could be on both shows.

Triple H and Hogan were on Smackdown. But when each was undisputed champion, they were on both Raw and Smackdown. Undertaker was Raw's top pick. But, when he beat Hogan for the belt, he was on both shows. Remember that ladder match for the title he had with Jeff Hardy on Raw, where 'Taker turned babyface. Then he had a title defense against Kurt Angle on Smackdown, that ended in a draw. Angle had 'Taker in a triangle choke. The Deadman rolled Angle on his shoulders. But 'Taker tapped out at the same time the ref's hand hit the mat for three.

[MCWAY]

Not at all...you can run both brands with all or some of the talent on the show. Having too many titles for one devalues them and two it makes the winner less deserving. Very easy to predict outcomes and you see to much repetitiveness on each show. Currently the Raw rating has dropped yet again which is why they had to shake things up and put the "Universal Title" on Kevin Owens having HHH pedigree Seth Rollins in order to face turn him.

They consolidated the titles as the roster got thin. First, they unified the tag titles at WM25 (letting the tag champions be on both shows). Then, they fused the women's and Divas' titles in 2011 or 2012. And lastly in late 2013, they reunified the WWE and World Heavyweight Championship.

But, now with all these NXT guys getting pushed to the main roster, they're splitting up the World title, the women's world title, and the tag team titles again.

But, WHY did they come up with this stupid Universal title? Why not just bring back the World Heavyweight Championship belt?

[TuHolmes]

They consolidated the titles as the roster got thin. First, they unified the tag titles at WM25 (letting the tag champions be on both shows). Then, they fused the women's and Divas' titles in 2011 or 2012. And lastly in late 2013, they reunified the WWE and World Heavyweight Championship.

But, now with all these NXT guys getting pushed to the main roster, they're splitting up the World title, the women's world title, and the tag team titles again.

But, WHY did they come up with this stupid Universal title? Why not just bring back the World Heavyweight Championship belt?

Simple. The big gold belt was a holdover from WCW. Vince doesn't want anyone thinking anything but WWE.

It's not the title that bugs me so much, even though it IS ugly, but the fact that they called it the "Universal" title. It's just ridiculous. Trying way too hard.

The name just bugs the shit out of me.

[MCWAY]

Simple. The big gold belt was a holdover from WCW. Vince doesn't want anyone thinking anything but WWE.

He had that holdover for over 13 years after WCW went belly up. Plus, you had all the WCW references regarding Sting, not to mention the FIVE-TIME.....FIVE-TIME....FIVE-TIME.....FIVE-TIME.......FIVE-TIME WCW champion, Booker T.

It's not the title that bugs me so much, even though it IS ugly, but the fact that they called it the "Universal" title. It's just ridiculous. Trying way too hard.

The name just bugs the shit out of me.

It's a red version of the WWE World title; but, they'll probably make that belt blue, since it's on Smackdown just like the Smackdown tag team titles and the Smackdown women's title.

[MCWAY]

I guess I would just make it so whoever wins the Rumble gets a title shot depending on what show he's on. Smackdown WWE championship for Smackdown wrestler or Universal title for Raw wrestler.

But should the Royal Rumble winner and his brand's world champion automatically main-event Wrestlemania?

Since 2004, they ditched that format to let the Rumble winner pick which champion he wants to fight (that's how Benoit jumped from Smackdown to Raw).

[TuHolmes]

He had that holdover for over 13 years after WCW went belly up. Plus, you had all the WCW references regarding Sting, not to mention the FIVE-TIME.....FIVE-TIME....FIVE-TIME.....FIVE-TIME.......FIVE-TIME WCW champion, Booker T.

It's a red version of the WWE World title; but, they'll probably make that belt blue, since it's on Smackdown just like the Smackdown tag team titles and the Smackdown women's title.

He did, but you know Vince never wanted it... He wants everyone to think WWE... Never WCW.

That's just how he is.

I know it's a red version of the WWE world title, and while I think it's too much red, and ugly, the look doesn't suck anywhere near as bad as the name.

[MCWAY]

He did, but you know Vince never wanted it... He wants everyone to think WWE... Never WCW.

That's just how he is.

I know it's a red version of the WWE world title, and while I think it's too much red, and ugly, the look doesn't suck anywhere near as bad as the name.

I just hope they don't change the WWE World title to blue, because it's on Smackdown.

What role, if any, should the Rumble continue to play regarding WrestleMania? Another issue is that it's hard to build a good feud in two months.

[TuHolmes]

I just hope they don't change the WWE World title to blue, because it's on Smackdown.

What role, if any, should the Rumble continue to play regarding WrestleMania? Another issue is that it's hard to build a good feud in two months.

I am fine with it not having the Rumble be more than the Rumble. I never really got into the fact the winner got a shot at the title anyway.

It never really resonated with me on that level. I like feuds and matches to mean something. The immediate "title shot" just never meant shit to me.

[MCWAY]

I am fine with it not having the Rumble be more than the Rumble. I never really got into the fact the winner got a shot at the title anyway.

It never really resonated with me on that level. I like feuds and matches to mean something. The immediate "title shot" just never meant shit to me.

That's because of the 1992 Rumble when the title was on the line, as you know. In 1993, they started with the "winner gets a main-event world title shot" to follow up from the previous year.

I don't like the instant title shot, per se. It makes building feuds too difficult, unless you have a great feud/storyline (built over several months) with one guy being champion and the other winning the Rumble.

[Playboy]

I just hope they don't change the WWE World title to blue, because it's on Smackdown.

What role, if any, should the Rumble continue to play regarding WrestleMania? Another issue is that it's hard to build a good feud in two months.

I still say let the winner face the champ at Mania. Thing is, it would be much more interesting IMO if it was for one heavyweight title only as opposed to whatever brand guy wins faces that brands respective champion.

[MCWAY]

I still say let the winner face the champ at Mania. Thing is, it would be much more interesting IMO if it was for one heavyweight title only as opposed to whatever brand guy wins faces that brands respective champion.

That's what we've had at WM30 and 31. Remember all the complaining about Batista vs Orton and Lesnar vs. Reigns.

Those were both made into triple threat matches with the third guy (Bryan, 30; Rollins, 31) winning the title.

[Playboy]

That's what we've had at WM30 and 31. Remember all the complaining about Batista vs Orton and Lesnar vs. Reigns.

Those were both made into triple threat matches with the third guy (Bryan, 30; Rollins, 31) winning the title.

I hear you bud.
Personally, I was always against separate brands and separate titles. Too predictable. No value.

[MCWAY]

I hear you bud.
Personally, I was always against separate brands and separate titles. Too predictable. No value.

 I don't mind the separate brands. But, the World champion should defend the title on both shows (the way they did in early/mid 2002).

Same with the women. Either keep all the women on one brand; or let the women's champ fight on both shows.

[Playboy]

I don't mind the separate brands. But, the World champion should defend the title on both shows (the way they did in early/mid 2002).

Same with the women. Either keep all the women on one brand; or let the women's champ fight on both shows.

I'm with you on that one...let them fight on both shows. Keeps it interesting.

[Playboy]

With multiple brands, don't you have to have multiple titles?

I agree that if they consolidate brands, then you have to let them go, but with the current model, they should stay.

That's the second problem. Multiple brands...you don't need that. That's why we are seeing the same feuds and matches over and over.

[MCWAY]

That's the second problem. Multiple brands...you don't need that. That's why we are seeing the same feuds and matches over and over.

Having multiple brands is fine. But, we only need one world title. Can you imagine AJ Styles feuding with Seth Rollins on Raw and Dean Ambrose on Smackdown?

[Playboy]

Having multiple brands is fine. But, we only need one world title. Can you imagine AJ Styles feuding with Seth Rollins on Raw and Dean Ambrose on Smackdown?

I'd love to see:

Finn Balor,Seth Rollins, Kevin Owens, A.J.Styles and Dean Ambrose in the Money in the Bank ladder match at Wrestlemania. Just imagine the crazy shit they'd do. 

[gmflex]

I got tickets for this years rumble in San Antonio Texas..
Looking forward to taking the wife and my son to the rumble.
We had a great time at wrestlemania..
Making it a weekend in SA. Texas...

[gmflex]

I got tickets for this years rumble in San Antonio Texas..
Looking forward to taking the wife and my son to the rumble.
We had a great time at wrestlemania..staying at the river walk ..

[Playboy]

I got tickets for this years rumble in San Antonio Texas..
Looking forward to taking the wife and my son to the rumble.
We had a great time at wrestlemania..
Making it a weekend in SA. Texas...

Oh sweet, I got Tickets for both the NXT Takeover show Sat night and the Survivor Series PPV on Sunday. 2n'd row ringside.