Should they have kept the belt on Reigns?

By Scott Keith on 15 November 2017

Hey Scott,

For all the flak Reigns gets, in hindsight, going back to Survivor Series 2015, should they have just kept the belt on Roman for the last two years? With the exception of AJ's stellar run with the belt, every one else has been a flop — Sheamus; Triple H; Seth Rollin's for five seconds; Ambrose; Cena for a month; Bray; Orton; and Jinder.

Since Reigns is their guy, wouldn't it have made more sense to have him win it at SS15 and hold it until he drops it to AJ in September '16. Then Cena can win it at the Rumble and drop it to Reigns at WM33, who holds it indefinitely. What's the point of throwing the belt around like this? When Cena was their guy in 2005-2007, they just kept the belt on him regardless.

Yeah, I've said many times now, if they wanted Reigns to be The Guy, then they should have just pushed him as The Guy and made him champion. Vince is obsessed with creating the perfect coronation moment for him at Wrestlemania and having him magically turn into Hulk Hogan or John Cena, and it's just not how it works for everyone. They needed to push Reigns even harder until people just accepted him as WWE champion like they did with HHH, because THAT is what generally does work.