Gonzo

Does anyone seriously want to see Rock and Cena again?

__________________

Headliner

I don't, but I'm pretty sure that's what they want to do. I'd much rather see Brock/Rock.

Punk's gotta drop the title to Rock. Ratings purposes.

Knick Killer

I pray to god this doesn't **** up the plans for the Royal Rumble. I won't be nearly as excited if I'm flying down to Phoenix to see ****ing Cena-Rock again.

__________________

Knick Killer

Average recovery time of removal of a torn meniscus is 4-6 weeks apparently.

__________________

roux2dope

Rock-Cena was a good match.. i wouldnt be terribly against it

XxIrvingxX

They aren't going to give the title to a guy who's rarely ever around. It's stupid and is a slap in the face to everyone who actually works WWE's schedule and doesn't get nearly the amount of money the Rock does for doing so.

__________________

XxIrvingxX

I think the WWE can get away with finding a way to keep Punk out for the time being without screwing up the Royal Rumble plans or Punk's title reign. Hell they can even make a way to make Punk into a bigger heel than he already is if they play their cards right.

__________________

FSH

I think its safe to say Vince and Hunter are calling Brock Lesnar right about now

__________________

Headliner

The WWE audience is a star driven audience. If it's bound to boost ratings leading to Mania, he'll do it. Rock can easily be written out of storyline for weeks.

Sure, he won't be on the road and won't attend house shows, but he's going to once again be mostly responsible for Mania's success. (Saved Mania 27 and it's main-event from completely bombing although it still did to some degree, mostly responsible for Mania 28's buyrate so that would be 3 straight years)

Vince is all about the money and ratings. It would only be a two month title reign. Doesn't hurt at all.

XxIrvingxX

Vince wont give the WWE title to a guy who is working a part time schedule, especially when the reason for giving it to him is ratings. There's a lot of things the Rock would have to do with the WWE in order for it to actually work out and there's just no way of doing that.

And I don't care if they can make a storyline to have the Rock written off, having the WWE champion written off for two months is just stupid and you of all people should know that. Wouldn't hurt, please, the ratings would be horribly affected in a negative way if he became champion (not at first, but about a week afterwords, WWE would start feeling the effects almost immediately).

__________________

FSH

The Rock will be WWE Champ either at RR or WM. Sometime in 2013 The Rock will be the WWE Champ

__________________

Headliner

I never said months. I said weeks.

Why should they care about house shows when he's going to be directly responsible for Mania doing 1,000,000 buys again? Like I said, WWE house shows don't need the WWE title. World titles have proven not to draw. They only need Cena on the Raw house shows and they will be fine.

Basel

The smartest thing to do in my opinion is have Cena cost the Rock the title at RR (just like Rock did to Cena against Miz) and then boom, you have your WM rematch. That match does not need to be for the title. You shouldn't build CM Punk like this for over a year and then have him drop it to The Rock, in my opinion.

__________________

Headliner

I can see both arguments. On the plus side it would be good for the WWE title. A world title hasn't been the 'main' focus of a Mania since Mania 23 (2007). 24 had HBK/Flair, 25 and 26 had HBK/Taker, 27 and 28 had HHH/Taker, plus Rock/Cena.

XxIrvingxX

But world titles create main eventers, something WWE is HORRIBLY lacking at the moment. In fact I don't think WWE has ever been in this bad of a position when it comes to having little to no main eventers who can actually draw ratings. Having the Rock win the WWE title won't solve their problems, if anything it will only make it worse.

Remember when John Bradshaw Layfield had his nine month world title reign? He was built up as being dominant and always was able to find a way to make his way through who ever he faced, and he faced pretty much all the competition he could've faced, just like Punk is doing right now.

Then at Wrestlemania 21, John Cena, a guy JBL never put his title on the line against before, beat JBL and ended JBL's legendary title reign. Then Cena's career skyrocketed from there on out.

Have the Rock win the WWE title and the entire year that WWE spent building up Cm Punk's title reign goes to waste. You ruin your chance to possibly make a new star out of this, a new face of the WWE, because you simply decide to give it to a guy who wouldn't even be champion for three months, and then almost immediately afterwords would disappear never to be seen again until he makes his next one time appearance sometime a year later.

Now with that said, WWE can't have Cena win the title from Cm Punk. They also can't have Bryan Danielson do it, they can't have Sheamus or Orton or Mysterio or Del Rio do it. They need to have someone who has never been world champion before and that Punk has never defended his title against before do it (so yes, it also can't be Ryback), and it has to happen at Wrestlemania. So have that person, who ever it may be, win the Royal Rumble, and then win the title from Punk and end his title reign once and for all, and then they have themselves a possible new permanent main eventer.

Anything else they could possibly do, including your idiotic idea of having the Rock of all the ****ing people beat him at RR, would be stupid and would screw WWE over big time in the long run.

__________________