- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,334
- Reaction score
- 1,703
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 37
Perhaps it's irrelevant to you but it's not irrelevant to everyone. Predictability was the major factor that many fans seemed to complain about when Roman Reigns won the Rumble last year and set up the main event vs. Lesnar. Fans may pay to see the main event simply because it's Triple H, but to say the predictability is irrelevant is just not accurate.
I'm not saying predictability is never a negative factor - I certainly would prefer for things to be unpredictable as often as possible - but I don't think it's as big of a deal as some make it out to be.
People's complaint about Reigns winning the Royal Rumble had more to do with the dread of seeing Reigns pushed over Bryan (or pushed period) than with how guaranteed him winning it at all was. A lot of people, even those that liked Reigns, didn't quite find him interesting enough to want to see pushed as the next face of the company and shoved down their throats as "the next John Cena", a push that was set to begin with one of the biggest kayfabe victories in history, which was to be him conquering the seemingly unconquerable Brock Lesnar just a year after Lesnar shocked the world by ending The Undertaker's WM Streak. However, if Reigns had still been out with an injury and if Bryan had won it instead (in other words, if his victory was 'predictable' on account of there being no one else in the match who could have believably won), then 99% of those same people wouldn't have had an issue with it because it would have been a conclusion they liked.
I can probably count on one hand how many times people were genuinely surprised by who won the Rumble. The Royal Rumble match is generally one of the most predictable matches of the year. It usually comes down to either one of two guys winning it at best.