Could WWE Go Back On Their Decision?

[Shadie T]

So Mick Foley said in his blog that unless WWE have something big up their sleeve that Batista will main event. Do you think they will? Do you think after the reactions last night that WWE will go back on the decision, im not sure how but its possible say like HHH wasn't please with the decision and the way Kane interfered and makes like a smaller Rumble rematch or even a full Rumble rematch. Yes it seems far fetched but at TLC last year did anyone think Batista would have won the Rumble? I dont know but I hope they do something to fix the horrible crap last night.

 

[Pratchett]

Oh to have been a fly on the wall last night to hear HHH's reactions to the crowds chanting and booing...

 

[Butters!]

I want to say yes. but he's already granulated the shot at wrestlemaina, if something were to the change it would kind of ruin the whole meaning of the rumble match.

 

[Pratchett]

I want to say yes. but he's already granulated the shot at wrestlemaina, if something were to the change it would kind of ruin the whole meaning of the rumble match.

He could always be challenged to put his shot at WM on the line. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened.

 

[Crayo]

No. He's main eventing, but there's a possibility they can alter the main event and make it a triple-threat or something.

 

[Roi]

He wont "main event". Sheamus vs Bryan opened the show at WM28 so yeah I guess it will be a "important" match but not the main event

 

[Wacokid27]

I can see them making a big deal out of the fact that Punk was dragged out of the ring and not eliminated by one of the other wrestlers that were still in the match and either creating a match for the title shot between Punk and Batista or making it a triple threat at Mania between Orton (assuming he's still Champ), Batista, and Punk.

Otherwise, as mentioned otherwise, they could always have him put his title shot on the line against Punk or Bryan or Reigns or....hell, anybody.

wk

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

are you still fucking crying bro?

 

[Shadie T]

are you still fucking crying bro?

Was never crying in the first place only voicing an opinion. I never once said Bryan had to win the Rumble but guys that worked their asses off get thrown aside for Batista.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Yes

Good to know.

 

[Snowman1]

Hey Adam, do you really think WWE cares? Serious question.

 

[Shadie T]

Hey Adam, do you really think WWE cares? Serious question.

No lmao.

 

[seabs]

If they cared about reactions Cena would be a heel.

 

[Lockard 23]

They could but they won't. WWE doesn't care if the crowd shits all over Batista if he still ends up drawing money for them (and crowd reactions aren't always an indicator as to how well you'll draw or not... Cena is a perfect example of that.) Also, Kane interfering and costing Punk the match doesn't mean his unfair elimination will be compensated for. The Rock interfered and cost Austin the '99 Rumble. Vince and Shane cost Michaels the 2006 Rumble. Etc., etc. They could always write something in though where HHH/Steph continue to pretend they have nothing against Punk and that it's all Kane's doing and give him a title shot or a spot in the Chamber match to make up for it, but there won't be a "Rumble rematch", that's absurd.

 

[Wacokid27]

They could but they won't. WWE doesn't care if the crowd shits all over Batista if he still ends up drawing money for them (and crowd reactions aren't always an indicator as to how well you'll draw or not... Cena is a perfect example of that.) Also, Kane interfering and costing Punk the match doesn't mean his unfair elimination will be compensated for. The Rock interfered and cost Austin the '99 Rumble. Vince and Shane cost Michaels the 2006 Rumble. Etc., etc. They could always write something in though where HHH/Steph continue to pretend they have nothing against Punk and that it's all Kane's doing and give him a title shot or a spot in the Chamber match to make up for it, but there won't be a "Rumble rematch", that's absurd.

My point, basically, was that they can do anything they want to do if the storyline sours on them. Or the storyline could be getting the reaction they want. Right now, I think they're getting what they want: Orton is seen as an overt heel and he's carrying the title. Batista is seen as an anti-heel (a guy that "should" be hugely over, but the crowd's not cheering for him like they should be) and he's got a guaranteed Mania title shot. Bryan is seen as the scrappy underdog who, no matter what else happens, is hugely popular. They could be gearing toward a triple threat at Mania. In fact, I think that's exactly what they're doing. As to Punk, it just seems a little convenient for him to be eliminated by Kane. I just suggested it as an option. I think Punk's story arc for now is driving toward: a) a match vs. Kane at Mania or b) a match vs. Kane at EC followed up with a match vs. HHH at Mania, further driving his Punk vs. the Authority storyline. I don't think Punk gets a real title shot until after Mania and he'll be going against the "Corporate Champion", whoever that ends up being.

As to the whole "could they go back on their decision" question or setting up a "Rumble rematch" or anything else, remember that it's not a competition bound by athletic rules. It's a story bound only by the rules of storytelling and those are very pliable. (Note: the last bit's not geared toward Lockard; it's really just general discussion to the main point of the thread)

wk