Fair point. When Lesnar was the WWE (part-time) Champ the last time it seemed to work pretty good. The way he won it so emphatically made him seem extra special and the subsequent title matches he was still so dominant he did provide a different level of prestige given to the title that wasn't the same before.
But the question is, did that help the WWE in any long-term way? Did the WWE gain more regular fans that they didn't already have? Did it lead to more PPV buys/Network buys and merchandise increases? Was it significant enough to warrant such a stunt?
On the possible negative side, did some regular fans get turned off by a part-time champ after seeing his matches become pretty formulaic and short?
WWE fans are different than pro wrestling fans were before. The cats out of the bag about pre-determined outcomes and fans demand quality matches and if they aren't quality wrestling they the story has got to be interesting enough to warrant a shorter match with less impressive wrestling. And a "Big guy" who is "unstoppable" alone is not a big enough story anymore.
Basically, I'm just playing devil's advocate and asking if the previous attempts at putting the main title on a part-timer such as Lesnar or The Rock was significantly beneficial in the long term to warrant doing it again with either Lesnar again or Goldberg?
My guess is that if storylines among the CURRENT full-time stars was interesting enough and actually MUST-SEE then it would satisfy most current fans more than it would be worth it to try and find some 'super famous' part-timer to carry the title for a while to try and get some sort of new or better attention on the product.
