The reason IWC/Fans turning on every WWE PG Wrestler today Bryan/Roman/Ambrose/Wyatt

[mizowns]

We have seen how WWE fans turned on every WWE-wrestler. From Batista comeback to Wyatt push, Ambrose getting up, and Roman Reigns lately.

People turn today because they are not connected with the characters back in the day.

Back in the day, people was emotional invested in their favourite character, whether it was Hogan,Rock,Austin,Taker,DX/NWO, Sting,

People would never back down our turn their back.

Today people switch favourites like underwears. People are just not connected with their characters that deeply.

And they often go majority-style. You can have a Daniel Bryan hater, but he will still do the "Yes-chant" on a live show.

You can say the fans today are hypocrites, but they are also can switch opinion from yesterday like it's no big deal at all. People want to complain and they are mad because of the product as well. They don't have a wrestler in this era like back in the day, they would go 100% behind. And I think with such a crowd today, it will always be divided.

 

[Rayne]

Is there a point you were trying to make here, a conclusion you were trying to reach, an analysis of data leading to an infrequently heard understanding of events? It would appear that your statement is "the wrestling audience is divided because it's divided", and in that sense I applaud your knowledge of the Law of Identity, but little else.

Also, add in the word "IWC", because internet.

 

[shafe_41]

Post makes no sense. Brain hurts.

All the whole things says is "people turn because they're not connected." I guess I can see that to be true to a certain extent. That extent is age. I'm not going to be as emotionally invested in a favorite character as I was when I was 10 or 11. At 30, I want to watch a good match and I would believe that's the case with many others around my age range. I don't want to see Roman Reigns conquer Kane/Big Show to win a Rumble (yes I know Rusev was there too) because it's predictable and isn't that interesting. It's sort of a David/Goliath thing and we all know how that ends. When the IWC puts their collective heads together, they can generally tell you where a story is going to go because they've likely seen it all before. So it's not so much turning on a character, it's turning on the predictability of it all.

Batista and Wyatt were absolutely terrible examples. Wyatt is a heel. Batista was a heel. We shouldn't cheer them anyway. Batista was booed because he was shoved down our throats when he came back and we saw exactly what was going to happen with him winning the Rumble and winning the Title at Mania only to drop it a few months later to Bryan. Fans got behind Bryan and changed the course of the story. Go back and watch the Rumble 2013. People booed The Rock too because we saw the predictable outcome and that taking the title off Punk for those 2 months was going to be absolutely pointless. As for Wyatt... the "cool heel," we've barely seen him since his return. He got booed because he attacked Ambrose who was easily the hottest guy on the roster at the time. Every single person in that arena was behind him. Kids liked him because he's the face. The older group liked him because he's a great performer and is fantastic on the stick. I have yet to see any single example of people "turning" on Ambrose. So that's also a poor example as well.

Like Rayne said above, the post makes no sense because it just says "divided because divided." Well no kidding. It's generally an arena of about 14,000 people. You think they're all going to like the same thing? They aren't.

As for d_henderson... you're the one that added nothing to the discussion. Rayne at least addressed the topic. All you did was come here and call somebody butthurt and left.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Exactly how have fans turned on Bryan, Ambrose & Wyatt? Bryan & Ambrose get huge pops and while Wyatt has lost steam, he's still a fascinating character that fans enjoy seeing. I know that someone on Twitter has tried to start some sort of anti-Daniel Bryan movement or something but I've yet to see the slightest degree of evidence that fans are turning on Daniel Bryan or Dean Ambrose.

As for Roman Reigns, there are various reasons why some fans have turned against him. Some of the reasons are arguable and some probably aren't, which include:

Roman Reigns Being Pushed Because He Has A Certain Look - There's no doubt that Reigns is a good looking guy and there's also no doubt that Reigns' look is one that's very much personally preferred by Vince McMahon. Reigns has the height, good looks and muscularity of a traditional "superhero" type. As a result, some feel it's a primary reason why he's being positioned ahead of other wrestlers who's cosmetic appearance might not dazzle Vince McMahon. Roman Reigns fits the formulaic look that Vince McMahon prefers for "the face" of WWE to have and that particular formula is one that a lot of fans are tired of as they don't want to rally behind a wrestler just because he's good looking and because Vince McMahon wants them to. They want and need a bit more incentive than that.

Doubts As To Roman Reigns' Ability - Along with the perception that Reigns is being given a big push and positioned as Cena's heir apparent, many feel that Roman Reigns hasn't demonstrated the in-ring ability, personality, promo ability or experience to warrant such a push. When you look at the WWE roster, you see a ton of wrestlers that many feel have much greater overall ability than Reigns currently possesses including John Cena, Randy Orton, Daniel Bryan, Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, Dolph Ziggler, Cesaro, Bray Wyatt, Bad News Barrett and some others. Some of these wrestlers are no doubt stronger in certain areas while some others are stronger in other areas. Now MAYBE there's a lot more to Reigns' than we've seen so far, maybe there's all kinds of potential waiting to be tapped just below the surface. If so, then the only way for that potential to be tapped & realized is with the passage of time. As of right now, lot of fans don't see it yet and therefore can only judge by what they've been presented with as of right now. The result is that a lot of fans just aren't impressed enough with Reigns at this point and don't believe that he's ready to not only main event WrestleMania, but to also be WWE World Heavyweight Champion. I also believe some of the hostility is geared more towards WWE management insisting to book Reigns in this spot, in spite of his perceived shortcomings, more than Reigns himself but he just happens to be the one they can take the hostility out on because he's out there on TV each & every week.

Also, support for many wrestlers can rise and fall depending upon what spot they're being given. Take Dean Ambrose as an example; Ambrose isn't getting the wild cheers he was getting at one time, he's still very over. Part of the reason why the cheers aren't as frantic is because his feuds with Bray Wyatt and Seth Rollins were much higher profile than his current one with Bad News Barrett. Barrett, in my opinion, is a great wrestler but he's been used for absolute shit as Intercontinental Champion. Last Thursday on SmackDown!, Barrett lost to R-Truth due to distraction from Dean Ambrose. Ordinarily, that surprise loss would've meant absolutely nothing if WWE hadn't been jobbing Wade Barrett out left & right in every nontitle match he's had during all 5 times he's been Intercontinental Champion. They're not as excited about Ambrose being in the Intercontinental Championship picture because WWE has treated the Intercontinental Championship and the wrestler currently holding it as if they don't matter. Now if Ambrose becomes Intercontinental Champion, excitement and interest in Ambrose MIGHT go back up, but it all depends on how WWE uses him and books him as champion.

 

[willross]

People haven't necessarily turned on Ambrose but its not nearly as loud as it was for him during his Rollins feud, despite WWE having him main event 2 PPV's in that last 4 months.

As for this post, I guess you want to see if we agree that people are disconnected? If so, I agree that most are because they have been influenced so long, at such a young age, by these kind of forums and sites. Not saying you guys don't have a mind of your own, but its a subconscious influence.

Just because a guy wasn't an Indy guy, he can't ever be good enough
OR
He's not in the main event cause the guy on top has the pencil obviously and is holding him down.
OR
Cena books himself to win titles and bury people
OR
Same old shit every week

The above are the examples of most opinions voiced on almost every forum and spoiler site by the readers and are the general POV of the IWC.

I myself, at one time, bought into those theories. The influence of those theories cause a tremendous disconnect, constantly leaves the viewer dissatisfied. I truly feel that I became significantly more connected with the product when I cut down on posting on forums, viewing forums, or even going on this site in general. These things can really jade someone badly because the negatively flows so deep that you just subconsciously inherit it.

 

[MartialHorror]

I didn't really understand the point of the op either.

People have only turned on Reigns and Batista, for legit reasons. This isn't anything new either, as it did happen to Hogan when he went to WcW and I hear Luger wasn't well received as a face in the WWE. I think it's likely to happen more often now as it has become much more obvious that it's fake. People booed Reigns and Batista primarily because it was obvious they were going to win. If it had been more up in the air, they wouldn't have booed until they won. Audiences have possibly gotten too smart.

But Ambrose? If the reactions aren't as wild, it's because WWE has booked him rather badly. Bryan? I can't think of him getting any boos....

 

[Mustang Sally]

And they often go majority-style. You can have a Daniel Bryan hater, but he will still do the "Yes-chant" on a live show.

That's the one part of this post that interests me. People watching the show or sitting in the audience hear the "Yes!" chant over and over and presume it means Daniel must be the most popular wrestler since Strangler Lewis)). Yet, I maintain the chant might be more popular than the wrestler and I wonder if Daniel's career would have spiraled upward as much or as fast had the chant never come into being.

Of course, all this neither means Daniel is no good as a performer or would not be a crowd favorite without the chant. But another forum member mentioned recently that Daniel himself was quoted as saying a large reason for his popularity was the "No!" which turned into "Yes!"

As to the OP's contention that folks have turned on Daniel Bryan.....I'm wondering where that came from. I've seen no evidence of it.

 

[Navi]

We have seen how WWE fans turned on every WWE-wrestler. From Batista comeback to Wyatt push, Ambrose getting up, and Roman Reigns lately.

People turn today because they are not connected with the characters back in the day.

Back in the day, people was emotional invested in their favourite character, whether it was Hogan,Rock,Austin,Taker,DX/NWO, Sting,

People would never back down our turn their back.

Today people switch favourites like underwears. People are just not connected with their characters that deeply.

And they often go majority-style. You can have a Daniel Bryan hater, but he will still do the "Yes-chant" on a live show.

You can say the fans today are hypocrites, but they are also can switch opinion from yesterday like it's no big deal at all. People want to complain and they are mad because of the product as well. They don't have a wrestler in this era like back in the day, they would go 100% behind. And I think with such a crowd today, it will always be divided.

You will always have a divided crowd because not everyone likes the same person. And I disagree that fans turn on everyone. Batista was gone for 4 years, came back to win the Rumble and get the title at Mania. I think pretty much everyone from the crowd at the arena that night to the IWC was pissed. We want to see the wrestler's who are working their butts off day in and day out to get these chances, not someone who just walks through the door and gets it handed to him.

I don't hear a lot of boos for Ambrose either, he's still pretty much over with the crowd. They aren't as loud as they were before, because his feud with Wyatt stopped all his momentum and he has to build it back up again. But yea the crowd is still behind him.

Wyatt get a tons of noise as well. For someone who's supposed to be a heel, he gets cheered for some reason. I personally don't like the guy, but it is what it is.

Roman Reigns was covered by Jack Hammer so I won't bother going into detail about him, cause what JH said is spot on.

A lot of the issues is the booking, it changes so much and storylines get so con fluted it's sometimes hard to get involved or invested. That's why NXT works so well, the storylines are simple easy to follow, and end quickly. Not this months on end shit we put up with on the main roster. It's no wonder fans get disinterested and tune out.

Take for example the Authority. We've had them now for almost two years. HHH typically takes up the first 20 minutes of RAW each week prattling on about well crap. Something that would take a normal person 3 minutes to say takes him almost half an hour. Then you have the Authority goons who interfere in almost every match during the show. I've never seen so many DQ's in my life. And every show ends the same way, the Authority comes out does a beat down, everyone does their finisher's and then it's over. Boring as hell.

If you don't change it up then fans go elsewhere. It's like giving someone macaroni and cheese for dinner every single night, how long would it take you to get sick of it. A lot of friends of mine who were into wrestling has given it up and gone to UFC. Shame really, the WWE has a good roster too bad they don't know how to book it.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

I actually just posted something similar to this on another thread:
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?p=5134143&posted=1#post5134143

But I don't think it has to do with being more invested in a character than in the past. A good portion of fans turned on Hulk Hogan in 1993 and 1994, don't forget that. Same thing started happening to The Rock in 2002 vs Hogan, Lesnar, etc which ultimately turned him "hollywood heel". A segment of fans have always turned on top babyfaces after a while. Even Austin to an extent was starting to fade, but he left before it ever really happened to him.

I think for the most part is that once you do something to get over - you stick with it. Whatever you've done as a top babyface to get so over with the fans, you don't want to change it up because it's working. So these guys end up doing the same old schtick until it starts to get stale and boring. Hogan, Rock, Austin - it was always the same thing week in and week out, why change it up when you're drawing as much as these guys were? Of course, a hardcore fan who is watching every single week will get sick of seeing it over and over and start to turn, and root for newer, fresher up and coming guys.

 

[chuckmdubya]

What it takes to entertain an audience changes drastically with time. If the exact same star wars movie were released today it would absolutely bomb. The formula for building a good WWE superstar has changed. Most importantly what it takes to get an audience into a character changes too. Back in the day, it was just someone who could kick some ass. Then it changed to someone who fit a certain mold, then became who could be the most shocking, or funny.
What I'm saying is they hadn't discovered anything that can encompass all of what they want to accomplish. They want Attitude era ratings without the broad appeal that a more adult oriented program would bring, and they want reality era earnings, without the backlash from the old school or IWC fans. Right now the WWE is wanting to be too many things, and the most loyal fans are wanting them to be the one thing that they don't wanna be.

 

[Michael J. Fox]

It seems there's this idea that if a fans favorite wrestler loses one match they're getting "buried". Wyatt loses to Taker? Buried. Ambrose loses to Wyatt? Buried. Bryan losing the RR? Buried.

Which isn't the case, yet people want to see their favorites win. Certain fans will leech on to a rising star until he loses a few matches. Then it's on to the next big thing. I agree with you.

Its not about "who to like", but "who's doing the best". And when someone isn't doing well they'll jump on it with their background in watching sports entertainment.

Or, they'll compare too much. "Bryan will never be a Hogan or Austin!!" Well good; Bryan and Austin/Hogan are three different people. Let Bryan achieve what Bryan can in this era regardless of other eras. Times have changed.

I love Jeff Hardy. Organic character, crazy wrestling style and ability. Many don't think he's good in 2015 because of his drug addictions from 2011. Fans will live in the past too much and fog their view of the character today (see Kane, Big Show).

I guess my point is, everyone is very opinionated on what makes a wrestler and how their path must be paved. One miscommunication and the fan drops the wrestler. One loss and the wrestler will never ME WrestleMania, gotta find a new guy. Fuck that.

 

[V Dogg]

The only thing I could say is this - the IWC knows what it wants. If they don't get what they want, they show their displeasure with "I'm done with WWE" posts/rants or whinin' and complainin' about it. But me, I watch because it's entertainment. Hell, the powers that be are not gonna crossover Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter because we, the fans, want them to.

 

[BillAlfonsos_Whistle]

I think you hit the nail on the head with the title of the thread but it hasn't been fully addressed. The PG product just suffers. I don't know why they think they need to target children so heavily. As far as I'm concerned children are always gonna love pro wrestling as long as their are baby face superheroes like Cena.

There is such a large and growing segment of the audience who are 18+ and they just can't get into the kiddy shit. Bray Wyatt is so good on the mic but we need to see him make someone bleed. Really fucking destroy someone physically. He is losing his grip as a menace IN THE RING. The stupid spider thing is so fucking silly. But would possibly be awesome if he really fucking layed someone out before doing it.

Same goes for all these guys. If Ambrose could act a bit more "Steve Austin-ish" he could capture the vibe. I think people don't give enough credence to the style portrayed in the attitude era for making guys who they are. It was the only time the leashes were removed by McMahon.

He'll suffer in the long run if the young adult and adult fanbase become uninterested.

 

[ShatteredDreamsProduction]

That's the one part of this post that interests me. People watching the show or sitting in the audience hear the "Yes!" chant over and over and presume it means Daniel must be the most popular wrestler since Strangler Lewis)). Yet, I maintain the chant might be more popular than the wrestler and I wonder if Daniel's career would have spiraled upward as much or as fast had the chant never come into being.

Of course, all this neither means Daniel is no good as a performer or would not be a crowd favorite without the chant. But another forum member mentioned recently that Daniel himself was quoted as saying a large reason for his popularity was the "No!" which turned into "Yes!"

As to the OP's contention that folks have turned on Daniel Bryan.....I'm wondering where that came from. I've seen no evidence of it.

Think you hit the nail on the head with this one, Bryan is a great performer, and yes he is over, but the chant is more over than him. The easiest way of proving this is when his wife, brie bella used it and the crowd went along with it almost as loudly for her as they did Bryan. I mean come on, when has a diva ever got that sort of response from a crowd, where almost every member is chanting with them, the chant is bigger.

OP however, I have no idea where you're going with this, fans haven't turned on Bryan,
Ambrose is in a nothing feud compared to what he was a few months ago but he is still pretty over.
Reigns is being created into a heel, even wwe can see that by putting him against the most over person on the roster

And bray is the most interesting wrestler about today, just who is he gonna face at mania. Who is he talking about? I hope it's big, or else he may lose a lot more steam. Personally hope it's taker.

 

[#1druid]

Think you hit the nail on the head with this one, Bryan is a great performer, and yes he is over, but the chant is more over than him. The easiest way of proving this is when his wife, brie bella used it and the crowd went along with it almost as loudly for her as they did Bryan. I mean come on, when has a diva ever got that sort of response from a crowd, where almost every member is chanting with them, the chant is bigger.

OP however, I have no idea where you're going with this, fans haven't turned on Bryan,
Ambrose is in a nothing feud compared to what he was a few months ago but he is still pretty over.
Reigns is being created into a heel, even wwe can see that by putting him against the most over person on the roster

And bray is the most interesting wrestler about today, just who is he gonna face at mania. Who is he talking about? I hope it's big, or else he may lose a lot more steam. Personally hope it's taker.

Brie is his wife and it was part of the storyline. Also this was the same place he won his first wwe championship 1 year prior at a smart crowd for summerslam. So I don't think this is a good example, also the Daniel Bryan chants are just as loud. Further more you could extend this argument to anything in wrestling. "Austin would never be over if it wasn't for 3:16" "rvd wouldn't be over if he didn't do his arm gesture with his initials." "The rock wouldn't be over if it wasn't for one of his 6 million catch phrases" etc plus the yes chant really caught on when the crowd revolted to his perceived burial at 28.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

Think you hit the nail on the head with this one, Bryan is a great performer, and yes he is over, but the chant is more over than him. The easiest way of proving this is when his wife, brie bella used it and the crowd went along with it almost as loudly for her as they did Bryan. I mean come on, when has a diva ever got that sort of response from a crowd, where almost every member is chanting with them, the chant is bigger.

The "Yes!" chant is over. But so is Bryan. It's not like they can put that chant on anyone else. It's synonymous with Bryan. And it's not like that's all Bryan does - fans pop for him throughout his entire match, and boo when he loses. Bryan IS over. That's like saying "Suck It!" was more over than D-X. Was "Suck It!" over? Of course it was, but so were Michaels, Triple H, X-Pac on their own. Well, maybe "Suck It!" was more over than X-Pac.. but you know what I'm saying. The chant / taunt / catchphrase is part of the wrestler.

 

[Danny84]

Me as a 20 year wwe fan I was HHH fan when he started as the blue blood hunter and he still is my fav superstar weather he is wrestling or running the show as of today's wrestlers I've been a ziggler/bray wyatt fan since they both came into it

 

[ShatteredDreamsProduction]

Brie is his wife and it was part of the storyline. Also this was the same place he won his first wwe championship 1 year prior at a smart crowd for summerslam. So I don't think this is a good example, also the Daniel Bryan chants are just as loud. Further more you could extend this argument to anything in wrestling. "Austin would never be over if it wasn't for 3:16" "rvd wouldn't be over if he didn't do his arm gesture with his initials." "The rock wouldn't be over if it wasn't for one of his 6 million catch phrases" etc plus the yes chant really caught on when the crowd revolted to his perceived burial at 28.

I stand corrected. I didn't realise that it was the same place where he won his title when she used it. Still the chant is extremely over. But as CrucifiedRaven said, he gets pops throughout his matches, I don't disagree that he is extremely talented, I fully agree and am a big Bryan fan myself.

A lack of stats hindered me, I knew brie used the chant to extremely good effect, I however didn't know where it was that she used it.

 

[Nada]

This "logic" is making a weird assumption that audience today is somehow different than it ever has been before, and is the classic "Wrestlezone Pro WWE" comment that the forums are known for.

If you look at entertainment, the audience has not changed, the things they like today are largely the same things they liked in the 80s, and late 90s. Mainstream films, music, videogames, TV shows. Digestable pop acts, rappers, action movies, dramas, special effect extravaganza etc.

So we are to assume, by your inane logic, that its the WRESTLING fans who have changed somehow, and it is not the product at all. Despite the fact that even former wrestlers like Austin think that its largely not all that good. Is Austin a jaded ICW fan as well? Jim Ross? Cornette? Even fucking Russo thinks its largely bad, grasp that for a second.


There was a wrestler once who fans turned on, he was a stereotypical "good guy", with good morals and good ethics, kids loved him. His name was Bret Hart, and WWF had the foresight to understand that the fans no longer wanted him, and wanted this other guy. They listened and it launched the company in its most profitable era. Spearheaded by the best Wrestlemania match of all time in Austin vs Hart.

There is this wrestler fans turned on a long time ago, he was a stereotypical "good guy", with good morals and good ethics, kids love him. His name is John Cena, and WWE gives no fucks what you think about Cena or Reigns, it does not matter, its what they want.


If you cannot see the difference, then you have no hope. Fans arent turning on guys, WWE is trying to turn the audience to like who they want them to like and you are raging that they arent blindly accepting this. Its like being angry that people do not care about American Idol winners after they win and launch their doomed-to-be-album.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

I think this is no longer an issue. It's just clear Vince doesn't like Bryan at least as a main event guy. I think after two years there's enough evidence to show that.

Most argue only the IWC loves Bryan yet getting the biggest pops at live events plus ranking #2 at Merchandise earlier this year shows his support is greater than the "minority" most anti-Bryan folks here think. Let's face it when you get that much fan support but whose spot is taken over who is green as Reigns you know there's a bias towards Reigns, simple as that. Especially considering even The Rock's endorsement of Reigns failed, the same Rock that can get The Hurricane over.

Then there's his treatment at the rumble on both years. Sorry folks Bryan vs. Batista vs. Orton was NOT the plan all along at WM30. Sure we could still have speculated that 11 months ago but seeing how low he got bumped off and the insistence to have Sheamus vs. Bryan at WM31 just kind of shows WWE wanted Bryan's opponent at WM30 to be Sheamus all along.

The only thing I could say is this - the IWC knows what it wants. If they don't get what they want, they show their displeasure with "I'm done with WWE" posts/rants or whinin' and complainin' about it. But me, I watch because it's entertainment. Hell, the powers that be are not gonna crossover Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter because we, the fans, want them to.

Come on that's like saying we should have gotten a WCW vs. WWF feud back in 1998. Even if everyone wanted that in the world that wasn't going to happen.

It seems there's this idea that if a fans favorite wrestler loses one match they're getting "buried". Wyatt loses to Taker? Buried. Ambrose loses to Wyatt? Buried. Bryan losing the RR? Buried.

Which isn't the case, yet people want to see their favorites win. Certain fans will leech on to a rising star until he loses a few matches. Then it's on to the next big thing. I agree with you.

It's not so much Bryan losing a match rather its the booking that shows that regardless how over Bryan is WWE is never going to make him one of the top guys in the company. He's been pretty much brought in to make others look good so the other guy can get over like his match with Wyatt at the Rumble last year, the way he was eliminated at this years Rumble, then his match with Reigns at Fast Lane. These are bookings that you do NOT put a guy like Bryan in if you want him to be one of the top guys in the company.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It's not even that... it's just grim reality.

Bryan is either a) not gonna be around in 2 years cos of injuries or b) not gonna be around in 2 years cos he ain't gonna re-sign.

They can't hitch a short term wagon to him a 2nd year, however much fans want it if there are no guarantees... it's not Bryan Danielson's fault his body gave out, but it did... and now that window he had is gone.... any smart business has to build on the guy there for 5 or 10 years, not the guy done in 2 whichever way it goes. Sucks but it's true.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

It's not even that... it's just grim reality.

Bryan is either a) not gonna be around in 2 years cos of injuries or b) not gonna be around in 2 years cos he ain't gonna re-sign.

Last I checked this recent injury he had was the first major injury that had him sidelined for a long period of time. It's not uncommon for someone to have such injuries but return and have a presence in the WWE for a long period of time. Ask Edge, Shawn Michaels, or Triple H they had injuries that sidelined them for more than 8 months.

They can't hitch a short term wagon to him a 2nd year, however much fans want it if there are no guarantees... it's not Bryan Danielson's fault his body gave out, but it did... and now that window he had is gone.... any smart business has to build on the guy there for 5 or 10 years, not the guy done in 2 whichever way it goes. Sucks but it's true.

I hear you with that but it wasn't Bryan time to be phased out yet and a smart business move would also be to maximize the popularity of your most over stars.

I also see what you mean by long term plans but again is Reigns that guy? As I said before the most positive things I can hear about Reigns is that he has potential or he is improving. And 1 month away from taking the top spot that's not reassuring. When Shawn Michaels, Austin or The Rock took the top spot the WWE wasn't riding on their potential they already had a body of work to justify them taking it thus a greater confidence that they could carry the company something Reigns does not have or has not proven yet.

Even Cena was more over than Reigns before his run but even so Cena was still being booed and it was only because the WWE at the time had a deeper roster (Undertaker, Booker T, Orton, Batista, Mysterio, Jericho, Benoit, HBK, Triple H, Edge, Kurt Angle, Ric Flair etc) that allowed WWE to mask any shortcomings Cena might have had (plus he didn't share that spot alone since Batista's rise paralleled Cena's) and it was probably the switch to PG that actually prolonged Cena's popularity.