Man, another hectic, crazy week for the WWE. And things were just beginning to pick up when I wrote the post-Rumble Wrap Up last week. That week's RAW had been cancelled, moved to WWE HQ and turned into a Rumble recap show. News sites were still covering the fan outrage. In fact, the only thing that sort of quieted everything down was the Super Bowl, but that still wouldn't come until the weekend.

And hell, let's be honest, even team-wise the Super Bowl pitted The Authority vs. Daniel Bryan. It was inescapable.All eyes were on Thursday's live Smackdown, which would become the default RAW for the week. A show that was to be headlined by Daniel Bryan vs. Kane. For the millionth bazillionth time, sure, but a show-ending match nonetheless. How would the crowd react to Reigns? Also, at that point, Stone Cold, JR, and Jericho had all weighed in on the Rumble on their respective podcasts, all admitting that this was a tricky sea to navigate. "Should Reigns go heel?" was a big topic.Because regardless of how fans treated him at live events over the weekend, or at some of the more family-oriented RAW arenas going forward over the next two months, seventy thousand people were going to boo him at WrestleMania and cheer Brock. Stone Cold even brought up the reports of Reigns feeling "over-confident" in his position, alluding that a cocky attitude, for someone who has as many weaknesses as strengths, is just going to rub even more people the wrong way. Then came the interview where Reigns said he doesn't care what fans think because they've never wrestled (typical "hater" dismissal mixed with a bit of wise "it can be dangerous to listen to too many critics") and that "in the end, he was just a guy getting rich."So Reigns got booed on Smackdown. It was in Hartford. The same crowd that would have booed him had RAW gone down like usual that Monday. It was pretty bad. It felt like a sad retread of last year's Road to WrestleMania program where the main event guys, Batista and Orton, felt like afterthoughts and were brought out at the top of the episode and then vanished from sight. So what could be done? What was the solution here?Well, the WWE's still sort of figuring that out. As I've written before, I don't necessarily need Bryan put into the Main Event again (as long as they have great Mania plans for him). I do need for the main event to be better than it currently is though. Had they chosen to make Bryan Brock's opponent originally and organically, that would have been amazing. But to essentially do the same thing they did last year (because they made the same Rumble mistake they made last year) would feel a little ridiculous. But I also don't think listening to fans and elevating the stars they support the most should be seen as "caving." That's how it's often viewed backstage and that's also how some other fans out there, those who actually support Roman Reigns, view it.I still don't get the whole "You'd actually want to see Bryan be in the Mania main event two years in a row?" query. "You'd want to see him win the title again?" Yes. I would. The same way Austin did it in two different Mania storylines in 98 and 99. The same way others have been in multiple Mania main events back to back. Bryan would have given Brock a better match and the lead up to the match would have given us a better story. It's funny how Bryan, both in storyline and by some fans, is being treated like a small guy who wouldn't stand a chance against Brock. I get that Brock has been turned into a demon lord who would have to be taken out by, like, ten finishers, but considering Reigns has barely any singles experience, or big match accomplishments, while Bryan is a three-time world champ who's beaten Cena, Hunter, and Batista clean, it's all become a weird warp on what the actual story could be.I know Hunter tried dismissing the smart marks as people who simply don't want Reigns to face Brock because they enjoying being contrarians (and I'll get to his Stone Cold podcast in a bit), but it's so much more than that. By that logic, we all would hate it if the WWE actually ran with Daniel Bryan and had him win the Rumble. Because we'd have to be against who the WWE was pushing. And that's just hogdick. And as much as I enjoyed the podcast, there were still moments Hunter needed to charleston around. Like how he'd have us believe that they felt Roman winning the Rumble was the right scenario when almost everyone else out there predicted disaster weeks/months out. Of course, he said all that whilst mildly, gently throwing Vince under the bus.So with actual wrestlers critiquing the Rumble, again, the deck got reshuffled at bit on RAW. And I know - I know - that this marks the second time in a row that a Rumble win has been all-but negated, which somehow threatens the very sanctity of the Rumble (especially if Roman somehow doesn't face Brock, which I don't think is an actual option), but maybe we shouldn't revere a PPV "just because." Maybe they need to learn to book it in a fun, satisfying, and meaningful way. And I'm not just talking about the Reigns' win (which still could have been done in a better way), I mean the whole Rumble.The Rumble used to be a place to tell a lot of different stories. Feuds were started and/or settled. Tag teams battled each other. Feats of unbelievable endurance were performed. Guys hung in there by a thread. By the time the end came, and the winner was to be crowned, several other angles had already played out. This year it was flat. I love the Rumble, but it still needs to re-prove itself to me every year. And if the WWE isn't careful, booing the babyface Rumble winner will become a tradition. It will become the contrarian jerkass thing to do. "Hey, let's go hoverboard to the arena and audibly down vote the utter s*** out of the Rumble."

More from RAW on Page 2...