All streaks must end at some point. All of them.
Goldberg is your new WWE Universal Championship. Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, he's over big time. He's moving merchandise, selling subscriptions. But what happens when casual fans tune in next year and ask "isn't that the fat guy who Goldberg beat in like ten seconds? By the way, where is Goldberg? Is he coming back?" He's not. He hasn't taken a bump in over a dozen years. You can't hedge your bets on that bro.
Normally, I'd say that putting your most prestigious title on your most over talent in the company would be a solid move. However, WWE has went against the grain and their own fans with such regularity, that such a thing isn't a consistency. Fortunately for Owens, there's an excuse and a way out in that he was distracted. I don't think a distraction loss to Goldberg hurts him.
Charlotte's streak ended at WWE Fastlane, but not without controversy. I've been a big proponent lately of "you don't have to save everything for big shows," and fully believe that. As it pertains to the women's division, they're not saving anything. Sasha Banks' big win, Bayley's first championship victory, Charlotte's streak, Nia Jax being defeated -- none of it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. The unpredictability of the division while the four main names stay strong has kept me particularly interested, however, it's just a case of what happens when all of their matchups are used up? I guess Emma has to debut sometime.
Braun Strowman is over. Roman Reigns is, too, but Reigns certainly isn't over in the manner they designed it. Their match was good, and Strowman survived 17 minutes in the ring with a top guy and wasn't exposed. He's a runaway success, but I wonder if he's headed down the same road as Rusev or Ryback who were put in similar situations after gaining interest. If the entire Braun Strowman project was just a tool to further the "how can you doubt the Big Dog now?" commentary, that seems like promotional malpractice.
Roman Reigns is John Cena lite as far as crowd goes. He gets the polarizing reaction, but I'd like to think if he beats Strowman, The Undertaker and Goldberg or Lesnar, everyone will see this coming from miles away. The show has been structured in such a way that WWE attempts to make a jacked, 6-foot-3, former NFL player whose family is in the business is an underdog -- after he's been endorsed by The Rock. Many thought Reigns was a good choice to end Undertaker's streak. In retrospect, Lesnar doing it did huge business and created an iconic moment. It doesn't seem too late to move that direction with Reigns, but every opportunity to give Reigns an edge has been ignored. Make no mistake, at this point, there's no reason Reigns should lose to Undertaker.
Ultimately, this all seems like valuing the brand over the individual talent -- except in positions where that individual talent has a defined shelf life. When the only breakout stars are those who won't be around in 30 days, and the ones you want to break out can't superman punch their way through a ceiling due to hamstrung booking, it causes an uphill climb for talent.
View the discussion thread.