Sting and the title

I know you just said Sting winning the belt at Night of Champions would be a horrible idea….but isn’t this kind of the same thing as Hogan winning the belt in 2002?


Not only that, I think you’ve said in the past that Hogan winning the title in 2002 made sense, simply because, hey, strike while the iron is hot. Hogan was on a huge nostalgia run in ’02 and the crowds were going apeshit for him, so a quick one month title reign to capitalize on it seemed like good business sense.

Sting is in a very similar position now. The crowd pops for Sting every time he shows up have been astronomical. What’s the harm in Sting winning the belt (by hook or by crook, finding a way to protect Rollins) and then dropping it back to him a month later?

Sting gets a WWE title run under his belt at a throwaway PPV, they get it off of him before the crowd bores of the nostalgia act at the next throwaway PPV, and as long as he’s protected and decisively gets his win back, Rollins wouldn’t be harmed by it.

​I strongly beg to differ.

First up, Hogan in ’02 was white hot coming off Wrestlemania and drawing huge ratings, whereas Sting is basically damaged goods and did nothing to move the needle on Monday. Plus Hogan was actually working more than one match a year back then, whereas Sting is not. And why does Sting even need the title? He’s already a 13 time World champion!

Also, Hogan’s reign in 02 wasn’t supposed to be a quickie one, it was supposed to be a relatively long-term one that got derailed after a month when ratings and house show attendance suddenly went into the toilet in dramatic fashion with him on top. Because it turns out that putting the belt on a washed up nostalgia act ISN’T a great business move. ​