If it's fair to say John Cena, Batista and Randy Orton become established main event stars circa 2005, then is it fair to say WWE has only gotten two guys over in the past 9 years as new main event acts? (CM Punk and Daniel Bryan.)Snark aside, there is actually something to that. You kind of have to make the fans want to make a guy to get the maximum effect out of it. Rocky didn't become the top star until the backlash from his initial push faded and then the FANS felt like they decided he would be a top guy. The same thing is kind of happening with Ambrose, where the fanbase is getting more behind him as a top guy than WWE intends and it's probably forcing their hand somewhat. Honestly, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for the Authority to start screwing with Reigns and making him work for his push. If you book him in ridiculous odds week after week and he overcomes them in the end, that's how you make a star. Throwing all these softball feuds at him is just gonna make him look like another guy.
If WWE wants to truly get Roman Reigns over, shouldn't they have him lose a lot and tell us he isn't an A+ player?
Reverse psychology Is the only recipe for creating a main event star that has worked the past decade.