i was reading one your fan-mail q and a's, and you were talking about how Dwayne/Cena 2 was the only logical situation for Wrestlemania 29. However, what if Punk had kept the title 'till Wrestlemania, and defended against two people who weren't Dwayne (or in the case of EC, just won the Chamber match), and went on to defend his title against Cena? Then you could get a definite finale to their matches, and it would be two modern guys rather than one modern guy, and one guy from the 90s who likes to pop up every now and then to have shitty matches.
As for the buyrate, if you must have Dwayne in there why not have him feud with Taker, and put that up as either a co-main event or THE main event? I can't imagine people not wanting to see it, and I'm sure both matches would be pretty well received. Also, there would've been a lot more suspense toward if the streak was actually going to end.
I think these booking decisions would've made WM 29 a lot more tolerable than it ended up being (I was completely bored with the show, minus Punk/Taker). You would end up getting the finale between two guys who've had the most relevant main event feud in recent history, and you would have the buyrate cross promotional bullshit with Dwayne/Taker. IDK, what do you think?
- With hugs, Sebastian
I just don't see the "Punk headlining Wrestlemania" argument, sorry. Especially not against Cena, who he'd already had a zillion matches against and didn't draw with. I love Punk, but there was no dynamic for him where he would fit in as a main event for the show at that point, especially after treating his World title run like a second class citizen for 400 and whatever days.