So, were they never that good, or were they just terribly booked?
I am going to go with C, none of the above.
I don’t think they werent’ good. Nor do I think the booking was horrible. What I do think is that WWE had a good idea that served a specific, albeit brief, purpose or need. They had the good fortune (or was it bad?) to bridge the gap from Seth Rollins to Roman Reigns and ultimately Hunter Hearst Helmsley.
Collectively, two of them have been world champions. As well as an Intercontinental champion and a US Champion. Individually, each has done enough in the eyes of WWE to earn that accolade. Yet, collectively, they are an also-ran. A group like the Social Outcasts is getting as much interest as League of Nations is, but if WWE wanted the faction to matter, they’d have them rushing out to destroy such a group, or anyone else worthy of a beating.
Instead, they were most recently booked to deliver a mid-Rumble beating to Roman Reigns as a storyline reason to give Reigns most of the match off. That doesn’t exactly scream long term success, does it?
And now, with Barrett likely out in a few short months-something that folks had been speculating about for a while-one has to wonder if this is the beginning of the end for League of Nations. I figure there would be three options-first, they keep the group intact, but with only three members. Second, they add a new fourth member and keep them around. Or third, the League gets punked out, jobbed out and phased out. Of all the three? I expect the third option above all else, though seeing a League with a new member (Kevin Owens?) could be quite interesting too.
So, WNZ readers, I ask you this: Should the League of Nations just be put out to pasture? Or would you like to see a new member added, and the team pushed a bit more?