There is not one single, great reason for Cody Rhodes to beat Roman Reigns at WrestleMania 40.

A segment of pro wrestling fans might call that a hot take. Scorching, even. Some might even suggest Paul Heyman is ghostwriting it himself.

But it is a "take" that continues to be proven true. It was true one year ago when Rhodes was hamfisted into the family-based Bloodline story, earning a layup of a Royal Rumble victory. Proven true after his loss, when he floated around in purgatory in a Brock Lesnar feud for months, won tag titles (remember that?) and did other random stuff.

And it is perhaps truer than ever today. The Rock is back, dwarfing all other Superstars in the process with must-see television and setting up some compelling family-based storytelling.

Rhodes, meanwhile, is doing something short of an Avengers knockoff by teaming with Seth Rollins on Night 1 against the Bloodline, a match that is already overbooked on paper with Night 2 stipulations that likely won't matter in the second night's main event, anyway. It's likely the main event at the expense of other stars, when it could have been the Jey Uso vs. Jimmy Uso showdown with the same stipulations.

Had The Rock not returned (yes, it was messy and botched for a second there) and turned heel, maybe there's a better argument for Rhodes finally picking up his win.

But now it's too late. Why would WWE ruin a good thing? Part of the Bloodline's dramatic success for years was the layered, consistent storytelling. Now The Rock is here and they can keep that going, with the paranoid Tribal Chief going up against him in subtle ways.

Fans might argue that Reigns doesn't need a title to still tell that inevitably awesome story. But the whole thing would deflate like a balloon if he loses and Rock disappears until SummerSlam. In the process, Reigns would have the proverbial carpet yanked out from underneath him before passing Hulk Hogan's third all-time title reign.

All that lost for Rhodes would be unfortunate, considering his "story" is the same as last year with most of the same talking points, with only Rock's inclusion saving fans from retreads. Like it or not, the title his father never won isn't going anywhere and we could make the argument that he's much, much better in chase mode, anyway.

While Rhodes as champion wouldn't be bad, ending the Bloodline saga by limping through the finish line and losing compelling storytelling possibilities would be a shame.

That's especially the case because with a champion Rhodes, we can effectively start the timer before fans turn on him. He would rather easily befall the same fate as Rollins, the respectable work rate, traditional WWE-styled top dog who eventually oversaturates his own run and has fans pining for him to lose.

Rhodes would be much of the same, a fighting champion who accepts all challengers. Except, we've seen him in most of these feuds already and given how discouraging his last year of booking was in the first place, it's hard to say with confidence that a title run would fare much better.

Plus, WWE losing the can't-miss attraction that is every Reigns appearance and title defense—at a time it mirrors UFC-style reigns after the merger—would be a hit for the company. Reverting back to two traditional champions would be a detriment, not a boon.

That title around Rollins' waist was created for a reason, and the only reason we're still on this topic at all is because Cody's particular story happens to hinge around the other title. In a way, it's a little reminiscent, unfortunately, of the self-imposed stipulation Cody made for himself in AEW that prohibited him from ever challenging for that promotion's top title again, which he honored, and it played a role in fan reactions and his eventual departure.

Some might call it a stretch, but Rhodes' stories creating self-imposed boxes might work in another era of WWE programming. But right now, if the only very top reasons for his dethroning Reigns are because of those restrictions, because it's just simply time, because the champion has simply been champion too long, that's just not good enough.

Right now, at this particular moment in time, that's why WWE would be foolish to have Rhodes take down Reigns. The company is about the long game under Triple H, so in hindsight a long time down the road, what's more appealing and true to that: Rhodes abruptly winning just as things are getting good with Rock's heel involvement, or Reigns going on to pass Hogan and the Rock storyline simmering for another year while Rollins and others occupy that traditional champion role?

The answer is obvious. Uncomfortable, sure. But the best storyline of the modern era and one of the best championship runs ever ending with the whimper that is an overbooked tag match into a just because title change would be a shortsighted overreaction more appropriate for WWE a decade ago, not now.