See, this I don't agree with. It's pretty obvious now that WWE is hellbent on Reigns beating Lesnar or nobody beating Lesnar, so it's fair to say Bryan would have lost at Wrestlemania. Either by cash-in or Lesnar retaining, whatever. He wouldn't have won.

However, it would NOT have been the same match. Not even close. The Lesnar/Reigns match was designed to punish Reigns as much as possible, both in kayfabe and reality, to endure him to audiences. He took a beating because WWE felt he had to to "earn the respect" of the fans who didn't like him.

Bryan didn't have that issue, never has. The match would not have been half as stiff as the Reigns match was. So, I don't see why Bryan couldn't have won the Rumble, lost at Mania via cash-in so he still looks strong, and then taken time out for injuries after. I don't see where the problem is in that. Lesnar's a very, very safe worker and Bryan's small enough that Lesnar could have controlled his offense very well to reduce any chance of injury.

WWE didn't have Bryan lose the rumble because of fears of injury. If that was the case, they wouldn't have brought him back, they wouldn't have given him a stiff match at Fastlane and risk Reigns being seen as the guy who injured Daniel Bryan, and they wouldn't have put the IC title on him. Bryan lost the rumble because WWE was seeing Reigns through to the bitter end. They spent the last year building the guy, whether or not Bryan would be back for Wrestlemania was not a factor, clearly.

They thought Reigns would be over when he returned from injury. They thought he'd be over when he won the Rumble and Rock endorsed him. They thought he'd be over when he beat Bryan and Bryan shook his hand. They thought he'd be over when he stared down Lesnar again and again in the lead-up to Wrestlemania. But he wasnt, so they called the audible and Rollins is champ today.