Again, very sorry if this is redundant in the least from past posts, but a neurological download has begun and must proceed:
Just for a WAG, a recycling universe should have a starting point in the literal, but not figurative sense. This is because we see so many major changes over billions of years in the observable universe, and no one is seriously suggesting that what we have seen so far is reversible. Clearly we are well past a BB, and see an evolving universe, so there seems to be a set course that any cycle must follow. At least the current cycle we are in has a set course which we can observe, up until "now".
As a result, it would seem that a cyclic universe would have to be biphasic (at minimum), with an intermediary point of "zero-space-time" as the "beginning" of each new cycle. Each new cycle seemingly must start with the "end" of the degenerate matter-energy-space-time of the last cycle. This does not imply a big crunch, a true beginning or end, but some mechanism which resets all aspects of the universe in order to recycle, and particularly resetting space-time to zero.
Since the BB is, for us, a large scale dissociative process, it is reasonable to suggest that this is the beginning of a new cycle, and, for us, it is very early in the game. Since many or all things we see seem dissociative, and due to entropy, and the proposal that the universe is fated to a heat death, there must exist some mechanism which evades this fate to begin another cycle.
It seems reasonable that there is only one force that would be the fundamental driver of universal recycling, and that is gravity. Even if everything is converted into ER, it all has mass-equivalence. Which means it should be able to reassemble, assuming the "universal field strength" is sufficient to initiate a reboot.
Gravity is an associative force, and would appear to be the primary suspect in sustaining a cycling universe. There seems no other force with the required properties to put it all together again, so to say.