Should there be only one Money in the Bank Winner next year?

[Nolan]

I think that the concept of one money in the bank gives prestige to the MITB Briefcase itself. Look, every year almost 16 wrestlers have the opportunitty to win that match and that devalues a little the concept in my eyes at least. It should be only one Money In The Bank, one that garantees you a shot to the WWE Championship or WorldHeavyweight Championship.

It would give you unpredictabillity, and more in these time around with both brands being merged. I would make the match the main event for every year in the PPV, unless you have something like John Cena/CM Punk in 2011. It would be easy to pick the chance for the creative to pull the trigger, if the WWE Championship is to crowded then make the MITB holder cash in at the WH Championship.

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't think that having two has done any sort of damage. The unpredictable nature of when someone will cash in and where is still there with one or two. At the end of the day, that big surprise is something of a treat for fans when you consider that the internet has taken away so much of the surprise of wrestling.

If I'm not mistaken, the WWE was going back to having one MITB match a year at WrestleMania and they were scrapping the ppv before Wade Barrett got hurt. One advantage that a single MITB winner has is the added uncertainty of which title the winner will go after.

To be honest, either scenario works for me. The MITB ppvs have been a lot of fun in my opinion but having MITB be a specialty match that comes around one time a year for WM sounds fun too.

[HBsam31]

I like the fact that there are two. One for each title makes sense, and like this year the can go different routes with each one. Cena cashed in ahead of time, and didn't win the title while we still have the intrigue of when Dolph will cash his in. Having the second one can also be like a redo if they mess the first cash in up, and things don't work out with the person cashing in. Having to gives them more options and I think it should remain that way.

[ChefMeefus]

I think they should get rid of the Money In the Bank PPV. Either put one MITB match in the TLC PPV or put it back in Wrestlemania. That being said I believe they should have one winner and like the Royal Rumble winner, they can choose what belt to cash in on. It would give the winner more exposure and TV time having the winner tease who he will cash it on throughout the year. It would give a chance for the winner to test the waters of being a heel or face depending on who holds the belts. Hell, maybe even bring back the old hardcore belt rules where you can cash in at anytime. MITB cashing in has been too predictable in the past and it would be nice to shake things up

[Bone For Tuna]

I think the MITB match is a cool concept but I don't want them to kill it by overdoing it, although they have kind of done that already. I never liked the idea of having a MITB, Hell In A Cell or a TLC PPV but MITB kind of makes the most sense out of the three. Hell In A Cell and TLC matches used to be really exciting and you never quite knew when it was going to happen but when it did it would be huge, now there's no surprise to it and who really wants to see three Hell In A Cell matches on one card anyways? Anyways as far as MITB I think they should only have one match though with four guys from each show and they winner can cash in on either champ. I think it would keep it from getting overdone and it would make things a little more exciting. That PPV could be similar to the Royal Rumble where wrestlers work hard to get in the match to get a shot at the gold.