current set up is fine, the only problem is that everybody who wins it is pretty much guaranteed a WWE or WHC Title run. Now Damien Sandow is not what I would describe as being main event talent at this point in time, and with a heel champion on Smackdown, unless Sandow is going face after his feud with Rhodes concludes, when and how does he cash in? Sick of seeing guys win the Championship to drop it staright away (Bryan for instance). Sandow should hold onto that briefcase through to after Wrestlemania XXX. But as we know, Sandow is also a HHH protege, just like Sheamus so he will be getting that main event run in good time.
Apart from that gripe, the format is great, and the pop that goes with an unannounced cash in has proven to be superb.
1.What exactly is your gripe? You talked about how Damien Sandow is a heel and there's a heel champion, but then you immediately brought up one possible solution: Sandow can hold onto the briefcase until after WrestleMania. He has a YEAR to cash in, so why are you griping about how he can't cash in right now? Not to mention there's nothing stopping a heel from cashing in on another heel.
2.Daniel Bryan held the title for 105 days after he cashed in. I'd hardly call that "dropping it straight away." Don't confuse losing a match in 18 seconds with losing the title that quickly. He had a very good reign.
3.What does HHH have to do with anything? Drew McIntyre was supposedly a HHH or HBK or whoever protege too, how did his word title run go?
4.You're right, the pop from unexpected cash ins(or the possibility of unexpected cash ins) alone makes it worth it to have two.
Easy thebarber, someone like RVD or Christian or maybe even Cody wins it only to have Sandow cash in, just like they did for RAW zzzz Creative usually copies each brands shows and just makes minor adjustments based on talent anyway so why would this be any different. but there's nothing stopping him cash in on another heel, why not? after all, heels only look out for themselves and technically Orton was a face when he cashed in on Bryan.
How would a face Randy Orton cashing in on a face Daniel Bryan after he beat a face John Cena be anything remotely like a heel Damien Sandow cashing in on a face RVD/Christian/Cody after they beat a heel Alberto Del Rio? I'd love to see some examples of how creative copies each brand's shows.
Sandow would be fueding with Cody for another PPV atleast you'd think, tho i think it fell flat so far. but i don't see him waiting til after WrestleMania that's just stupid, logic would tell you anyone (storyline wise) who had it would want to cash in as soon as possible, even if they only had a quick title run it's more pay then waiting for months at lower pay.
What the hell does pay have to do with anything? They're trying to be world champion to win the belt, not get more pay. And logic would tell you that anyone (storyline wise or otherwise) would wait until they had the best chance to win, whether that's in a week or 11 months.
It would give the concept some life if similar rules to the 24/7 rule for the hardcore title were applied.
In a PG environment it may be a little unrealistic but I'd love to see a cash in while the champ is arriving at the arena or in the locker room.
They can cash in anytime, anywhere there's a referee. Sandow could take a referee to Del Rio's hotel and cash in if he wanted to. The rules allow for what you want to see.
"Could simply changing it so the winner can challenge for whichever belt he chooses add a new wrinkle to it?"
Not really. Every wrestler, even if they know that they're probably never going to be main eventing, has to at least project that their ultimate goal is to be a World Champion in a major wrestling organization.
You are confused, my friend. The question refers to the ability of the MITB holder to cash in on either World Champion(the WWE Champion or the World Heavyweight Champion), not the IC or US titles.
I think the current set up is fine, But I disagree with the competitors.
Every time the MITB rolls around there are qualifying matches or people are chosen to be in it, Then you usually know by the entrants, who is going to win. Make it less obvious, like they did with Sandow this year. Its is really nice to see someone win that no one thought had a chance. I also agree that unifying the belts would be good for the right heel, However there are no heels on this roster that I can see right now, that are ready for that.
So...you don't like that you know by the entrants who is going to win, and you want it be to less predictable...like it was this year? More winners are unexpected than not, really.
I don't understand why they NEED to have two MITB matches at the MITB pay-per-view. They don't have two Royal Rumbles. It seems to me that it's only really so creative has two wild cards to play with; a get out of jail free card if they need it or an extra injection of excitement. So, I agree with the people before me who say they could easily just go back to one who chooses whoever (cutting into creatives options a little), or they can just leave it alone. But if they needs to tweak it some how, having two that could choose whoever should never happen, except maybe once.
I'm not sure how one who can choose whoever cuts into creative options any more than two who can only choose one, to be honest. But I do agree that there should never be two who can choose either one. Either one who can choose both or separate briefcases for each title is the way to go.
It wouldn't make sense to have them be able to cash in on both. It's the same problem I have with the Rumble anymore. Why would anyone cash in on the WHC when they could go after the WWE title?
It simply makes no sense from a logical standpoint for someone to willing choose to go after the weaker belt, when they have a chance at the real world title.
The WHC and WWE Title are both World titles. If there's a difference between the two, it's extremely minor and not enough of a difference for a wrestler to choose one over the other. A World title is a World title.
Personally, I don't mind the two cases anymore than I minded one. My biggest issue is the timing of the event. If it were up to me, MITB would be held at the December ppv, with one minor stipulation change, the briefcases are only valid during the following calendar year. This would allow for something I'd love to see.
Have whoever wins the WWE title case also win the Rumble. They choose the WWE title at Mania for their RR reward. Hard fought, long match, back and forth, when the champion looks like he's close to retaining, have the challenger get dq'd beating him down with a chair/case/whatever, then prop the champion up in the corner, cash in the case and win the title. It's one of the few ways of cashing in that would feel new. Purposely losing one match by getting dq'd in order to have the opponent weak enough to cash in.
Why couldn't somebody do that now? Dolph Ziggler had the MITB briefcase and entered the Royal Rumble earlier this year. He easily could've won and done that. And that wouldn't even have to happen at WrestleMania. We've seen the MITB winner earn a title shot before, they just didn't go that route.
Other than that, I agree with you that it is somewhat surprising they haven't done this yet. It's kind of like in Iron Man matches where a guy gets himself DQed once to inflict enough damage that it'll earn him multiple falls and make up for the DQ loss, which we've seen a few times.
I think it's a neat enough idea on its own. Indeed, it's not nearly as interesting as it was when Edge cashed in, or when <deleted by Titansports> used his briefcase to choose which champion he wanted to face and eventually fought HHH at <deleted by Titansports>. There's only so much they can do with the idea of cashing it in that they haven't already done.
Just so you know, The Murderer earned his title shot against Triple H by winning the Royal Rumble, not MITB. He was the first to use his Royal Rumble win to switch brands. That was a year before the MITB match even existed.
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE I talked to regarding the Summerslam finish predicted that Randy Orton would cash in and take the belt after Daniel Bryan beat Cena. I think Mark Madden was the only person who thought this wouldn't happen, but we all know how far his opinion goes. I honestly thought that Randy Orton would only tease cashing in up until HHH was named as the guest referee, then the commonly predicted finish made perfect sense. The fans have a hard time recognizing HHH unless they're booing him.
Aside from the fact that it's obviously absurd hyperbole to say "everyone" predicted t hat would happen...nobody, and I mean NOBODY - as in
NOT ONE of those "everyone" would predicted it - included a Triple H heel turn in their prediction, which obviously changes the entire dynamic.
Anyway, as I said above, I think the current format works just fine. If there's going to be two briefcases, I think they should be designated for a specific title. If they're going to allow the briefcase holder to choose either title, it should go back to one briefcase...but I really do like having two briefcases. I just wish they would, for at least one year, have one single match at WrestleMania where BOTH briefcases are on the line. Either where they hang one briefcase up and once somebody grabs that they hang up the other one and restart the match(like the Eurocontinental triple threat match) or, preferably, both are hanging at the same time(but not close enough that somebody could grab both at the same time). That would be awesome. It'd combine the awesomeness of having one single match at WrestleMania with the creative flexibility of having two briefcases. If they ever decide to get rid of the MITB PPV, I hope this is what they do.
