Did TNA Just Quietly Evolve "Option C"?

[It's Damn Real!]

If you caught IMPACT this past week (and shame on you if you haven't — it's worth it for the entertaining absurdity of the Final Deletion match alone!), it appeared as though Eddie Edwards was getting ready to elect Option C (after re-capturing the title from Mike Bennett) before Lashley interrupted with the idea that instead they should go title-for-title. Winner-take-all.

It's been a while since we saw this kind of stipulation added, and the last time I can recall a TNA wrestler legally owning multiple championships (sorry, EY) was when Kurt Angle won every title at once back in 2007!

It's likely that Lashley wins, but regardless of the outcome, it sure seems like Option C — a yearly reminder that the X Division matters little as performers scramble to win the title in time to cash it in — just got a bit of a makeover. Instead of the annual drop-the-title stipulation followed by silly tournament to crown a new X champion, this at least treats the XDC as a title of value, not just a title to be used as a stepping stone to something better. Because it's not just being turned in, it's being competed for right along side the WHC.

I really hope this is the new future of Option C. You still maintain the integrity of giving the XD champion a shot at the WHC, but without having to completely sacrifice and shit on the XD title in the process.

 

[New Hot Fed]

I don't know if you remember but I think it must have been a year ago or two years ago TNA DID THE SAME EXACT ANGLE which involved Lashley(again) and Austin Aries. Where Aries wanted to cash in but Lashley (or his spokesman of the time MVP) suggested that instead of surrendering his X division title it should be a winner take all thing.

As a concept, I don't know how I feel about it cause the option of surrendering your X title for a World title match worked. It was simple and well done. Having the "winner take all" is also an idea that I like but at the same time it detracts for an idea that worked to begin with. I always thought it was a clever reworking of the WWE "money in the banks" concept without ripping it off. (like the Feast of Fired cases which is too similar)

In my opinion they should keep Option C as is(with the exception of this year) and they could do another gimmick where all title holders are in a battle royale and the winner wins all titles(World, Tags, X, KOTM, except women). A battle royale or a mini-tournament.

(BTW why are they calling it Option C instead of Option B? Option A should be you stay X Champ, Option B would be cashing in)

 

[Rhodes2TheFuture3313]

I think option A is Winning a title match. Option B is Feast or Famine briefcase. That makes option C cashing in the X-Division Title. I hope Eddie wins, but I also could see Lashley just having this dominant long run with the belt.

 

[das1234]

I think option A is Winning a title match. Option B is Feast or Famine briefcase. That makes option C cashing in the X-Division Title. I hope Eddie wins, but I also could see Lashley just having this dominant long run with the belt.

Option C comes from a conversation between Hogan (!) and Aries(!!), the X Champ. Hogan wanted to give Aries an option:
Hogan said Option A was keeping the X Title, Option B was cashing it in for a title shot.
Aries then suggested Option C: cashing it in and establishing the same option for the X champ at every destination X from then on.

They keep calling it that and the portion of viewers who remember dwindles more and more.

 

[rbv13]

Could this "evolved" Option C just be a ploy to protect the champions? Lashley and Edwards put on a show only to have inference have the match thrown out. No winner and no title changes. Had this been a standard Option C stipulation Edwards would've been forced to hand over the X Division before hand.