Get rid of M.I.T.B.?

[S prince]

Before everyone jumps down my throat over this idea, hear me out real quick.


I've always been a fan of ladder matches and what not, but after seeing the MITB, what is like 3 or 4 years in a row now at Wrestlemania, I've grown alittle tired of it. 8 guys to me seems way too much for a ladder match, I'd personally enjoy a triple threat ladder match. Also, I don't want to see the same competitors in the match back to back years. I know theres alot of wrestlers and they try to fit them on the card, but I think they should create a new match every year for #1 contendership, or maybe have the MITB at a different pay per view to boost ratings there. Anyone with me?

 

[NeoScyther]

I like the concept of the MitB matches but I agree that maybe we should have less people. Possibly four, maybe six. Something I'd like to see is maybe make it a requirement that the winner MUST cash it in on an actual match, not use it after the champion has been beaten within an inch of his career by someone who's a little ticked off at him. That's been done way too much (actually, isn't RVD the only one to use it in an actual match?).

 

[S prince]

also to continue my point, i think they should make a bigger deal out of the brief case. If their going to belittle the intercontinental title, then at least make the case mean something. If they change MITB to a triple threat match, with maybe 1 or 2 top-tier level guys and a rising star, it could make for a great match and bring way more credibility to the case.

 

[bluejt16]

not really, i've watched every MITB match and every year the match has something new, it just adds a little excitement to wrestlemania in my eyes. getting rid of it would be a stupid idea.

 

[colalella2891]

I used to like MITB way more years ago, when guys like Edge and RVD won the match. But, now with guys like Mr. Kennedy and CM Punk winning it, it's kinda boring. I mean I like CM Punk, but him winning 2 times in a row isn't great for me, because there just needs to be more variety with the winners. Guys like John Morrison should win it. And, I do agree wity you that 8 is too much people. I think there only used to be 6, but they changed it a bit because of the ECW return. But, yea it would be more exciting with only 3 or 4 people.

 

[Black Snow]

If there is a problem with MitB - and I don't really think that there is - it's not the number of guys; it's the specific guys in general. Some of the guys who've competed in the match of the years had no business being there like Mark Henry, Kane, Ric Flair and Lashley.

Every year I've seen the match I've really enjoyed it. It helps push people who need it and it gives Wrestlemania time to people who really deserve it such as Shelton Benjamin. The match might be broke and need fixing in the coming years but we're not at that point yet.

 

[Jane]

The MitB is the time for the little guys to shine. Let's be honest, Shelton has never accomplished anything (Crap mid-card reigns aside), and he has all the athleticism. He's making his legacy in this match. He will be remembered for the excitement he brings to this match. It's also good for the other guys who aren't ready to handle a singles match but can still show off their talent, like the Hardy's some years, Kennedy, Finlay and Morrison. I'd love it and feel like it's becoming a big part of Wrestlemania.

 

[LMaruko]

I think that the Money in the Bank match makes for an interesting mix for the midcarders to make or break a big opportunity to gain some top gold. It also gives the horrible writers some more material to work with if they don't have anything to work with after Wrestlemania (where usually all the culminating feuds come to a climatic end).

I also believe that they SHOULD do away with repeat winners of the MITB, and other repeat failures. Punk SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN an entry in the match at WM25, along with future opportunities for Edge, Kennedy, and the other superstars who have had two entries already. They lost their chance twice already, and should not be given another chance.

But the MITB match should be a staple match from here on out in Wrestlemania. I think its a great way for the no storyline midcarders to make something of themselves.

 

[shazam]

There are very few things that I think could make the MitB better.

I liked when they had 6 people instead of 8. There is only 2 or 3 that actually have a chance to win and another 2 that will jump off the top of a ladder. I think that 2 people from each show should get into the match, it'll make the spot in the match mean alittle more and could lead to fueds between someone that got in and someone that thinks they should have been let in.

But some of the ideas above gave me an idea. Have a MitB type match at a Judment Day, Great American Bash,etc, 4 entrants, and the winner gets a IC/US title shot. All the thrills of a MitB and a push for someone that might not be up to main event status but has potential.

And I agree there should be a one and done rule when it comes to winning MitB. Let someone else that might blow us away get a try.

 

[Jonno]

I'd prefer to see a tournament take place on each of the shows and then have each shows winner go on to Wrestlemania in a three way Ladder match. Eight wrestlers is just too many, especially when you've got guys like Mark Henry and Kane in there. I say just have three guys, one from each show, and the winner gets to decide when and where they face their shows champion. But it should be a hyped match, like RVDs, no more surprise title wins. It made sense for Edge, but it makes anyone else look like a weak champion ie:CM Punk's sneaky win

 

[kingdirrtysouth1]

I think should move it to the Great American Bash & the winner faces the champ of thier choosing at SummerSlam! After all, SummerSlam is suppose the Wrestlemania of the summer(or it used to be)! That way, it can liven up the Bash and put some luster back into SummerSlam. WWE pissed on that ppv last year! It was a one match show!

 

[ThAwRe$tLiNgGaWd]

I agree to an extent that if a wrestler wins the MiTB they should move on and not be allowed to participate in future... it should be left for up and coming mid-card talent each year. But that also goes against the grain as for example if your favorite baseball team wins the World Series for the first time, does that mean they cannot play for a championship anymore? Win one and your done? Doesn't make sense. But then again, almost anything that WWE does nowadays don't make a lot of sense.

Hasn't anyone ever heard that "7 is company, 8 is a clusterfuck?!" Yes, you figure out of the eight maybe 2 or 3 have a real chance of winning the briefcase... so put more focus on those individuals during the match. So what is the point in possibly five others crashing and burning around the ring? There is too much going on and it's hard to focus on 8 people at one time... hell you have guys lying around half the match because there is only so much that can be done in one match... it's easy to lose focus in all the chaos. I like the idea of 6 wrestlers... two from each brand. Puts the focus more on the match itself... and it creates more excitement.

The whole point of the MiTB was that it is a one-year contract to guarantee a main event slot at the following years WM... if the winner chose too. But no one has ever made it remotely close to the grandest stage with luggage in hand. One of these years I guess we might see it, but that is a different topic for a different day.

 

[LokiCobain]

I agree with someone who mentioned earlier that the problem isn't the number, but the people they choose to participate in it. The fact that Mark Henry isn't a real contender in the match shows that it's a sort of bias match.

Here are a few things I think they can do while keeping the format the same at WM:
1. Make the MITB case like a title where it gets defended. This way at Mania, you have the 6 - 8 high flyers who can actually pull off a good match (or keep Mark Henry in it, but he better get thrown off to the outside through tables, I was begging for that this year). After Mania, where your winner is going to be someone like RVD, Edge, Punk, Kennedy...not Kane, Henry, Khali..., have them in feuds with those bigger guys for the case, so that you can have "new" MITB winners throughout the year. Kennedy did this with Edge, although that was due to an injury.

2. The other things I think they should do is make it for any title at any time. Talk about bringing prestige and credibility back to the IC or US titles. Have Morrison win it and then eventually steal the IC title, to make it mean something like it did when the great Shawn Michaels (since WWE needs to start going with people are saying and not the opposite) was champion. This will bring up the credibility of the title and the superstar, while keeping the MITB interesting.

3. Stop having IC and US champions in the match. If WWE continues to do this, they should make it winner takes all, the MITB and whatever titles are thrown in there. Not having the US or IC titles have their own match on the Wrestlemania card is borderline offensive, and really makes these titles look terrible. This point connects with #2.

 

[willross]

Though its planned out and pre-determined....the concept is to make it as realistic as possible.....now I know that if I had a free title shot I would go for the top belt easily, why settle for less.....so if anything it would piss people off if a guy like Morrison or Shelton won the MITB and instead of cashing it in for a WWE Title or World Title match(which would hands down be the realistic choice) cash it in for the IC/US Title.......

Thats like Randy Orton winning the Royal Rumble this year and deciding to face JBL for the IC Title in the Main Event or MVP for the US Title.....in reality anyone who had a title match whenever they wanted, 100 out 100 times that person would go for the big belt

 

[LokiCobain]

Because it's realistic. Punk or Morrison would lose against Batista and John Cena, that's believable also. Why would they go for something they don't have a chance of winning, unless of course the guy was already beat to a pulp, as been the theme?

You're proving why the IC/US titles don't matter. Why have them at all if every person on the roster wants the "top" spot. Instead of both titles meaning something, the IC is nothing, which is something that on other threads everyone complains about. Everyone bashed Punk's title reign because it was too early, but you're going to get a bunch of premature title matches if the winners of MITB aren't at that level to begin with. Edge's gimmick allowed him to succeed with them, and RVD was already a top superstar. If Kennedy became world champion it would've been more of a joke than Punk.

 

[S.O.H.O.O.D]

4 MiTB matches in a year could be a good thing. Obviously you could eliminate predictability by having MiTB winners lose hen cashing in. You can have multiple cash in's in one match and keeping with the rule that it can be cashed in on any champion you could have winners challenging for the US & IC titles and possibly even the tag titles.

 

[miroa12004]

They need to treat the briefcase as an actual belt, have its holder defend it on PPVs and on TV and creat feuds with the briefcase as the main attraction, for example make Punk defend it at Judgement Day against anyone, say Umaga then he'll lose it only to invoke his rematch clause, and make the new briefcase holder unable to cash in until the former holder invokes his rematch clause, atleast a man like Punk won't look like an idiot not doing anything except walking with it as if its a present from his girlfriend.

 

[Black Snow]

Here's my only problem with constantly defending the briefcase. Logically, wouldn't you NOT want to be in the MitB match itself? Why put your body through all of that hell against 5-7 other guys when you can just challenge the winner? Your odds greatly increase of having the briefcase and you don't have to go through so much crap. That's why I say the briefcase should only be defended in special cases like Benjamin challenging RVD and putting up his IC title.

I do however agree that if you're a former World or WWE Champion (not ECW because let's be realistic, that belt is as important as IC and U.S. nowadays) you shouldn't be allowed to enter MitB. MitB should propel a person to permanent main event status. Punk, Edge, Orton, Kane, etc. have no business being in MitB since logically speaking they've already broken the glass ceiling and should always be in consideration for #1 contendership.

 

[HHHDiedForOurSins]

I think the MITB match should happen on any PPV other than Wrestlemania. The match could theoratically main event and be a huge selling point for any other PPV, but WM is already big enough, it doesn't need it.

Also, it waters down the quality of WM overall, in 07 Edge v Orton could have been a great singles matches but instead they were thrown into the MITB when really they are above that. An MVP v Shelton US title match this year could have also happened if it weren't for MITB, also we'll never get another classic Ladder/TLC match at Mania as long as MITB exists, this isn't TNA, they're not gonna book 2 ladder matches on the one show.

I think the MITB is a great gimmick and can really elevate someone if pulled off correctly, but I just don't think the match itself should happen at WM.