Has the MITB Concept Become Backwards Booking?

[Pay Per Ghost]

We're in this day and age where the WWE can't wait till people get behind a superstar so much so that they don't have the patience build him up and finally give him his strap moment at 'Mania or SummerSlam.

After WrestleMania 21 when the two names of this era in Cena and Batista arrived, I have yet to see someone get made by a slow build, winning the rumble and then the title at the grandaddy of 'em all. You could say Benoit, but I mean that big top face name, whose merchs are selling like hotcakes, whose ovations keep getting louder, and someone who just can't keep down, ala Austin's build for WM 14.

Wrestling fans adore a new complete wrestler and will turn on anybody who is against him. With Brock this was so evident. I mean the guy had the audience in the palm of his hands by SummerSlam 02. Six months after his debut!

With MiTB, we have unpredictablity, but wih RVD's cash in being the only proper match, it's a little redundant. It's become a more hyped up hardcore title win.

But it depends on who wins. DBD winning is great but I would've liked it if he did wrestle a good solid match and then win it. But people will argue that MiTB is all about the improptu cash in and win, but where is the build?


This started with Edge, he won and then was top dog for years, and seeing how it led to great things for him, WWE has stuck with the idea. Now if we speak about a superstar that the fans were waiting for the slow build and proper blowup, I think the last contender for that was CM Punk. After he lost his title at SummerSlam, they could've gone a slow build for him and had him win the Rumble and then finally win it at 'Mania. Everytime when he could've come this close and yet have it slip through his grasp, would've made people want it more.

 

[GameOver]

Simple instead of the person gets a match whenever they want ala Hardcore 24/7
they get a match at a PPV for the title, not after a match and if the championship is already being defended which it usually is, they are just added to the match.

Then there's almost zero chance of them just walking out with the title, and here's a novel thought, someone needs to lose
I marked out for Big Show winning only to see his "character" dreams crushed moments later. Good for Bryan but hell Big Show atleast deserved 1 month with the title

MITB should be scrapped as a PPV, it should never have been a PPV. MITB was a great concept for WrestleMania a once in a year match that filled a lull in energy around the 2nd hour of Mania and that spot for people who otherwise wouldn't get a shot on the PPV.

as a PPV it's pointless, 2 matches, identical leadins, same stipulations zzzzzz

then again Match Stipulation based PPV's are moronic anyway.

 

[Australian Punk]

I'm okay with the concept of the briefcase still being around, but next year I really do want to see someone cash-in and lose. I think then maybe it will inject some interest back into the concept. Maybe have someone win the briefcase, then cash it in that very night only to lose the match? Then they argue with their GM to give them another title match only for the GM to make them have to earn it. Slowly but surely that superstar will rise up and eventually go 1-on-1 for the title and win it the honest way to complete the "push".

That way by cashing in, losing and then rising up through the ranks to ultimately win the belt the briefcase wouldn't be seen as a waste by us (the IWC) and could really cement the given superstar in the main-event scene.

 

[DirtyD79]

I believe that the briefcase still has it's proper justification.

The point of the concept itself is that a new star will be created due to the inevitable cash in. In every case (excluding Jack Swagger) it has done just that. When you compare guys like RVD, Edge, and Kane to guys like Miz, Punk, Bryan, and Kennedy you are going to see a difference in pre-MITB winner accolades. However their biggest factor in common was that after the cash-in WWE had a main eventer for a a short while (Kane, RVD, Punk's first win) or solidified ones as big players (Miz, Edge, Punk after 2nd win). In my eyes Money in the Bank is like a cycle: Someone (2 in recent years) wins the briefcase, cashes it in, then WWE test him as champion. If he immerses himself into the main event scene as a champion well, mission accomplished. If he stays there for a short period of time, well then you have next years winner to count on. Which of these categories Daniel Bryan and ADR fit into remains to be seen. The concept works, it always has, and will probalby continue to do so.

That's about how I see it too. This way they can use it to give somebody a run at the belt without needing to invest a lot of time building them up. They have a ready made challenger for the title. It can also allow a heel to gain heat by cashing in on a babyface champion unable to defend themself. That was a large part of Edge's Ultimate Opportunist character. It was sneaky and underhanded which is the kind of thing a heel would do.

 

[Workrate]

I'd like to see them go back to having just one MITB winner, if for no other reason than it adds in the element of surprise for which title the person will cash in for. And I don't think they should change the rules about cashing in, but I think they should use the rules as an opportunity to help get a character over.

Personally, instead of having Bryan cash in the way he did, I would have had him come out with the briefcase post-match, get into the ring, and rather than turn over the case, take a microphone and announce when and where he wants to cash in. I think, of all the guys on the roster, Bryan would most benefit from winning the title clean. But I suppose they can't put him clean over Big Show (although truthfully, if Bryan lost to Big Show clean but eventually went on to capture the title after a hard-fought journey, it would have been worth it).