I have a novel idea for the MitB winners

[Lord_Frish]

"Mildly shocked that the live audience soiled the sheets as it relates to watching Ambrose vs. Sheamus in a Steel Cage Match. I felt bad for the talent. It seems like now days that who ever closes a three hour RAW are in a precarious position." from JRs BBQ

The match was fine, nothing amazing but a good Raw steel cage match. One of the problems is we were basically watching a Raw best of show. 'Remember when Lesnar destroyed a car and threw it at a fan?' 'Remember when The Rock showed up at Wrestlemania with Ronda Rousey?' 'Remember how Seth had amazing matches all year?' 'Remember how Austin is the best talker we've ever had?' 'Remember how Undertaker had a great run a few months ago?' 'Even John Cena, our hardest worker didn't bother to show up for his award' All these people are far far bigger stars than Sheamus and Ambrose. They are so far apart that the only one of those guys who would even wrestle Sheamus or Ambrose is Cena and that is because he is full time. We just sat through 3 hours of how awesome these guys are and how they aren't here.

On to my main point though. Sheamus isn't a star anywhere near their level because of the MitB curse. Whoever wins that briefcase is bound to do some jobs a number one contender for the WWE Title never should. Sheamus shouldn't have lost a match after winning the MitB. He should be going through some rough matches but always winning in the end. The problem is that the writers can't figure out a way to have the MitB holder look strong without people wondering 'why didn't he cash in now?'

If you want the babyface champ to put someone over at the end of a show (A bad idea most of the time anyway, happens way too often) have the commentators say 'Sheamus has left already' then he can come back the next week and say 'I shouldn't have left, I'll be here all night tonight' which builds up anticipation for a cash in then have the face stand tall at the end, no chance for a cash in.

I'd hate to be booking after the MitB PPV, seems like a very hard job but they are doing a pretty bad job of it. The goal should always be to book a MitB winner strong. They pretty much never look strong when they get it though. I just feel like the last few weeks would mean so much more if Sheamus had been an unstoppable force coming up to Survivor Series. I know WWE were caught a bit off guard, but that is no excuse for booking MitB winners like complete losers almost every year. Imagine that, a number one contender for your biggest title actually winning matches. Seems like a novel idea to me

 

[AegonTargaryen]

1)Whatever you postulate here seems to be reasonable and correct upon first glance.

2)But I believe the concept of MITB contract is overused as fuck and should have been obsolete by now. And by overused, I mean, every year a superstar/person wins that briefcase and from that point on- the only question remaining is WHEN- the superstar definitely and almost always cashes in like Edge did, in a cowardly/opportunistic fashion, and becomes the new heavyweight champion.

3)IMO, that is completely absurd, has little shock value/captivating power, and yet we've been seeing it since 2006. And I'd like to point out that there have been two exceptions- Rob Van Dam and Seth Rollins, whose cash-ins were not only unique but had that captivating power. If not that, MITB is just a worthless reason to make someone champion. And it's a pretty dishonorable way too.

4)I admit, it was fresh in 2006. It suited Edge's persona. But really, did The Miz, Alberto Del Rio, Daniel Bryan and CM Punk deserve to win those championships like that? in 2 fucking minutes? It is the stupidest way to crown a heavyweight champion. And The Miz and Del Rio didn't even deserve to be WWE CHAMPIONS. THINK ABOUT IT. IT'LL FOREVER BE THERE IN HISTORY NOW- ALBERTO DEL RIO. THE MIZ. WWE CHAMPIONS.

5)IMO, they should do away with MITB for now, or reinvent it if they can.

6)But if they do continue with a yearly MITB match and winner, they should do exactly what you said- Book the winner well. Also, I'd like to suggest that cash-ins should be unique, even if opportunistic. I mistakenly believed that Seth Rollins cashed in before the match(Lesnar vs Reigns) begun(I haven't watched WM 31, yet). But nonetheless, Seth's cash-in was still a little bit of a risk- considering how he had Roman Reigns and Brock Lesnar to contend with before winning the match. But yes, the MITB booking needs a change- both in terms of innovative cash-ins(and not the same old opportunistic crap) as well as how the MITB holder is booked throughout the year.

7)Finally, you suggest that the MITB winner should actually be winning matches. What I suggest is- give the MITB to deserving candidates and not to just anybody. IMO, Seth Rollins, Daniel Bryan, Mr. Kennedy, and CM Punk were the best/right choices. As were Rob Van Dam and Edge. But in the near future, they ought to refrain from giving it to the Miz'es and Del Rios and Sheamuses- all the horrid ones- of the roster. Lets say, if they give it to Kevin Owens this year...would they naturally not book Owens well and have him win matches while losing a few? But if they give it to Tyler Breeze, he might hold the MITB but the creative would have nothing for him and he'd lose matches all year, and yet cash in and become the new heavyweight champion.

 

[swallop]

Here's the thing, WWE's logic is if you give a guy the MITB your pretty much guaranteeing him as a future world champion. So they become lazy and book them weak. I dont have that much of a problem as you guys but recently its been really WEAK. Like a Guy like sheamus being poorly booked when he is a heel it just didnt make sense.. But remember when dolph ziggler was MITB holder. He was booked weak as hell. But what happened he cashed in and got one of the all time greatest reactions EVER. Its not so much the problem of them being booked weakly it just needs to be booked correctly. Isnt the MITB for guys who quite cant get to the main event so they need to win to get to be world champion? I just feel like they need to put the MITB holder in multiple storylines, Not necessarily winning the stories just make sure there constantly on the show's. In my opinion the MITB holder should be putting guys over as well. So it gives other guys a big rub and the viewer will be like "oh he just beat the future world champ" You see where im going with this?

 

[S.J. Maximus]

I am a big fan of the MitB concept. I hated how there were 2 every year on the same the night (that should've never happened, there aren't two Royal Rumbles) but the idea of giving someone a free title shot gives the show a special spark that no other gimmick has really done.

While I agree it has become a little too cliche, the heel MitB winner cashing in 2 mins after a new champion is crowned, RVD and John Cena had noble cash-ins and it has been an extremely effective method to turn top faces heel. Some of my favorite storylines of the last decade started with a MitB cash-in:

-Edge cashing in on Cena, igniting one of the hottest feuds in the history of the company (and IMO Cena's best feud) was a great way to introduce this concept. This win immediately validated Edge as top heel in the business.

-Everything about RVD's 2006 story, from the hard fought victory at WM22, to the noble way of cashing in ahead of time, and the victory itself were all components of the perfect storm that catapulted an extremely over midcarder to main event status

-Even Edge's second cash-in, this time on Taker, gave us the main event of WM24 and the match of the night of SummerSlam 2008

- CM Punk cashing in Jeff Hardy in 2009 gave us one of the best feuds ever, it may seem irrelevant now because of how Punk really turned up the heat in 2011 but please rewatch their matches/promos, this was the hottest feud in the company at the time and main evented several ppvs over Orton/Cena.

- I have nothing to say about Jack Swagger, Sandow, or Del Rio

- Randy Orton in 2013 gave us a huge swerve that led to the YES Movement and the return of Evolution in a classic feud with the Shield

- Seth Rollins. A+ build. A+ cash in. A+ reign.

One big thing to remember is that the guy who wins MitB is not Number One Contender. He's simply the contract holder, which gives way for other people to be #1 contender so that the champion can have an exciting feud while the contract holder simultaneously has an exciting feud of his own. I think the best way to illustrate that is to mention how walking into WrestleMania 31 Roman Reigns was the #1 contender and a good amount of people were into that match. Seth Rollins, who was dominating WWE in his own way, was in the middle of a well-done feud with Randy Orton. When Rollins cashed in, it was the collaboration of two separate (yet popular) feuds, which gave us yet another memorable WrestleMania finale.

I don't think the key is to make the contract holder look strong or go on a "big push" the way the Royal Rumble winner does, but it's more to keep them relevant and fresh so that the cash-in gets a reaction. That's what my biggest problem with Sheamus winning was, there was no point in this year where he was ever relevant or over enough to be top champion. You can honestly argue that Miz had "top level heat" in the months leading up to his cash-in on Orton in 2011, which is why it was widely accepted at that time (regardless of how people think of it in hindsight).

In conclusion, I would say relevance is more important to these contract holders than win %, because they are not number one contenders but obviously getting some wins helps you stay relevant (hi Bray). Mic time, good feuds, maybe a few cashing teases, and you're golden.

 

[MWRedskins]

i like the Money in the Bank Briefcase if it's used right. for Example, CM Punk did it well in BOTH his cash ins....his first one was a "what goes around, comes around" moment and he made sure to do it when Edge's buddies left the building and the other one started his heel turn and set up a great feud.

for Rollins, i liked his cash in the best...not only did it take some risk, BUT he did it in the Main Event at Wrestlemania and built a major star out of Rollins in the process.

Are there some who aren't deserving of it, yes. Del Rio and Swagger jump out of my mind. i feel Sandow would've been great if WWE built him well, but they failed and (at the time) i didnt hate Miz as Champion either and they built him pretty strongly. with that said, that was my big issue with Sheamus. it wasnt that he was boring as the holder of the case, it was that he was booked really weak. he was jobbing to the Lucha Dragons in Tag Matches and teaming with Barrett (who himself can't get above mid card status). Even Bryan was booked weakly while holding the case, but thankfully his cash in added a character switch in Bryan that helped his career.

in my book, the next Money in the Bank winner should be Kevin Owens (if he doesnt win the title before then) and hopefully if he wins it, WWE builds him up strong. have him win matches and have him claim that the briefcase is his prize (since he calls himself a prize fighter) and have him claim he's already champion because of what he has and of course, have him win matches vs. guys who at least sometimes main event. that way, when he wins the title, it doesnt feel like a fluke.

 

[J.J.]

To be perfectly honest I disagree with MITB. I feel the emphasis should still be placed on KOTR. Unfortunately KOTR is useless. It has in no way shape or form done nothing for Wade Barrett but alter his ring name.

I stopped caring for MITB after it ultimately did nothing for Damien Sandow but turn him into a comedy jobber when I thought he was destined for the main event. As it was pointed out I enjoyed Edge's run when he won. I just feel now it has ran it's course and after seeing Sheamus float around mid card and in tag teams I furher lost more intetest.

 

[Hem]

I think John Cena may be the only strong cash in I've seen. He announced he was cashing in a week in advance. That was the ultimate babyface way to do it.

I think every now and then a beast should hold the MITB and tear through everyone and say that he is cashing in for a match later in the night. He beats a fresh and prepared champion in a decisive manner and puts himself over strong.

 

[Radical]

I still like the MITB briefcase concept and I think it should continue.

However, I think since it has been around for a while, it needs a slight adjustment to be more meaningful and interesting.

I think the MITB briefcase should be treated more like a title and put up for defense more often. I believe it did happen once or twice before. Didn't Sandow have to defend his briefcase?

Anyway, I think it would make the briefcase holder more interesting and important. I don't think it should be like the main titles where, basically, if you get a win over the title holder you are owed a title match but I DO think it should be treated close to that. Such as, if one wrestler beats the MITB briefcase holder 2 or 3 times in a short span OR a number of wrestlers beat the briefcase holder 2 or 3 times in a short span, let's say they won a few multi man tag matches and a singles match against the briefcase holder, then they could have reason to claim they should get a shot at the MITB briefcase holder because THEY feel they have earned it.

This would allow the MITB briefcase holder to be more validated because when they do lose a few matches then successfully defend the briefcase we can see that they are competent.

PLUS, this also gives a HUGE bonus potential to storylines and big moments where a wrestler could LOSE their briefcase and fans can be reignited with interest.

It still means the MITB ladder match is important. Because who wouldn't want to be the first MITB briefcase holder that year? It certainly is an advantage because the briefcase holder could cash in later that night or next night on Raw with little to no chance of having to defend it. It would ALSO make for more intensity if the briefcase holder waits longer and longer to cash in because fans will know that it means more chance they have to defend their briefcase.

I think that is a necessary tweak to the MITB briefcase concept to keep it fresh and interesting.

 

[kcordloh]

I don't feel it needs updating, but more tweaks of the booking.

Rollins losing to Orton at WM, but winning later set up a title feud. Solid work.
Edge losing to Ric Flair before cashing in set up a run RAW TLC title match.

There are lots of fun things they can do, but basically I agree that the guy who has the briefcase shouldn't turn into a jobber. Now if they did something where a job guy like say Bo Dallas managed a fluke win, that would be ok. Can you image he gets the one fluke win, then every week he is trying like a snake to get that title. And you could even have a heel who is #1 contender trying like hell to get the babyface champion weak so Dallas can cash in, because the heel knows he will destroy Dallas (why face Cena for a title when you can face Dallas?)

So many fun stories they could do, but they won't. And they shouldn't.
Guys who win the briefcase should be shown watching title matches, interact with top guys, tease a cash in or two, and mention in it promos "Ambrose tonight you defend your IC title against me, but just remember, by tomorrow I could be both WWE Heavyweight and IC champion!"

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

I don't mind the MITB Briefcase. It's something different that adds an unknown element ,( will he cash in finally ? ) ( on the same night as he won it ?). Stuff like that. I miss it being the special match at Wrestlemania though. It should be a Mania match only. Maybe before Wrestlemania they could have a mini tournament to qualify for the fatal four way MITB ladder match at WM.

I think somebody cashing in at the end of The Royal Rumble is also a good idea nobody would see coming. Imagine, Randy Orton just fought off three guys and wins the Rumble only for a MITB holder to cash in, throw him over the top rope and go to the main event at Wrestlemania for his title shot. Because that's what it is, a shot at the championship and what better way than the main event at Wrestlemania.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

If you think back, nobody, except Edge and maybe Bryan, has really benefit from the MITB briefcase in the long run. And in Bryan's case, his WH Championship run (and the WH Championship's continuity afterwards), felt like a 90's Intercontinental Championship. Bryan weak booking prior the cash in, devalueated the title (plus many other things).

Actually, Seth Rollins is the most successful champion to emerge from a MITB cash-in and that happened 10 years and 15 winners later. That's how useless the concept is.

However it's still highly entertaing for some reason and I'd like to see them tweak it a little, like other posters have stated, like having the MITB winner also win the Rumble, or have the MITB winner win the title and also hold the briefcase at the same time, which would lead to a back-up plan in case he lost the belt.

 

[ShinChan]

I still like the MITB briefcase concept and I think it should continue.

However, I think since it has been around for a while, it needs a slight adjustment to be more meaningful and interesting.

I think the MITB briefcase should be treated more like a title and put up for defense more often. I believe it did happen once or twice before. Didn't Sandow have to defend his briefcase?

Anyway, I think it would make the briefcase holder more interesting and important. I don't think it should be like the main titles where, basically, if you get a win over the title holder you are owed a title match but I DO think it should be treated close to that. Such as, if one wrestler beats the MITB briefcase holder 2 or 3 times in a short span OR a number of wrestlers beat the briefcase holder 2 or 3 times in a short span, let's say they won a few multi man tag matches and a singles match against the briefcase holder, then they could have reason to claim they should get a shot at the MITB briefcase holder because THEY feel they have earned it.

This would allow the MITB briefcase holder to be more validated because when they do lose a few matches then successfully defend the briefcase we can see that they are competent.

PLUS, this also gives a HUGE bonus potential to storylines and big moments where a wrestler could LOSE their briefcase and fans can be reignited with interest.

It still means the MITB ladder match is important. Because who wouldn't want to be the first MITB briefcase holder that year? It certainly is an advantage because the briefcase holder could cash in later that night or next night on Raw with little to no chance of having to defend it. It would ALSO make for more intensity if the briefcase holder waits longer and longer to cash in because fans will know that it means more chance they have to defend their briefcase.

I think that is a necessary tweak to the MITB briefcase concept to keep it fresh and interesting.

I too like Money In The Bank concept and feel its just too stale booked and overused now! I mean just make the MITB holder lose every or most matches
But Buddy, You proposed an awesome tweak here!
And it really makes the MITB holder much relevant & interesting! And as some other poster said here, hype the cash-in and even warn the champion that he might cash-in, make plans for a right moment for cash-in like making champion beaten up by his guys so that he can cash-in! This would add much credibilty to this awesome concept!