**MERGED** Money in the Bank 2012 & Aftermath Discussion- Keep it all in here!!

[Darkdarkdays]

If you look at the previous winners of MITB,pretty much all of them were at least mid to upper-mid carders (Kane,Edge,The Miz.Cm Punk etc) so I don't think the PPV/match launched their careers as they were already well established. J

Jack Swagger maybe got a bit of a boost after his win but look where he is now....

MITB is a themed/gimmick PPV and isn't worthy of becoming part of a 'Big 5'

 

[Jack-Hammer]

If any of the "B show" ppvs could rise to the level of making the Big 4 the Big 5, it's MITB.

In spite of some of the complaints you hear from internet fans about MITB, the concept remains wildly popular with the VAST majority of WWE fans. The MITB matches are always high quality matches in and of themselves and the unpredictable nature of the MITB briefcase always gives fans a charge. Last year, MITB was the best ppv of 2011 in my opinion and the reasons why are because pretty much every match on the card was great and there was a heavily anticipated main event that delivered a huge pay off in John Cena vs. CM Punk.

As WWE has the SummerSlam ppv in Los Angeles every year, I think they should have MITB in Chicago on a yearly basis. Chicago is most definitely a wrestling town and have helped deliver some white hot WWE events.

 

[ThinkinSmart]

No. Money in the bank is a great concept but it is always its best when its one match on a big card like Wrestlemania. The two matches a pay per view are tiring and ware out the concept. The second match is always more boring than the first. Whats the most memorable thing about last money in the bank? CM Punks match, that could have occurred at any pay per view with any theme. Money in the bank should be kept as a special match for Summerslam or Wrestlemania but should not be its own pay per view.

 

[DeathClutch]

MITB should used for WrestleMania to elevate one of the mid card guys on the cusp of being a main eventer.

MITB 2011 was one of the best non-big 5 WWE's ever produced but realistically they've done two MITB PPV's and 2010 failed where-as 2011 delivered two good MITB matches along with a great main event and a good World heavyweight match, a lot of stars had aligned for WWE for that PPV.

 

[Rated_R_Edgehead]

Well I think it has the potential to be the 5th big ppv, even though there has only been 2 of them so far.

I mean so far, both the past 2 mitb ppv's have led to the start of great story-lines. and had great stories within them. Whether it was Kanes long time ass world heavyweight champ, which lead to a very watchable smackdown, or the beginning of Mark Henrys dominance and Daniel Bryan becoming a main-eventer, This ppv has done wonders for wrestlers careers both old and new.

And lets not forget last years with Punk, best ppv of last year by far, and the year before that with the arrival of the nexus (I know it happened on the raw before, but to make an impact at the ppv was also huge)

So it has the potential, but I would say give it a few more years and then lets see if it can be a good ppv.

I like how when they were in talks of taking it out of wm and making it it's own ppv, people were really annoyed, but so far it's been worth it.

 

[Cebeards]

The Money In The Bank concept is one of the most exciting concepts of the year. It gives someone that stepping stone to get what they really want. It makes it possible to shake up the Championship scene in seconds.

If it is kept as a PPV, I believe that it is well more important than Survivor Series is anymore...Survivor Series is just shitty now, no build, just a bunch of Guys thrown together, just like WWE does every few months when they forget to build a storyline. Survivor Series used to be pretty awesome, but now they have one Survivor Series match and it usually sucks.

At this point, does Royal Rumble even matter all that much? It doesn't mean your headlining Wrestlemania anymore, it means you have a title match. Do people not understand what headlining means anymore? It's a fucking hype word, well overused around Rumble time to over emphasize it's "importance".

Summerslam is just a Summer PPV that they put a few extra bucks into to round out feuds and try to have a bang before they get into the fall Wrestlemania build.

If WWE wants to build stars, then have PPV's that build stars
-King Of The Ring, a PPV, not a half assed Raw tourney. Have the Raw tourney to be for spots for the KOTR. Have some upsets, have some fun with it, for the most part there is nothing to lose, go for nostalgia over a filler PPV.
-Real Survivor Series, have 4 Survivor Series Matches, where the winners combine at the end for a big Survivor Series send off. Let some younger guys get some big pin falls, build em' up.
-Money In the Bank, almost anyone can win it, it makes them actually matter int he title picture. It gives guys the chance to run with the ball and if they can't then it's very believable that they would lose it quickly. Not much risk, for the reward of building new guys.

I RAMBLE SOMETIMES!
So Yes, Money in the Bank is at very least top 5.
-Wrestlemania...Number 1; most of the Time
-Royal Rumble...Number 2; Importance is more inflated now
-Money in the Bank...Guaranteed to have 2 ladder matches and two guys who will be almost guaranteed to get the belt at some point regardless of what Punk does. So i'm gonna put it at 3
-Summerslam...they usually try to give us something, but MITB ensures that we get something, so 4
-Survivor Series...Extreme Rules at least has more than one gimmick match...lazy pricks...so this is like 8th
-Hell, Elimination Chamber is more important than Survivor Series, maybe more than the Summerslam...It leads into Mania, usually gives us a title change and sets up feuds.

 

[OneTooManyPunts]

No, Money In The Bank will never be a 'Big 5' event, and for several reasons.

The reason the 'Big 4' are the Big 4 is because of the history, and lineage they have within WWE. The Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series are the four cornerstones of what would become PPV wrestling. These events existed well before the WWE decided to introduce the semi annual In Your House events, and well before WWE and other promotions decided PPV's had to be put on every month. Because of that, these events had a sense of importance and grandeur. Now, it can be said that Survivor Series is no longer what it once was, but the programs and feuds that go in to are always of an elevated nature. The Royal Rumble is the key building block for a main event match at Wrestlemania...SummerSlam is meant to be the WM of the summer, even if that doesn't always come to fruition as WWE would hope.

MITB is still very much a young PPV concept. The gimmick itself provides for exciting matches, but those matches could be served just as well on one of the 'Big 4', than as a stand along PPV.

Even entertaining the idea that MITB could become a 'Big 5' event is to then entertain the idea that HIAC will become a 'Big 6' event, and Elimination Chamber will become a 'Big 7' event.

Fans recognize the history of WM, RR, Survivor Series and SummerSlam. The other 8 PPV's a year...well, let's face it..most of the time..they are just the other 8 PPV's a year...

 

[TheLoneCharles]

For me, Money in the Bank is on the exact same level as the Elimination Chamber pay per view held in February. Considering the WWE's pay per view schedule and desire to hold 12 a year...it gives them an opportunity to make their other 8 ppv's watchable.

With MITB and EC that effectively gives the WWE 6 decent ppvs a year.

 

[Philly88]

I think it already is. Other than the royal rumble and wrestlemainia I think its the best ppv of the year. Survivor Series usually sucks so its ahead of that imo.

 

[willross]

The only reason there is a "Big 4" is because of tradition. The original 4 PPV's during WWE's boom was Rumble, Mania, Summerslam, and S.Series.

MITB is simply a match. I disagree with PPV's having themes regulary. Royal Rumble and SUrvivor Series are the exception for obvious reasons. MITB would be perfect for events like Summerslam or Survivor Series because it would provide that little extra to seperate them from the "B" shows.

Summerslam could use the traditional Ladder Match for it and then Survivor Series could implement a tournament of sorts like from 1998. You can have a couple 4v4 or 5v5 matches and then have 8 guys compete in a tourney to determine a second MITB winner. Kinda like combining KOTR w/ Survivor Series.

I dunno, they make millions of dollars every year and I can barely see a 6 figure yearly salary so the WWE guys must know more than me and you lol

 

[edgehead113]

Crazy idea but hear me out.

Smackdown: Seems pretty clear Wade is destined to win whatever brand he's on, for the sake of my idea I'll say he wins the SD briefcase.

Raw is where it gets interesting.

Picture this. Miz, Ziggler, Mason Ryan, Kofi, Truth, Brodus, Swagger, and Mysterio are set to commpete in the match. Now I'm going to assume at this point that a Brodus/Zigger (w/Mason Ryan) feud will be intact, and say the two of them destroy Brodus on Smackdown "2 nights before" MITB, leaving him unable to compete. Teddy Long is assigned the task of finding a replacement in "2 nights". All 7 of the other superstars come out to their music, and all of a sudden...

"IF YOU SMELLLLLL...."

Bam. Teddy continues his face angle by delivering THE ROCK at MITB, where he winds up winning the Raw Briefcase. This will satisfy Rock's claim that he will win the WWE Title within the year.

I know it's unrealistic, and Rock doesn't necessarily need it, but the first thing I thought of when he said he'd win the title again was MITB.

Why not?

 

[Nickster12909]

in my personal view, just put mitb at TLC, as it is part of the Table ladders and chairs gimmic and isn't mitb just a glorified ladder match, and putting it in this spot in the calender would lead to someone actually cashing in at wrestlemania, as usually most people get to January and creative makes them cash it in at the royal rumble, I dont' agree with it being a big five ppv as wwe has too many ppv's just live now we have wm, extreme rules and over the limit all in a seven week period and it's like ppv overkill and reduces buy rates, I also feel that its' silly to have more ppv's and if not, put in at WM to give lower/mid cards something to do, unlike this year they had the long vs laurenitus, but that won't happen every year.

 

[The Hardcore Kid]

It's stuck in that queer spot where it's too late to ride out Wrestlemania stories, too early for hot SummerSlam buildup...

It's the PPV before SummerSlam. It can, and has, serve as a launching pad for a lot of SummerSlam storylines.

I personally feel like MITB is already there as a major PPV, or close.

Royal Rumble and SUrvivor Series are the exception for obvious reasons.

What are the 'obvious reasons'? Survivor Series doesn't even usually include Survivor Series matches anymore, and when they do they're pointless filler matches that feature almost no storyline.

The Royal Rumble is important of course, but again, it's just one match, just like MITB which you say cannot carry a card. How does the Rumble carry a card better, outside of simply being a longer match? It has WrestleMania implications, but MITB has become THE storyline for the summer and the fall. It's arguably just as important at this point.

tl;dr I think MITB is definitely there as a main staple PPV, until they decide to kill the concept completely (if they ever do).

 

[AustralianBroski]

I like the idea of The Rock winning MITB, it would also bump up PPV Ratings from people (such as myself) waiting to see Rocky cash in.

Although I can see Wade Barrett winning the SmackDown! briefcase, and cashing it in on a vulnerable Sheamus. I could also see Ziggler winning the Raw briefcase and beginning a face turn.

Having two briefcases when the brand split is all but over seems pretty stupid though.

 

[avriltt234]

From WrestleMania 21 to WrestleMania 26 Wwe had one Money In The Bank Ladder Match and the winner could cash the briefcase in on either the World Heavyweight Championship or the Wwe Championship, then in 2010 Wwe said they would be holding two Money In The Bank Ladder matches in one night One Raw and One Smackdown. When it was announced it sounded like a good idea but then i found that all the magic had gone, instead of The Miz running out and winning the world title from Kane you knew he had to cash it in on Randy Orton.

My Question is should Wwe go back to One Money In The Bank Ladder Match but move it to the main event of TLC or put it Back at Mania?

 

[avriltt234]

Since i was first saw The Money In The Bank Ladder match at WrestleMania 21 i have been thinking about how much better the match would be if it was a six man Tables, Ladders and Chairs Match imagine the carnage and the death defying moments that could happen. But i think Wwe missed out on the chance when they got rid of the Ecw brand because that would be the perfect match to have elevated Ecw back to the mainstream.

so i have three questions

Would Wwe ever book a Six Man Money In The Bank Tables, Ladders and Chairs Match?

Should Wwe have booked it for Ecw?

Would you like to see a Six Man Money In The Bank Tables, Ladders and Chairs Match

 

[JaceEvans]

I think with guys like edge being forced to retire early due to injuries we won't see anything like that on a regular basis. Maybe once in a blue moon, but now WWE is taking all the precautions they can to protect there investments. We've seen from matches like 'taker vs HHH this year in a HIAC match that you don't need over the top carnage and high spots to tell a brutal story in the ring.

 

[Nick Xage]

Money in the bank match is fine the way it is... always exciting to watch, no need to overdo things

 

[Dagger Dias]

A Money In the Bank match under Tables Ladders and Chairs rules sounds amazing on paper. It would probably never happen though because it is potentially too dangerous. Ladder matches are deadly enough, TLC matches are far more dangerous. We have seen some insane things from TLC matches and in the MITB matches the competitors will do nearly anything to win. If Tables and Chairs are added to the chaos we already see with MITB they are just asking for another career ending injury.

As for booking it for ECW, that question didn't even make sense. ECW as a brand has been gone for two years. If you meant booking it for guys on the ECW roster back before they ended the brand then none of the names would be relevant enough to be put into a MITB match yet. It's just like the Extreme Elimination Chamber at December to Dismember. That match would have been better if more established guys had participated in it. I would like to see a MITB match under TLC just once, but only once because I would fear for the futures of the competitors who compete in more than one. We don't want anyone else to have to retire as early as Edge. This is also why WWE might never make this happen.

 

[rocksaviour]

I would like to see them keep the 'Money In The Bank' PPV but only have the one MITB match and have four superstars from each brand.

Just as on the themed PPVs have two HIACs at that PPV at either end of the card on the night.

 

[thesubverse]

There is literally no difference between a ladder match and a TLC match. There are no rules in a ladder match, right? So what's to stop them from using tables and chairs in just a regular ladder match? Nothing, as evident by the fact that tables and chairs are used in most regular ladder matches.

The only difference is marketing, and it clearly works since people seem to think TLC is so much bigger and better and more dangerous.

 

[Kanomaniac]

One money in the bank a year is enough. Two matches waters it down that bit too much the MITB match should be used to create a star or help in a big push of a superstar. Too put a spotlight on a guy for a year or 6 months up until he cashes it in, weather the superstar wins or loses up on cashing in the briefcase the wwe should be doing more to push the match and putting more hype around it, making it seem more important to the fans and stop putting a world title match in the main event of MITB and put the ladder match its self in. Closing out the show with the winner of the match is in the best interest of the wwe...just make the ppv about the MITB match itself and not about the world titles.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/image...TB-Ladder-Match9_display_image.jpg?1308607236

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

even though i love the money in the bank match and having 2 a year leads to 2 great ladder matches i say cut back to 1 and put it on wrestlemania with 4 or 5 guys from each brand money in the bank was always a great opening match for wrestlemania it got the crowd fired up for the rest of the show really well.

 

[HBKistheHOF]

I did like MitB at Mania but I somewhat disagree.

If WWE is set on having two world titles for two "seperate" brands, then I think they should keep 2 MitB ladder matches. And really when you think about it, it doesn't kill any suspense. We have just yet to see someone cash in on someone who already cashed their briefcase in, or see someone cash it in and lose, etc. But WWE loves to break records and put new things in the history books. (ex. Sheamus v. Bryan - WM 28)

 

[MCMG]

This match would be insane but there is no need. MITB is fine as it is and having a ladder match is sufficient. Perhaps using a six-man match at the TLC ppv could work. That would definitely be enjoyable as well as allowing a range of superstars to compete for a world title.