Money In The Bank Needs To Be Restructured

[RATED-RKOFRANKLIN]

Money in the Bank has only helped Edge and RVD. This concept successfully built interest in both men. It was soon to be known as Edge's signature screw job.

Let's look at other past winners.

1. Jack Swagger- He won it way too early. He was not over as a main eventer.

2. Punk- Was booked as a weak champion both times.

3. The Miz-Some people still don't see him as a creditable main eventer.

4. Kane- His win and cash in led to a good story. He wasn't a first time world champion who jumped to the main event.

Let's look at last night winners. Neither man is over.

Daniel Bryan is not over with the fans. His nerdy gimmick is not working for him. However, he does know how to wrestle.

ADR is the biggest bust in WWE history. He is an awful heel. He gets not fan reactions. He can't even buy boos. His mic and ring work are awful and boring.

Besides from Edge, RVD, and Kane; the other MITB winners had little to no good feuds with main eventers. They had no experience getting some spotlight. They randomly jumped high up the card.

I think Money in the bank needs to be restructured.

1. There should only be one Money In The Bank ladder match featuring stars from both brands. We don't have two Royal Rumble matches(thank god). 2 contracts is way too much. We don't need too many title changes a year. It devalues the titles and champions.

2. Only former world champions should take part in the match. This is because young guys need proper build. Cashing in on a wounded champion is not very creditable for first timers such as Punk, Swagger, and Miz.

3. It should still be a PPV because we want our former world champions having different feuds at Mania.

What do you guys think of my restructured MITB and analysis on past winners?

 

[The Death Rattle]

I must say I have major issues with your summaries of past Money in the Bank winners.

1. Jack Swagger-I will agree with you that his win did little to push him up the card on a permanent basis. In Swagger's defense, he was being booked as a guy on a major losing streak before he won. He was doomed to fail as champion. Sure he won it, but no one believed he had any chance of keeping it long. Still, the experiment failed.

2. CM Punk-You can take issue with how he was booked, that really doesn't matter. What matters is he was put over twice in a marquee match, and as a result became champion twice. That is instant credibility for any wrestler, as two title reigns can't be called a fluke. Plus his second MITB win started off his heel turn, which has led to bigger and better things for him. These wins made Punk the threat he is now.

3. The Miz-Let's assume "some people" doubt him as a main eventer. That argument is eliminated when you recall that Miz just main evented at Wrestlemania this year. Don't understand how anyone can question that. "Some people" may complain about how he has been booked since, but that is a different topic. Miz winning MITB made his spot at Wrestlemania possible.

4. Kane-Your assessment rings true to me. That being said, how can you say winning MITB didn't help Kane. It made him relevant again and a monster heel for how he beat Mysterio. Kane would have continued to flounder in the midcard without his win.

The Daniel Bryan win puzzles me a little, but I'm willing to wait and see where they go with it. You mentioned RVD, what if Bryan took his route and announced his challenge date against a heel champion. You could easily build him up and make a new star. Bryan certainly isn't as over as a MITB win seems to warrant, but remember they can build him up for up to a year. That is certainly enough time.

Might be overstating your case on Del Rio just a bit there. When you do things like that, say like calling him "the biggest bust in WWE history", you immediately throw out your own credibility. You don't have to like him, but stay grounded in reality.

In regards to your suggested changes...

1. I disagree with merging into one MITB match. I think it is important to have both brands have that to use in building to this pay per view, as well as future plans. This gives both brands a way to build up someone in a relatable way. As far as title changes go, it doesn't have to ensure they happen. Eventually someone isn't going to cash in successfully. Additionally, even if both guys do cash in, it is only two extra changes per year. That's not an overwhelming number.

2. If the match is only former champions, who ends up getting elevated in that scenario? MITB is the perfect way for midcard wrestlers to move up to the main event. People are conditioned to think Cena and Orton never lose as it is. The element of surprise is the perfect way to offset their "advantages" over wrestlers beneath them.

3. I agree with you here. Creative should really have no issue crafting storylines for the showcase show.

 

[12mattew]

1. Swaggers cash in was rushed simple as that... It couldve been done so much better, they have a year, and they chose to cash it in within a week.

2. CM Punk, he won the match twice. Twice in a row aswell. They obviously had faith in punk otherwise they wouldnt have bothered with letting him win twice. Punk may not have been booked as the strongest champion, but he still made for some good stories, more so during his heel run against jeff hardy

3. The Miz, Really, really, really, you really think that the Miz isnt over. There may be a people who doubt his abilities but they are few and far between. The Miz was easily the most must see champion of atleast the last few years. (Not including Punk, cause im really interested to see how this is going to work). The Miz easily has the ability, and im hoping he will become champion again soon.

4. Kane, the mitb match made Kane relevant again. Sure he had been champ before, but that was for a night. Kane had a decent run as World Heavyweight Champion and the whole deal with the undertaker storyline was good to watch. It may not have been the most creative, but the return of Bearer was well timed, and worked well for the whole angle. Caused by Kane winning the MitB match.

Daniel Bryan winning, i didnt see that coming... But hopefully they will utlize the year that they have to build him up to a credible contender, he has the ability for sure, he has it, its just his credibility as a contender that is the problem.

Del Rio the biggest bust in WWE history, thats a long time... Not many people have had a debut year like Del Rio's. He put out Mysterio and Christian with injury, he was challenging for the WHC, he won the royal rumble match, he was in a championship match at Wrestlemania, and IMO if it wasnt for Edge's injury, i think he wouldve won. He know has won the MiTB match, just another accolade to add to his already impressive list, know all he needs is a championship.

For the changes

1. The two matches are good, it means that stars from both brands get some exposure on TV and on the PPV that one match wouldnt allow. It would also mean that they can be grooming two superstars for the top championship at a time, with a cash in being only eminent.

2. Former champions would completely ruin the concept, we have seen numerous superstars win their first world championship using the contract. People like Edge, Swagger, Miz. More so for the Edge and the Miz, but it has launched their careers. Edge had won the world championship several times during his career. This is what the money in the bank contract can do for someone. So IMO it would ruin the entire match if it was just former champions

3. yes it still should be a seperate PPV, in recent times, we have never seen a PPV so well recieved by the WWE universe like this years Money In The Bank. The two marque matches were great and the entire card from top to bottom didnt dissapoint. So it really shouldnt be a problem if it remains as a PPV

 

[Inittowinit]

There needs to be one money in the bank match. take the best guys and combine them. They should of had Jackson vs Slater vs Gabriel vs Barrett for the IC title and combined the others.
Also no guys like Rey Mysterio who have won the title. its pointless. Let a Zack Ryder or someone else to get the exposure.

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

It's perfect the way it is.

Two ladder matches, you get speculation from both shows, you basically know your getting two new champions. You get plenty of PPV time to actually put over talent that otherwise normally would be left off of a PPV event.

Last year was the first MITB ppv, and I enjoyed it.. it was in my ... FAVE 5 of PPVs... this year.. it might have gone up a little bit.

 

[Theo Mays]

The Money in the Bank concept is perfect the way it is. Honestly the only real "issue" with it is when will the actual cash in winner lose. By only including former World champs in the MITB devalues its actual purpose. That of course being to elevate a midcard/upper midcard talent to the main event scene. Other than Jack Swagger all the cash ins were pretty successful. Punk's first one was average, but his second one led to a great feud with Jeff Hardy and this all propelled Punk to where he is today and that is one of the best stars on the roster. Kane's wasn't really a case of elevation, it was more a case of respect and hard work. Kane's run as champ was pretty solid and enjoyable. Miz had one of the best title runs in years (and this is coming from a Miz hater) and only time will tell with Daniel Bryan and Alberto Del Rio. And while you may hate ADR, he is damn good in the ring and on the mic. The DB win puzzles me, but it should lead to interesting television, that's for sure.

 

[itssoeasy123]

Restructured? Why?

It's perfect the way it is, the person wins the briefcase of their respective brand, and holds it for a year until they cash it in at the oppurtune moment. Some people cash it in when the champion is down, some like RVD (and possibly Bryan) cash it in when they announe it before hand. There's absolutely nothing wrong with how the MITB is run now. It's a great way to ensure future talent's get a shot at the big time, and a great way to build up wrestlers for the future.

The only pet peeve though, is I wish they had it a Wrestlemania. Only becuase it's a great way to showcase alot of young talent on a bigger scale, the biggest, Wrestlemania. Still though, there's nothing to change about the MITB.

 

[HeelTurn]

Question-- if Daniel Bryan wasn't over, who in that match was? He had chants the whole time, while no one else had any real crowd reaction. Maybe Sheamus?

And saying that some people still don't see the Miz as a credible main eventer is saying a lot more about those people than the Miz.

I could go for collapsing it to one match; taking the best guys from each show and having them battle it out. But, I'd almost rather there be no former champions than all. Think about how small the pool of former heavyweight champions is-- there go any high spots unless you expect Mysterio to do all of them or Punk to be around next year and ready to hop off of a ladder.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Money in the Bank has only helped Edge and RVD. This concept successfully built interest in both men. It was soon to be known as Edge's signature screw job.

Let's look at other past winners.

1. Jack Swagger- He won it way too early. He was not over as a main eventer.

2. Punk- Was booked as a weak champion both times.

3. The Miz-Some people still don't see him as a creditable main eventer.

4. Kane- His win and cash in led to a good story. He wasn't a first time world champion who jumped to the main event.

Let's look at last night winners. Neither man is over.

Daniel Bryan is not over with the fans. His nerdy gimmick is not working for him. However, he does know how to wrestle.

ADR is the biggest bust in WWE history. He is an awful heel. He gets not fan reactions. He can't even buy boos. His mic and ring work are awful and boring.

Besides from Edge, RVD, and Kane; the other MITB winners had little to no good feuds with main eventers. They had no experience getting some spotlight. They randomly jumped high up the card.

I think Money in the bank needs to be restructured.

1. There should only be one Money In The Bank ladder match featuring stars from both brands. We don't have two Royal Rumble matches(thank god). 2 contracts is way too much. We don't need too many title changes a year. It devalues the titles and champions.

2. Only former world champions should take part in the match. This is because young guys need proper build. Cashing in on a wounded champion is not very creditable for first timers such as Punk, Swagger, and Miz.

3. It should still be a PPV because we want our former world champions having different feuds at Mania.

What do you guys think of my restructured MITB and analysis on past winners?

Holy shit dude you over exaggerate more than wrestling promoters in the 80s (6'9" Hulk Hogan?). Yes it helped Edge. Did it really help RVD? Was he that much over afterwards? Not really.

1. Jack Swagger, you're probably right, he won it too early. Can't blame them for trying though.

2. Punk, it put him in the main event, who gives a shit if he was booked as "weak" what the hell does that even mean? that he never won clean? He's a goddamned heel, heels don't win clean, get over it. He was one of the best and most over heels.

3. The Miz, the only people who don't take him as a main eventer are the FEW IWC members who still hold a grudge against him because he's a reality show guy. The very IWC Chicago crowd tonight LOVED him and he gets HUGE reactions everytime. Are you drunk?

4. Kane, this was a token to him for his hard work. Don't actually think they wanted to elevate a guy who has been consistently upper card/main event for the past 15 years.

Now as for last nights winners...."ADR is the biggest bust in WWE history" HOLY FUCKING OVER EXAGGERATION BATMAN. Did you not HEAR his reaction? Do you not HEAR his reactions every night? The dude is seriously over. "biggest bust in WWE history"? REALLY? If he doesn't get over one night in podunk, Indiana, then he's the biggest bust in WWE that night, but in fucking history? The entire goddamned history of the WWE? 1995, Diesel. Already have a bigger bust for you. How about Fake Razor and Fake Diesel? How about the XFL, or if you only want in ring stuff, how about Rocky Maivia (the character). How about Mike Adamle? How about the millions of good looking muscle guys who come in and are pushed but never get over? Are you serious? Del Rio is very over and is very good.

As for Bryan, you're probably right. He's not that over, but he's a great worker and will get other guys over. Plus if he is ever turned heel, which is where he really excels, then he will be much more over. He lacks the mic skills to be champion long term though but he can work on it.

As for your suggestions.

1. Only one match, I agree. Tonight they did a good job by having one ladder match be spotty, and the other being story....y. One is enough though and making it for either title adds more suspense.

2. Only former champions. This is where you lose me. the purpose of it is to elevate talent, or at least try to. If you only use former champs then you're fucked. Plus, using only former champs limits your cards. Typically former champs are established guys who, if you put in a match, can draw. You put 8 of your main eventers in one match and the match will suffer. Plus a lot of main eventers don't excel in ladder matches. You have to have a mix of big and athletic guys to make the match work.

3. Yes, it should still be a PPV because the idea of a ladder match gets people to buy the show.

Question-- if Daniel Bryan wasn't over, who in that match was? He had chants the whole time, while no one else had any real crowd reaction. Maybe Sheamus?

And saying that some people still don't see the Miz as a credible main eventer is saying a lot more about those people than the Miz.

I could go for collapsing it to one match; taking the best guys from each show and having them battle it out. But, I'd almost rather there be no former champions than all. Think about how small the pool of former heavyweight champions is-- there go any high spots unless you expect Mysterio to do all of them or Punk to be around next year and ready to hop off of a ladder.

In all fairness though, Daniel Bryan was as over as he is because he's had some pretty amazing ROH matches in Chicago and this was a huge IWC crowd.

Daniel Bryan is the type of guy who doesn't get a big pop on an entrance, but by the end of his matches, because he's so good at sucking you into the emotion and story of the match, everyone is biting on his falsies.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

None of the examples are the fault of MITB, but the booking of said characters afterward, which is plainly obvious. MITB is just fine, and a fantastic vehicle for new stars.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I don't even necessarily think it was the bookers fault. There is only so much blame you can place on booking, the superstar has every bit as much to do with it too. Santino has been given a character 99% of guys wouldn't be able to do. Instead he's a huge part of every show (being the comic relief is big, if you don't have it your show lacks variety).

A lot of these guys are very young. Just think about the history of wrestling. Besides a few guys, most wrestlers don't even hit their peak until their early-mid 30s. I don't think Hogan or Flair even won a world title till they were in their 30s. HHH either I think.

Pro wrestling is something that's mostly mental. It's a tough mental part too. You have to be very detailed about getting every aspect of your character to make sense and to be able to put together matches that make sense with your charcter, the other guys' charcter, the storyline, the part of the card you're on, the show you're on, and the city you're in.

Usually what happens is a guy comes in his 20s, does all kinds of athletic pretty stuff. However, it doesn't always make sense. He learns the business. Hits his prime around 32ish I'd say, can put his athleticism and his mental prowess to work to have a great character and great matches. By the end of his 30s, his body starts to break down, but he's still smart enough to do more with less.

Basically they DID push guys too soon. However they didn't really have a choice, they needed to push guys. A lot of the reason these guys aren't staying over is their own fault though. Well, I won't but blame on them, that'd be like putting blame on a 14 year old for not throwing 95MPH yet in baseball. It's more just an unfortunate circumstance, they tried to make the most out of it and it didn't work as well as everyone had hoped.

 

[kingofkings01013]

I am fine with 2 ladder matches. My problem is 8 people is just too many, 6 people was perfect.

 

[vampirek]

I am fine with 2 ladder matches. My problem is 8 people is just too many, 6 people was perfect.

To be fair last night both MITB ended up with 7 wrestlers as in both matches one was withdrawn due to injury (a third if you count Sheamus being taken out).

There was nothing wrong with the Raw MITB on paper but I did have concerns about the Smackdown one, the amount of fillers in that match was too much. Was there a need to have Sin Cara, Gabriel and Slater in that match? Then after watching it, it made sense Sin Cara, Gabriel and Slater may not be at the level yet but stick them in a ring with Barrett, Danielson and Rhodes and its a match made in heaven. Also helps that Kane knows how to work with smaller guys and Sheamus is fastly improving. So in all I would rather have the smaller not well established wrestlers in the match if it improves the quality rather than sticking all the big guns in one match and for the chemistry to be off pace.

 

[TheKingHustla]

They needed to finally get someone who would lose, and who would be truly upset if d-Bryan cashed in and lost? The IWC. And who really cares about those guys?

I think the MITB premise is great because it gives guys like Miz a great chance to win the gold and it doesn't cheapen the real contenders. guys like Miz need to win the title from a weaker opponent because it fits in with their character. You tell me that if a true main eventer, except christian, were to win the gold from a MITB cash in that it would feel right? And before you go talking about Edge, that was in his character. He was known as the ultimate opportunist, both before and after his MITB wins. It's a great way to get the younger guys a major push, just like it did with Miz.

The only problem I have is that there is a red case and a blue case. I like it better when you didn't know which champ the guy would cash it in on. I think they could do that now. Just have two cases that you can cash in on either show. Have a smackdown one and a raw one, but let them cash it in on whoever. Or atleast trade it with the other. Like how cool would that be if Alberto Del rio were to come on sd and cash in the blue case on christian and then you find out him and d-bry traded backstage. It would be spontaneous to the max.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

They needed to finally get someone who would lose, and who would be truly upset if d-Bryan cashed in and lost? The IWC. And who really cares about those guys?

I think the MITB premise is great because it gives guys like Miz a great chance to win the gold and it doesn't cheapen the real contenders. guys like Miz need to win the title from a weaker opponent because it fits in with their character. You tell me that if a true main eventer, except christian, were to win the gold from a MITB cash in that it would feel right? And before you go talking about Edge, that was in his character. He was known as the ultimate opportunist, both before and after his MITB wins. It's a great way to get the younger guys a major push, just like it did with Miz.

The only problem I have is that there is a red case and a blue case. I like it better when you didn't know which champ the guy would cash it in on. I think they could do that now. Just have two cases that you can cash in on either show. Have a smackdown one and a raw one, but let them cash it in on whoever. Or atleast trade it with the other. Like how cool would that be if Alberto Del rio were to come on sd and cash in the blue case on christian and then you find out him and d-bry traded backstage. It would be spontaneous to the max.

I like the idea that both cases can be used on either title. How awesome would it be if Daniel Bryan came out, cashed it, won, then ADR came out, cashed and won. Or if Cena wins like a fatal fourway in epic fashion, whoever won MITB that year comes out, he survives, and then ANOTHER MITB comes out and beats him. Just drama drama drama.

Or one guy could beat the other so he has 2 briefcases. Just a lot more shit you could pull off.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

With the exception of Jack Swagger, the MITB concept has elevated the careers of every guy that's won the MITB match to one degree or another.

I disagree with how CM Punk was booked as he became World Champion twice after cashing in the MITB contract. He could have been elevated to the level he currently is sooner, but the fact that Punk is a 3 time World Heavyweight Champion can't simply be dismissed just because you might not ultimately like how his reigns turned out.

As far as The Miz goes, I think it's time that people got over this notion that Miz doesn't belong or hasn't belonged in the main event. Over the course of 2010, The Miz was steadily and carefully structured to eventually take a spot in the main event picture. The Miz is hugely over as a heel, he's got the stuff on the mic, he's loaded with personality and charisma, he's not the best inside the ring but he's certainly above average and, most importantly, he got people interested in the WWE Championship picture again. That in and of itself is the most important job a main eventer has.

As far as Kane goes, people thought that the best days of Kane's career were long behind him. I myself was one of those people. At the end of the day, Kane will still always be in The Undertaker's shadow, there's simply no way around that but winning MITB did ultimately help establish Kane as having at least one meaningful World Championship run and, for once, ultimately come out ahead against his "brother".

As far as Del Rio goes, yeah you lose pretty much all credibility here when you refer to him as the biggest bust in WWE history. Alberto Del Rio hasn't even been in the WWE, on television that is, for a year and now the man is poised to potentially become WWE Champion in the future. For most of the first half of 2011, he looked as though he was on the verge of becoming the next World Heavyweight Champion. The WWE didn't pull the trigger quickly with Del Rio and I think that's been the right decision to make. Del Rio is one of the most over heels on the roster, he gets major heat whenever he pops up and the man has all the ability in the world. The guy's a star.

As far as Daniel Bryan goes, everyone is still sort of getting used to the shock of him winning last night. I'm hoping that WWE doesn't just wind up booking him into a match in which he's challenged for the MITB briefcase and loses. Barring that, the WWE has the opportunity to really build Bryan up. He's got the ability in the ring and the man can talk on the mic if given a real opportunity. The potential is there, the WWE just needs to take the time to shape it.

There are 2 World Champions in the WWE at this point. As long as WWE keeps it that way then both brands should have an MITB match. MITB was one of the most anticipated ppvs of 2011 and it most definitely paid off.

The whole point of the MITB match has been to take someone and at least attempt to elevate them to the next level and to do so in a heavily hyped, extremely popular gimmick match. Having a match comprised of guys who've already won it makes no sense at all as it defeats the purpose of the match in and of itself. On top of that, how would that work exactly? CM Punk no longer needs MITB, obviously, Edge is retired, RVD and Mr. Anderson are both signed to TNA. As of right now, Kane and Jack Swagger are the only two past winners of the MITB match still active in the WWE and neither guy is exactly hot at this moment.

MITB is doing just fine the way it is.

 

[Trill Co$by]

They needed to finally get someone who would lose, and who would be truly upset if d-Bryan cashed in and lost? The IWC. And who really cares about those guys?

I will never understand the bashing of IWC by IWC members... Maybe I'm a bit ******ed, but to diss a group that you fall under just to seem "cool" kind of makes you look like an ignorant fool.


Anyway, the MITB matches and concept are perfectly fine. The problem is the fact that nobody has any doubt as to how the briefcase will be cashed in. I mean sure there was one time when it wasn't after someone was injured, but nobody cares about that.

8 people in the matches is fine with me as well. I mean sure you're adding 4 extra risks of injured competitors but at the same time, if they manage to get out safely, you're building up 16 possible upper mid-card to main event status competitors in one night... that's not lazy booking, it's smart booking.

 

[saw411]

The only thing I agree with the orignal author is that there should be only one breifcase. It adds more intrigue and the possibility to jump shows. Sometimes less is more.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I don't even necessarily think it was the bookers fault. There is only so much blame you can place on booking, the superstar has every bit as much to do with it too. Santino has been given a character 99% of guys wouldn't be able to do. Instead he's a huge part of every show (being the comic relief is big, if you don't have it your show lacks variety).

A lot of these guys are very young. Just think about the history of wrestling. Besides a few guys, most wrestlers don't even hit their peak until their early-mid 30s. I don't think Hogan or Flair even won a world title till they were in their 30s. HHH either I think.

Pro wrestling is something that's mostly mental. It's a tough mental part too. You have to be very detailed about getting every aspect of your character to make sense and to be able to put together matches that make sense with your charcter, the other guys' charcter, the storyline, the part of the card you're on, the show you're on, and the city you're in.

Usually what happens is a guy comes in his 20s, does all kinds of athletic pretty stuff. However, it doesn't always make sense. He learns the business. Hits his prime around 32ish I'd say, can put his athleticism and his mental prowess to work to have a great character and great matches. By the end of his 30s, his body starts to break down, but he's still smart enough to do more with less.

Basically they DID push guys too soon. However they didn't really have a choice, they needed to push guys. A lot of the reason these guys aren't staying over is their own fault though. Well, I won't but blame on them, that'd be like putting blame on a 14 year old for not throwing 95MPH yet in baseball. It's more just an unfortunate circumstance, they tried to make the most out of it and it didn't work as well as everyone had hoped.

So then its agreed that its not the fault of the structuring of the MITB. Well good then.

I certainley agree that for a lot of it, guys were put into spots that FAR exceeded their abilities, something I pointed out just last night during the RAW MITB (what I just said applied to practically everyone in that match) but if you give the guy the case, and furthermore, the title win, you have to go all in with it if they are to succeed. Jack Swagger for instance had everything that made him get over in the first place stripped from his character, and had a losing record while champion. One of the most wildly confusing booking choices I have seen in all of my days.

For the most part though, it works just fine, and for its failings, it damn sure wasnt the MITB structuring that failed them

 

[Mighty NorCal]

As for the concept of the match itself, 8 guys per match is fine. When it was on WM, it was fucking atrocious with that many guys, but as a one-off special attraction to sell a fun ppv in the middle of the summer, its a fantastic idea. a Shitty, ridiculous sloppy spot fest that is entertaining as fuck is totally great in the middle of the summer, not so much at WrestleMania. 8 guys is fine for this time of year and the concept of the fun B-PPV

 

[RATED-RKOFRANKLIN]

Interesting responses.

1. Let's me explain again why former world champions should only be in this match.

These young guys winning Money in The Bank with no build is very bad. They are not over as a main eventer. The closest two to being over were Punk and The Miz. However, no one took The Miz as a serious champion.

Sure this put Punk in the main event but did it help the overall quality of his programs? No, really as he was booked as a weak champion.

I want these young guys to have build and win the title without a cheat trick. So far none of the young guys except for The Miz had any build to win their money in the bank ladder match.

To DB supports, DB is not over. I've seen his promos and matches on Raw and Smackdown. No one cheers for this guy. Just like ADR, he gets no reactions.

 

[Pedigree1]

I like the MITB the way it is now!!! Dont fix something thats isnt broken. Daniel Bryan winning last night was a major shock didnt see that one coming at all!! My pick Wade wasnt even close in there!! I am beginning to think that the ADR experiment is falling faster than the us economy... The weakest winner is Jack Swagger he wasnt ready when he won it probably the weakest champion we have seen in a long time!! Punks second run was arguably his best work up until his feud with super cena recently. Punk is most definitely the top guy right now top heel and brought out argubably the best match of cenas career

 

[Dagger Dias]

I do not think there is anything wrong with the Money In the Bank concept. I completely disagree with both ideas of having only one winner as well as having it only be for former world champions. The whole POINT of Money In the Bank is to help someone become a world champion that has not before. Sure some former world title holders have won it but the original purpose remains the same. If it was only for former champions we might never see a new face in the title scene again. Having a red and a blue briefcase should not be changed either due to the fact that WWE then has a backup plan for both brands, when they need to take their title off the champion immediately a cash in is an easy way to go about that while holding the briefcase gives attention to that particular wrestler in the process. I missed seeing a MITB match at Wrestlemania this year but the concept is just fine as it is now and does not need changing.

 

[RATED-RKOFRANKLIN]

I do not think there is anything wrong with the Money In the Bank concept. I completely disagree with both ideas of having only one winner as well as having it only be for former world champions. The whole POINT of Money In the Bank is to help someone become a world champion that has not before. Sure some former world title holders have won it but the original purpose remains the same. If it was only for former champions we might never see a new face in the title scene again. Having a red and a blue briefcase should not be changed either due to the fact that WWE then has a backup plan for both brands, when they need to take their title off the champion immediately a cash in is an easy way to go about that while holding the briefcase gives attention to that particular wrestler in the process. I missed seeing a MITB match at Wrestlemania this year but the concept is just fine as it is now and does not need changing.

That is the problem. MITB has not made anyone into a Superstar besides from Edge. The other winners fell out of the main event pictures soon after losing their titles.

The Rock, Austin, The Undertaker, Mankind, etc were successful because they were built properly. They didn't use a cheap trick on a wounded champion. They were built up with good stories. That's what they young guys need today, not MITB.

MITB is a failed concept because only one star was made and that was done on the first try. No one else was made into a star after cashing for the gold.

 

[Daniel]

Only former world champions in Money In The Bank? No. Absolutley not. Awful idea.

One of the appealing factors of MITB is the surprise of a wrestler being launched into the main event. And that's what wrestling is about. It's all about excitement, anticipation and of course, surprises. Daniel Bryan won last night. That surprise made the match something special. I would find myself caring a lot less if the match only had established guys.

There is a reason that the MITB contract allows a title opportunity for up to one year. It's so that the winner can be built as a credible contender before they become world champion. WWE really dropped the ball with this when it came to Swagger's reign. They pushed him in at the deep end and he drowned (with a helping hand from WWE's creative team). On the flip side, The Miz was built perfectly as a credible contender before he won the WWE Championship. So you see, the problem isn't necessarily that the winner hasn't won a world championship and not established, it's that WWE hasn't built them into a position where they look credible as world champion.