Should Money in the Bank be defended?

[HBK89Bill]

It's the golden ticket of WWE world. That briefcase has pushed so many people. It's a very important thing to hold and gives a wrestler a wild card. It leaves people guessing. It made Edge. Punk won it twice. Got Kane a title reign. Just launched Ziggler last week. However; how long before it gets boring.

It's really important at this point and time in the company. It's basically a championship of its own. Unless your name is John Cena, you've cashed in and won a title. It has its own pay per view. I feel like if it was defended it would put emphasis on how important it is. When you have it, you want to use it as quickly a possible. So being able to hold onto it is a big deal when everyone is after it. Actually, being able to win matches like that is almost a trial at the top with the pressure and crowd connection. It could build champions on its own so when they win the belt, it doesn't come out of nowhere. We'll have time to watch someone wrestle for something important and then get the championship. We'll believe he can defend the belt because we watched him defend MITB. Or even if someone lost the briefcase, they are still a threat because of the work they did with it. It creates a feud just like the titles do. Even if someone wins the briefcase and they want to change who has it than they can.

Just have one briefcase. It is defended just like a title. Whenever someone cashes it in, just have another ladder match to get the briefcase. Then someone eventually cashes in and win or lose the cycle repeats itself. It gives so many chances to people. Trying to sneak in a world title win wouldn't be such a big deal anymore since someone can call their shot at ppvs because the MITB will always be around. It adds a lot to the briefcase and before people start getting tired of it.

Thoughts? Good idea or bad idea?


it's a shortcut to a championship. Actually, it would be almost as important.

 

[CripplerBenoitFan]

I think this is a great idea. The Money In The Bank is now a very established part of WWE lore and it would be interesting to have it defended from time to time. It would add an element of surprise to what will become a very predictable gimmick in years to come.

 

[Headman]

It already has been defended from time to time. Ziggler defended it against Jericho. Kennedy lost it to Edge. Defending MITB is not a new concept but it shouldn't be something the holder has to defend. And to be honest the two story lines where it was defended were pathetic. Mr Money in the bank should have to want something bad enough to put his most prized possession on the line willingly. Example, Jericho later had his career put on the line after Ziggler had his MITB on the line. How it should have went was Jericho wants MITB, Ziggler wants Jericho gone so the two come to agreement to have a career vs MITB match. It should have been a big deal, but it wasn't. As for Mr Kennedy putting it on the line because Edge simply challenged him? That's just stupid.

 

[HBK89Bill]

It already has been defended from time to time. Ziggler defended it against Jericho. Kennedy lost it to Edge. Defending MITB is not a new concept but it shouldn't be something the holder has to defend. And to be honest the two story lines where it was defended were pathetic. Mr Money in the bank should have to want something bad enough to put his most prized possession on the line willingly. Example, Jericho later had his career put on the line after Ziggler had his MITB on the line. How it should have went was Jericho wants MITB, Ziggler wants Jericho gone so the two come to agreement to have a career vs MITB match. It should have been a big deal, but it wasn't. As for Mr Kennedy putting it on the line because Edge simply challenged him? That's just stupid.

Defending it every once in awhile isn't the idea. The idea is it is defended all the time. In order to hold it, you have to defend it. It's basically a guaranteed title on paper. MITB could easily be defended at this point and in my opinion should.

Jericho wasn't a big deal for us because we knew he was leaving. A lot of us saw it coming and when the match was scheduled we went, "Oh okay. Ziggler does get to go over Jericho and Y2J takes off for awhile." When Edge took it from Kennedy it was because he got suspended and they wanted to put it on someone else obviously. You can't tell me it wasn't in the back of everyone's head if Cena could actually take the briefcase from Ziggler. The concept isn't new, but it being a requirement of the cash in contract is.

 

[PsychoBlack]

It already gets defended on special occasions. I think if we saw it get defended every month it would be kind of silly because it would just be another title and you might as well get a belt for it.

 

[Flash H]

I get where you're coming frim, but I don't really like the idea.

The person who wins has already beaten many other men in a Ladder Match at a PPV and earned the right to have a title match any time, any place.

I think if WWE wasn't careful they could ruin the legitimacy of the briefcase.

Why tune in to see who the next up and coming champion would be if they will lose the briefcase anyway?

 

[Headman]

Defending it every once in awhile isn't the idea. The idea is it is defended all the time. In order to hold it, you have to defend it. It's basically a guaranteed title on paper. MITB could easily be defended at this point and in my opinion should.

Jericho wasn't a big deal for us because we knew he was leaving. A lot of us saw it coming and when the match was scheduled we went, "Oh okay. Ziggler does get to go over Jericho and Y2J takes off for awhile." When Edge took it from Kennedy it was because he got suspended and they wanted to put it on someone else obviously. You can't tell me it wasn't in the back of everyone's head if Cena could actually take the briefcase from Ziggler. The concept isn't new, but it being a requirement of the cash in contract is.

That's an idea I don't agree with. Having to defend it to keep it would make going through a match like the MITB ladder match pointless. Imagine going through hell for something you could win in a singles match later on. Why would someone do that? No, it shouldn't be defended regularly. It's not a championship, it's a contract for a championship match.

As for the reasons behind the other two challenges, they don't matter. They could have been done better. Yes we knew Jericho was leaving, that doesn't mean you have two separate matches with two stipulations when you could have one match that actually makes sense.

 

[nyquiljordan]

As for the reasons behind the other two challenges, they don't matter. They could have been done better. Yes we knew Jericho was leaving, that doesn't mean you have two separate matches with two stipulations when you could have one match that actually makes sense.

I don't think he meant two separate matches. I think the idea was that they should have established the concept of the match themselves and not had Vickie just suddenly come up with it.

 

[Code_Master]

Here is my opinion my both for and against the idea here is why

For: You got money in the bank a almost garanteed title win for 1 year but the longer its your the more you could risk loosing it i would love to see like
let's say Damian Shandow wins it this year and he has to defend it at survivor series vs Alberto Del Rio and the World title match is lower on the card after the match Shandow cashes in wins the Belt and then it's swerve we could have 2 world title matches on the card or Something else like big suprises of the sort.

Against:He won it for crying out loud why should he defend it again screw that logic.

 

[Dagger Dias]

They already have had it defended. Kennedy put it on the line against Edge in 2007, Edge was victorious and cashed in on Taker soon after. More recently Ziggler put it on the line in a PPV match against Cena and retained. It's a good idea in my opinion to have the Money In the Bank winners defend their briefcase by having it on the line in a match or two. It should be done rarely though. Having it defended too often would be overkill. Night of Champions is the perfect place to put the briefcase(s) on the line. It used to be all about the championships but in the last couple of years unifications have forced us to be stuck with a non-title filler match or two each year. How about placing the Money In the Bank briefcase(s) on the line at that show? I'm surprised they did it at TLC with Ziggler as opposed to Night of Champions. Heck, I'd make it an annual part of that PPV brand. It showcases the briefcase holder and gives the WWE a chance to take the title shot away from them if it needs to be passed on to another wrestler.

This would only work if done rarely though. It should not be defended as often as the regular titles. Once or twice is enough. I wouldn't mind it as it provides WWE with some options if we ever have another situation like Kennedy where the title shot has to be taken away from the briefcase holder.... or simply get a shot for them to showcase their skills and be booked to be a big deal as they should be. As with most things in WWE though there is a chance they could royally screw it up unfortunately. If it ever became like the Hardcore Championship and got passed around constantly, then that's the last thing we need. Too many changes make the briefcase seem unimportant and even if he retains each time then the fans might get sick of the matches. It's something to think about. I still wouldn't mind seeing them go this route and have them put the briefcase on the line more often.

 

[TeddyCJD]

Plain and simply NO - to have to defend it would take away the fact that it is a goldern ticket to the WWE or World Title. It would make no sense at all to have to defend it! This is the sort of thing Russo would book!

 

[Azane]

Only reason MITB defenses need to happen is to pass the contract in terms of injury.

The fact it's a for sure cheapshot at a world title anytime is huge, and having the threat of losing it being present at any time, makes it lose the original intent.

It's been a great oppurtunity to hot potato the world title around and test the waters on new people being champon.

 

[CrunKSinatrA]

The Money In The Bank already has already been defended by the winners. So has the Royal Rumble title shot. What I think would be interesting is if it turns out that the Million Dollar Belt is inside.

Both names are related to money. Also, they could have one that has blue diamonds for Smackdown, red diamonds for Raw, and the standard gold w/ white diamonds for an all purpose title shot.

They could run an angle where they bring back Dibiase Jr. and have him misplace the belt prior to the Money in the Bank match/PPV. His father uses his vast wealth to have a manhunt with search dogs, helicopters, and police searching for it. Then some sort of viral campaign w/ pictures of the missing belt and promises of rewards are on touted, tweeted, and posted on facebook.

Then whoever wins the Money in the Bank match has an angle where a friend wants to know whats in the briefcase. But the MITB winner refuses to open it or check b/c it doesn't matter. They have some comedic moments where the MITB winner has to shower w/ it to protect it from their curious friend.

Then finally one day the friend gets the briefcase and they fight like kids fighting over who gets to ride shotgun. And the briefcase breaks and flies open, revealing the Million Dollar Belt inside.

The Dibiases threaten to sue, press charges, the works, but the MIB winner denies any wrong doing. Eventually Dibiase Jr says he will drop the charges for a match where the MITB winner puts the title shot on the line.

Whoever wins doesn't matter. But from then on, the belt now represents the MITB and can be referred to as cashing in his chips.

This would've been great w/ Ziggler, AJ Lee, and Langston fighting backstage and theorizing what's inside the briefcase.

 

[TempestH]

It's the golden ticket of WWE world. That briefcase has pushed so many people. It's a very important thing to hold and gives a wrestler a wild card. It leaves people guessing. It made Edge. Punk won it twice. Got Kane a title reign. Just launched Ziggler last week. However; how long before it gets boring.

It's really important at this point and time in the company. It's basically a championship of its own. Unless your name is John Cena, you've cashed in and won a title. It has its own pay per view. I feel like if it was defended it would put emphasis on how important it is. When you have it, you want to use it as quickly a possible. So being able to hold onto it is a big deal when everyone is after it. Actually, being able to win matches like that is almost a trial at the top with the pressure and crowd connection. It could build champions on its own so when they win the belt, it doesn't come out of nowhere. We'll have time to watch someone wrestle for something important and then get the championship. We'll believe he can defend the belt because we watched him defend MITB. Or even if someone lost the briefcase, they are still a threat because of the work they did with it. It creates a feud just like the titles do. Even if someone wins the briefcase and they want to change who has it than they can.

Just have one briefcase. It is defended just like a title. Whenever someone cashes it in, just have another ladder match to get the briefcase. Then someone eventually cashes in and win or lose the cycle repeats itself. It gives so many chances to people. Trying to sneak in a world title win wouldn't be such a big deal anymore since someone can call their shot at ppvs because the MITB will always be around. It adds a lot to the briefcase and before people start getting tired of it.

Thoughts? Good idea or bad idea?


it's a shortcut to a championship. Actually, it would be almost as important.

WWE already has problems with handing out World Title reigns like candy. This would only make it worse. There are TWO briefcases and two World Titles. The two briefcases are already used to give anyone a World Title, and the World Heavyweight Title in itself is just a consolation prize to give wrestlers "trial main event runs".

This would be a good idea only if there was just ONE world championship.

 

[HBK89Bill]

Okay just so I'm clear on the,reasons against it are that the world title can be thrown around and that's tolerable, but a contract being defended on a consistent basis is overkill and would devalue it? I'd personally rather have the contract passed around than a title. Yet the titles are treated like this anyway. The IC title just got passed around for no reason. I feel it devalues the title. I'm not sure where having one contract and defending it is worse than passing a world title around. The whole point of the title is proving how good you are because you still have what everyone else wants. Mitb represents the shortcut for that. That was the whole point of Edge stealing the title the very first time.

The argument of the ladder match is a good one. I didn't think of that. It made me realize how few ladder matches we have in a calender year. I don't have an answer for that one but I feel like something could be worked out. Maybe just have the ladder match at the Mitb ppv once a year and once the cash in happens its gone till next year. Basically like it is now only with a royal rumble feel.

I'm just trying to think outside the box a little. Mitb is cool and I think is more versatile than just having a guy hold it until the trigger gets pulled on him.

 

[thebarber]

no, the idea of the MITB is to basically name the next main event guy. Once won, sure defending it makes it interesting, but whomever was to lose it gets ultimately buried.

I thinik whomever wins MITB should hold onto it, but I like the idea of not announcing when they will cash in, the element of surprise has really made it a super hot time when it does happen. Case in point...Ziggler, Edge, Punk

 

[JasonSilverTX]

I always thought it would be interesting if the MITB had a stipulation to cashing it in.

I mean sure, they had to have a hard fought battle in the MITB ladder match to even obtain the thing but..what if it became a requirement that before a person became ELIGIBLE to cash in the contract...it had to be defended X amount of times OR the person had to win X amount of matches before they contract became valid?

This would then allow WWE to spend time building up their MITB contract winners.

Take Ziggler for example, look how long it took for WWE to have him cash the MITB in. And most of that time they were busy building Ziggler himself up and rarely was his build revolving around the MITB(though they did mention he had it enough). Instead, what they could of been doing was building Ziggler up WHILE building up the fact he HAD to get X amount of wins/defend the MITB X amount of times before he even cashed the contract in.

Just a thought, but I think this way it could make the MITB seem more unpredictable since during any of those defenses the MITB could be lost to a new person. This would also allow WWE to hot potato the MITB between guys for a fued for example.

 

[ChicagoMade Punk]

I dont think it should be defended unless its actually going to change hands, or significantly rub the MITB winner. If its just another "title" match i dont think it would work. The WWE has a hard enough time making the titles they already have look prestigious, if they added two more a year it would bomb quickly. Remember WWE creative aren't exactly what we would call smart.

 

[WWE4EVA!]

Yes I think they should be defending the Money In The Bank briefcase to add more excitement to it, as since it went to two matches it has become quite boring.

 

[VinnieSunshine]

They already have had it defended. Kennedy put it on the line against Edge in 2007, Edge was victorious and cashed in on Taker soon after. More recently Ziggler put it on the line in a PPV match against Cena and retained.

Correct me if Im wrong, but didn't Mr. Kennedy defend and lose it to Edge because he was injured and needed time off, but then he wasn't as injured as they thought and it was too late? I don't remember Ziggler defending it against Cena though.


I dont think the MITB should be defended. Look at what the winners go through to earn it. It's not a title, its a TITLE SHOT. The briefcae means you fought hard to earn that shot, the others didn't and will have to get back in line. It's used to elevate the holder to the next level. In the case of John Cena winning it...he was meant to lose it. Cena's character is that he ALWAYS has to hold the title, and will do anything to get it. He isn't a guy that is suited for a MITB match.

Look at the majority of guys that are in the match every year. Most are mid-card guys, some high-flyers to create cool spots. But 90% of all participants are guys they are looking to push to the next level, or guys that are on the verge of going. Why force them to defend it like a title?

Ill say this...if they change the MITB concept, no longer making it a ladder match, maybe a championship scramble...it could be made into a title, or better yet, change the concept of the specific titles. No longer can it be used for just the WHC or WWE, but now can be cashed in on ANY title. Then once it's cashed in, another scramble is held soon afterwards and someone else gets to hold it. With WWE bringing up so many guys, lots of them are going to be pushed to the next level quickly. With only 1 MITB per brand, and having someone hold it as long as Ziggler did, not many guys are going to get that chance.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Correct me if Im wrong, but didn't Mr. Kennedy defend and lose it to Edge because he was injured and needed time off, but then he wasn't as injured as they thought and it was too late? I don't remember Ziggler defending it against Cena though.

Ziggler defended against Cena at TLC a few months ago, it was in a ladder match that closed the show. Kennedy, from what I remember, was going to get the push of a lifetime. He was counting down the days until Wrestlemania when after a full year he would cash in Money In the Bank and he was rumored to be an important part of the Vince's Limo Explosion and Son storyline, but then due to wellness policy violations and injuries things did not go his way. I still believe that even in the aftermath of the Benoit situation, Kennedy could still have played a part in the son storyline even if the limo explosion angle had to end before it could start, had it not been for his wellness policy violations and injuries. I've heard many different rumors and stories, we might never know for sure what happened. Kennedy waiting an entire year and then cashing in after a huge push with the Vince's Limo Explosion and son storyline would have been cool to see. We got a great run with Edge on Smackdown after he cashed in at least. After that cash-in on Taker in 2007 Edge became the top guy of Smackdown, it helped him get there when there was nothing else for him to do on Raw at the time.

The briefcases should not be defended as often as titles. That would in the long run defeat the purpose. Yes, the winners won their title shot and for the most part would deserve to keep it without having to defend it. However, the plus side to having them defend it at some point is that it would be a chance to showcase their abilities and be booked in an important match. At the very least they should defend them at Night of Champions. That event is meant to be about the titles anyhow and then we won't get stuck with trash like in 2010 where we had Punk VS Big Show in a non-title match no one cared about. Miz putting his briefcase on the line that year and retaining would have been much better. I'd say defend them at Night of Champions (unless they cash in early) and once or twice more depending on how long they wait before cashing in. Then one final time after a full year has passed if they have not cashed in yet. It makes the briefcase look more important and the wrestler will appear to be more of a threat to the champion he eventually cashes in on.

 

[MCMG]

It should defended maybe once or twice per reign but not regularly. The whole point of winning is beating 7 others in a grueling match to earn this briefcase. It is not a championship belt which are made for defending, the MITB should be a one-off victory which basically guarantees the victor a world-title.

 

[CripplerBenoitFan]

The nail in Kennedy's coffin so to speak was dropping Orton on his head in a match. Maybe he had wellness issues etc, but I specifically remember when this happened.

YouTube clip - Kennedy drops Orton on his head with back suplex.



Orton raised hell in the back after this, and Kennedy was fired *immediately*. This was his last match in WWE.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Not on a regular basis. Having a match be for the MITB contract is something that very rarely happens, so defending it on a regular basis like a title just ultimately detracts from the concept, in my opinion.

The idea of MITB is that if you're able to win a MITB ladder match, then you deserve a guaranteed shot at the top title whenever & wherever you choose. If you're going to do something in which that contract is put in jeopardy via a match against someone who wants to take it from you, then it needs to be a big deal and something that only happens once or twice at the very most per briefcase holder in a given year.

 

[daddyJ_t]

this is a ludicrious idea. it further devalues the us and ic titles cause who would want themif thier was a magic case to the top. it also cheapens the mitb ladder match itself. lets say u win it then lost a defending match the next week and that person cashed in and won the next week. so to have another case to be defended, another ladder match is needed. so with in 3 weeks 2 mitb matches would be needed? no thank u. id perfer that they just have one and thats at mania. and then u have the boring 15 minute backstage promos of whining on why i put so much work into winning the case only to have to defend it every other week. that takes match time away from somebody that needs it on smackdown or raw.. dont agree with this idea at all. people want the ic and us titles unified so they can have a briefcase replace one or the other? why dont we just get rid of every title and just defend cases in general. pardon the rant but terrible idea i think