Should Money in the Bank be defended?

[ChrisHelms]

I love the idea of defending every once in a while in a MAJOR feud.

That being said, it's just like the old KOTR format which used to launch stars into a title show and with a few exceptions, the main event.

Kennedy winning the MITB was boring though and I'm really glad that Kennedy never had the chance to cash it in.

 

[CripplerBenoitFan]

I love the idea of defending every once in a while in a MAJOR feud.

That being said, it's just like the old KOTR format which used to launch stars into a title show and with a few exceptions, the main event.

Kennedy winning the MITB was boring though and I'm really glad that Kennedy never had the chance to cash it in.

Completely agreed on Kennedy, but I will forever give Hornswaggle credit for that ridiculous ladder bump in that MITB match. It's like "Gee I'm a 120 lb dude with dwarfism, let's let this 240lb cat hoist me up on his shoulders on the top of a ladder, then do a forward roll and drop all his weight on me."

Kennedy & Hornswoggle at WrestleMania 23

Watching that clip now, he's not nearly as high up the ladder as I remember. Nonetheless it's a ballsy spot for my boy Hornswoggle.

 

[The Crock]

I don't mind defending the Money in the Bank briefcase every once in a while. I don't see the point of treating it like a title, but there's nothing wrong with defending it in the right scenarios; I thought Ziggler's defenses of the case were just fine, as it gave him something to do with the case and served to build his stock. It definitely shouldn't be treated like a title, though -- that opens up a Pandora's box of problems. Think about it, why wouldn't you just try to challenge Mr. Money in the Bank for his case if it were like a championship? I mean, (kayfabe-wise) it makes a ton of sense to avoid the ladder match and just try your luck at the case in a one-in-one scenario. I don't like it. If it's a personal feud and the case can be weaved in (like with Ziggler, or it's a Kennedy/Edge situation), I'm okay with it. Otherwise, I say "no" to defending the MITB case.

 

[JasonSilverTX]

What if they made it like this..

Whoever wins MITB then needs to have X amount of WINS in matches in order ofr the contract to become valid?

That way the case isn't DEFENDED per-say, BUT in order for the contract inside to become valid, the holder now needs to work on getting X amount of wins in matches before he can even try to cash in?

The reason for this would be things such as..
Having to have 'X' amount of wins would require the WWE to then work out a method for building their star. Even if they lose a few matches(which the holders tend to do anyways) WWE often lets them win a few matches as well so in this manner they could use those wins to have announcers get over the fact that the MITB winner is getting closer to being ABLE to cash in.

And if WWE really pushes the valid contract for 1 year, then the WWE could also push the fact that if the holder doesnt get X amount of wins in that year, the contract will become null and void.

This allows WWE time to get the MITB holder over(wether as heel or face) and helps WWE have time to make sure the winner is READY for a title shot. It also keeps the excitement of unpredictability because if the person DOESNT get the wins, they dont cash in, but if they DO get the wins...it remains that NO ONE will still know WHEN the person will cash in.

Thoughts?

 

[Mustang Sally]

However; how long before it gets boring.

That ship has sailed.

On the one hand, defending the briefcase isn't a bad idea, since the original MITB concept has come to mean an almost guaranteed title win.....at least don't keep the whole thing at the whim of the holder. Since it's primarily bad guys who've held the briefcase, why not make them defend it during the time they hold it rather than being able to pick and choose their spot for up to one year?

I can see how the MITB concept originated. Faces invariably win a title the good old American way, with Mom, apple pie & honorable means taking the day. But while it's okay for heels to hold a title, they rarely win it in clean fashion. So, to minimize their cheating ways, here comes a clean, yet cheap way to get the belt around the waist of a heel.

If they're going to keep the MITB concept, I'd prefer a shorter time limit to cash it in: say, one month instead of a year. Naturally, both world titleholders would have to matches scheduled during the month so the MITB guy will have a chance to cash in. But I kind of like the notion of a briefcase holder getting near the end of his month and having to toss himself into a match against the champ, even if he isn't as incapacitated as the MITB holder would like.

Use it or lose it.

 

[Judah's Lion]

I don't mind defending the Money in the Bank briefcase every once in a while. I don't see the point of treating it like a title, but there's nothing wrong with defending it in the right scenarios; I thought Ziggler's defenses of the case were just fine, as it gave him something to do with the case and served to build his stock. It definitely shouldn't be treated like a title, though -- that opens up a Pandora's box of problems. Think about it, why wouldn't you just try to challenge Mr. Money in the Bank for his case if it were like a championship? I mean, (kayfabe-wise) it makes a ton of sense to avoid the ladder match and just try your luck at the case in a one-in-one scenario. I don't like it. If it's a personal feud and the case can be weaved in (like with Ziggler, or it's a Kennedy/Edge situation), I'm okay with it. Otherwise, I say "no" to defending the MITB case.

100% agree here. forcing the MITB briefcase to be defended totally defeats the purpose in having the match in the first place. the main problem with this idea is two-fold:

1. why would superstars risk life and limb for a contract to a title match that they then have to defend regularly? why not just risk life and limb for the actual title?

2. why would superstars risk life and limb for a contract to a title match when that then has to be defended regularly? why not just challenge the winner of MITB and try winning the contract in a one-on-one scenario?

however, there have been times when the contract was defended in storyline and i was okay with that. Crock mentioned Ziggler and Edge/Kennedy. there was also RVD/Shelton Benjamin in a MITB Briefcase vs. IC Title match that was pretty good for story telling purposes.

i also liked what Mustang Sally said in giving a shorter time limit than a year on the whole cash-in policy. not necessarily a month cuz than we would all be able to narrow down when it would happen. but maybe bump the MITB ppv to later in the year, like september or october, and make the timeline expire by Mania.

 

[bww277]

I think it's a bad idea. There has to be SOMETHING that differentiates it from a title, and defending it (other than special circumstances, of course) would defeat it's purpose.

 

[HBK89Bill]

100% agree here. forcing the MITB briefcase to be defended totally defeats the purpose in having the match in the first place. the main problem with this idea is two-fold:

1. why would superstars risk life and limb for a contract to a title match that they then have to defend regularly? why not just risk life and limb for the actual title?

2. why would superstars risk life and limb for a contract to a title match when that then has to be defended regularly? why not just challenge the winner of MITB and try winning the contract in a one-on-one scenario?

however, there have been times when the contract was defended in storyline and i was okay with that. Crock mentioned Ziggler and Edge/Kennedy. there was also RVD/Shelton Benjamin in a MITB Briefcase vs. IC Title match that was pretty good for story telling purposes.

i also liked what Mustang Sally said in giving a shorter time limit than a year on the whole cash-in policy. not necessarily a month cuz than we would all be able to narrow down when it would happen. but maybe bump the MITB ppv to later in the year, like september or october, and make the timeline expire by Mania.

You just summed up the problems against it perfectly. Okay: Why would people risk life and limb for something they have to defend? Because they already do it with the titles. People go into the chamber every single year to win a title that they will have to defend. Winning the ladder match and getting the briefcase isn't any different really. The difference is that MITB isn't a title, but it basically guarantees a title match and 9/10 a championship which they will have to then defend. So why do they want the titles at all? Because they want to prove they are the best. MITB with the defending method would put superstars further over to actually make people believe they are capable of holding and keeping the title. It makes the titles more prestigious. As for why they wouldn't just go after the title? Same reason why won money in the bank in the first place. To steal the title, but by defending MITB, it would make fans believe even more that even though he stole the title, he is still damn good. This was the whole point with Edge in the beginning. He couldn't get a championship match and he had to steal the title to beat Cena. MITB has been used 80% of the time to take the title on a weak champion. It's a shortcut. You don't have to go through Cena to get the title. You just take it from him. That is why you risk life and limb as a wrestler. It puts the ball in your court.

Sure it's defended every once in awhile, but it never changes hands for any other reason than to punish a talent. If RVD's drug bust had been a month early, he never would have won the belt.

When I first thought of the idea in my own mind, my original thought was to change the style of the match. A scramble match or an elimination match or something like that. However, with the lack of ladder matches in a calender year and the fact that MITB was build with the ladder match. I think that may not work for everyone.

I'm not saying we use the contract as a title, but it is so valuable at this point. It can be used for more. In story lines, I think people should be diving after the guy with the contract. He has a title opportunity that is basically championship gold waiting to happen. "The match happened, I lost and now he's gonna be champion. I'm better than him. I want that briefcase." Why should the guy be able to hold something so valuable with no one after him? Nothing else in WWE does that. Not titles, not The Streak, not even spots in the elimination chamber, MITB ladder match or a spot in the royal rumble. I think MITB can be used for more.

 

[HBsam31]

I like the way it is done now where is is just defended every once in a while. I think the person that won the case has earned it and should not have to keep wrestling to keep it. I also think it would take away from the match itself because the person that wins the match might not necessarily be the one to cash it in. Defending it here and there in special instances is the way to go here imo.

 

[Kidpolean]

Defending it makes it seem fake and dumb to me...Wouldnt you just cash it in before you had to defend it? Why would I do the ladder match if I could just challenge whoever won it? Its a contract, once you sign a contract you cant just give it to someone else. I think the whole concept is stupid really...Think about this, the contract gives you a title match anytime, anywhere. So wouldn't the obvious thing to do be to Main event Wrestlemania. Why didnt Ziggler come out after Rock vs Cena and cash in? Instead he chose to cash in his briefcase in the middle of a random episode of Raw. In Fact, nobody has ever cashed in at Mania, and that doesn't make sense.

 

[TempestH]

Defending it makes it seem fake and dumb to me...Wouldnt you just cash it in before you had to defend it? Why would I do the ladder match if I could just challenge whoever won it? Its a contract, once you sign a contract you cant just give it to someone else. I think the whole concept is stupid really...Think about this, the contract gives you a title match anytime, anywhere. So wouldn't the obvious thing to do be to Main event Wrestlemania. Why didnt Ziggler come out after Rock vs Cena and cash in? Instead he chose to cash in his briefcase in the middle of a random episode of Raw. In Fact, nobody has ever cashed in at Mania, and that doesn't make sense.

Ziggler didn't come out after Rock vs. Cena because his briefcase was for the World Heavyweight Championship, not the WWE Championship.

 

[Kidpolean]

Ziggler didn't come out after Rock vs. Cena because his briefcase was for the World Heavyweight Championship, not the WWE Championship.

I meant come out and face Del Rio..If he cashed in Del Rio had no choice but to come out and face him

 

[joshrivette1994]

In my opinion, no, it shouldn't be defended. Money in the Bank should be given to specific superstars who are in line for a main event push. Making it regularly defendable gives an option for said superstar to lose the briefcase and if that happens then the pushed superstar will lose all the momentum they'd been earning, it would also make the briefcase less relevant like the Intercontinental and United States Championships.