Should Money In the Bank briefcases be defended?

[pepentorresHHH]

Edge defended his briefcase against matt hardy in a ladder match in which the loser left raw in 05
RVD defended his briefcase and won the intercontinental title against Shelton Benjamin on Backlash in 06
Mr Kennedy lost his briefcase against Edge after he was destroyed byt Edge in 07
I dont remember CM Punk defending his briefcases in 08 or 09
Swagger and Kane cahsed in inmediately in 10, while the miz didnt defend his
Del Rio and D Bry didnt defended theirs back in 11
Cena is cashing in next week....

But during the Jericho/Ziggler segment i felt that Jericho was going to ask ziggler for a match over his briefcase.... maybe they will have a match over the briefcase at Summerslam....

Do you think the MITB briefcases should be defended at all? yes or no?

Discuss.....

 

[KoC417]

Yes I do!
Why?
Because it would add serious potential to feuds and title opportunities. Could do great things. One the other hand I would say the matches should be high profile/stipulation matches IE: NO DQ etc so that way the defending superstar if they are heel can't simply get DQ'd and retain their briefcase. It could add legitimacy to the briefcase holder as well.

 

[trashboy]

Yes I do!
Why?
Because it would add serious potential to feuds and title opportunities. Could do great things. One the other hand I would say the matches should be high profile/stipulation matches IE: NO DQ etc so that way the defending superstar if they are heel can't simply get DQ'd and retain their briefcase. It could add legitimacy to the briefcase holder as well.

And also, they should only have one MITB winner. I find it more interesting if there's just one person holding a briefcase, that way he can go after either World Title he wants and you never know which one he'll go after. I think that's how it originally was, wasn't it??

But yes, MITB winners are boring now. I say have them defend the briefcase, it would make it entertaining. Just imagine if the case jumped around through like 5 or more different people. Of course, it probably wouldn't go that way, since whoever wins the case from the holder, would probably just cash it in immediately anyway.

 

[Da Truth]

I agree with Trashboy, I think they should go back to one MITB match, it'd add more of an element of surprise, but onto the topic. I don't think there's nothing wrong with defending the briefcase, but it should be done sparingly like the moderator pointed out. If it's defended all the time it'll water it down. Then the up and comers who mostly win would be fed to the main eventers eventually, so the WWE would have an easier excuse to give them a title shot. But there's nothing wrong with a defense every few years to freshen things up.

 

[Headman]

One MITB winner would be fine with me. As for the MITB being defended. I don't like this idea at all. It makes the result of the MITB match irrelevant if they can go for the "Shocker" ending and let someone unexpected win with no intention of ever letting him cash in. Plus it doesn't make any sense why a heel would ever put it on the line in the first place. It didn't make sense when Edge goated Kennedy into putting it up. He simply called him a few names and BAM Kennedy is more than happy to put his ticket to the WWE/WORLD championship up for grabs. I'd hate to see more half assed booking like this.

 

[Diet Soda]

I like the idea, since it puts the Money in the Bank briefcases almost on the same level as championships in terms of achievements; winning the briefcase has become an accolade in itself in recent years.

That said, the underlying motive behind swapping briefcase holders is probably Vince or creative swapping their minds at the eleventh hour - someone who could've seemed like champion material may have dropped the ball in the meantime, forcing the push on to someone else.

 

[GameOver]

sorry but no, it would defeat the purpose (in storyline) of the guy going through hell to win the right to challenge for a championship at any time only to have to defend that right at the discression of the GM or COO.

That briefcase is an ironclad guarenteed title match, ie not changeable except by the person that wins it.

Now if you mean the person who one can put that shot on the line, but why would they, what could possibly be better then a shot at the world title?

Kennedy wasn't an intended storyline, but it made no sense anyway from a human point of view, he had nothing to gain from winning and everything to lose. The real reason as we know now was he was injured during the match and was likely to need some time off so they dropped it to Edge and it didn't take long for Kennedy to be released altogether.

one could argue though that technically Kennedy did lose his MITB shot and thus there isn't a perfect record. Didn't particularly care for another winner cashing in on an injured champ only for the champion to take him out b4 the bell rang, and then repeatedly the commentators arguing over if that was a legit shot or not, common people it's happened the last 3 winners, they've all had phantom title shots several times. Swagger, Bryan and now Ziggler

if i was Sheamus i woulda waited for the bell to ring the do what he did, now he's just gonna have to face him again anyway. or better yet why does noone think of getting themselves counted out or DQ'd, they'd lose the match but keep the title, meanwhile the MITB was screwed

 

[Fisheatppl]

sorry but no, it would defeat the purpose (in storyline) of the guy going through hell to win the right to challenge for a championship at any time only to have to defend that right at the discression of the GM or COO.

That briefcase is an ironclad guarenteed title match, ie not changeable except by the person that wins it.

Now if you mean the person who one can put that shot on the line, but why would they, what could possibly be better then a shot at the world title?

Kennedy wasn't an intended storyline, but it made no sense anyway from a human point of view, he had nothing to gain from winning and everything to lose. The real reason as we know now was he was injured during the match and was likely to need some time off so they dropped it to Edge and it didn't take long for Kennedy to be released altogether.

one could argue though that technically Kennedy did lose his MITB shot and thus there isn't a perfect record. Didn't particularly care for another winner cashing in on an injured champ only for the champion to take him out b4 the bell rang, and then repeatedly the commentators arguing over if that was a legit shot or not, common people it's happened the last 3 winners, they've all had phantom title shots several times. Swagger, Bryan and now Ziggler

if i was Sheamus i woulda waited for the bell to ring the do what he did, now he's just gonna have to face him again anyway. or better yet why does noone think of getting themselves counted out or DQ'd, they'd lose the match but keep the title, meanwhile the MITB was screwed

I don't think the idea is to have someone else declare the MITB winner has to put their contract on the line, but only the briefcase holder would decide it is up for grabs. And I would also assume its something a face would do.

In fact, I attempted to make a story for WWE '12 for Daniel Bryan where Wade Barret tells him (in wrestling talk) that he's not "over", he doesn't deserve the briefcase, etc etc. Until finally Bryan says "if you beat me at the next PPV, I'll give you another match with the briefcase on the line", where Wade wins and then wins the briefcase from Bryan. The whole point was to try to get Bryan over and turn him into a little bit of a badass. Then Wade immediately would try to cash in every night and every night Daniel Bryan would stop him until he could get a rematch, to which Barrett would reply, like a heel, "what am I, an idiot?", but eventually get so frustrated not being able to cash in that he gave in, and then Bryan would win and then eventually cash in at WM. Needless to say I got tired of making that story line after 2 PPV's so it never came to fruition, and Daniel Bryan got over in a much better way IMO the way they did it in real life. But there is an example of why/how you could put the briefcase up for grabs.

Also I've thought of the DQ ending or count out ever since MITB last year when Del Rio ran in after the Punk/Cena match. For a second I thought the match had started when Punk ran away through the crowd he would be counted out and not lose the title.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I don't think that the Money In the Bank briefcases need to be defended. They are not championships, they are gateways TOWARD championships. The only reason Kennedy put his on the line against Edge was to have a storyline reason for writing him out when he got suspended as well as a punishment for not living up to his requirements for his push. It led to Edge cashing in on Taker and becoming the face of Smackdown, so it worked out. Edge having won it in the first place would have made more sense anyway.

Situations like that one are the only extremes when the briefcase should be defended. If we start having PPV matches over the briefcase, then WWE have completely run out of ideas, it's like something TNA would do. When they pick the MITB winners they need to know they can trust the individuals with such a push. Ziggler clearly had earned that trust, and with Cena it goes without saying. Everyone ever since Kennedy has learned from his mistake and I doubt we will see another briefcase defense unless the guy gets injured or if we do have another de-push, either of which would be unfortunate.

 

[Rjw2688]

No one in their right mind would put their tittle shot on the line. And if a GM forces them to do it then whats the point of the MITB match. Defending the briefcase ruins the whole point of the MITB match and I would not want to see it defended. I would like to see a Ziggler, Jericho feud. But not for the MITB... If a guy gets injured or suspended thats one thing. But to just try and create a story line or feud out of it just defeats the purpose.

 

[Workrate]

Absolutely not.

I know it's been done and I'm sure it'll be done again, but I hate the idea. It renders the actual MITB pointless, as the poster above me has already said. The implication of the name alone -- "money in the bank" -- suggests that the person who wins it has a certain guarantee. When they defend the briefcase, it puts that guarantee in peril and disrupts the entire concept.

 

[Foshinzo]

I've always thought that this is a good idea. I feel like this is one of those magic storylines in wrestling where, if you were to book it right, nobody is going to care about how dumb it is for Mr. MITB to risk his briefcase.

You could simply just do an angle where one guy has stolen it and he'll give it back if the guy defends it in a match. It's not hard to get away with this. It's also a great way to make Mr. MITB look strong before he cashes in. Imagine if Ziggler were to feud with Jericho for the briefcase for about a month, and then he goes over. Again, booking this wisely, you'd have successfully made your next WHC go over one of the biggest names in your company right as soon as he's about to be champion.

It's an opportunity that I think the WWE is missing out on to build on their stars. Everything in the WWE is too easy, nowadays. They don't try and develop things, they just come up with an idea, go straight from A to B, and that's it. We need development. It's how stars are born, and I really feel like this idea has the potential to create a star.

 

[Greatwhitesharkchampion]

I wouldn't mind one year having both winners of the money in the bank put there briefcases on the line in a match against eachother so it would sort of like unify the money in the bank contracts and bring it back to were the owner of the briefcase could challange either the wwe or the World heavyweight Champion.

In my opinion having two money in the bank winners sort of devalues the money in the bank and makes it more predictible and it sort of makes it like only the main event guys will win the wwe contract eg del rio lat year and john cena this year and a mid carder will win the world heavyweight title like last year with Bryan and this year with Ziggler

 

[DANIELBRYANrealwrestler]

It has been done in the past and i think it should be brought back. Obviously the contract winner should never lose but it'd still be interesting putting it on the line. Right now it seemes Ziggler will be feuding with Jericho and its something I've been wanting to see for a while, hopefully it goes past summerslam. They way I could see it working would be Ziggler vs Y2J next week on the 1000th episode with Jericho goin over clean, after the match Y2J issues a challenge for his MITB contract since Zigglers promo basically pointed out to him that he hasn't won anything big since his return. And at summerslam have Ziggler keep his contract by cheating or walking out.

 

[FlairFan2003]

There should only be one MITB winner, having multiple briefcases carried around dilutes how special and important the winner is supposed to be.

Should they be defended ? Yes, not on a regular basis like the US or IC Title, but if you want to draw out the storyline of when will the MITB winner cash in, then occasionally making someone challenge the MITB winner for the briefcase keeps the story in the forefront of the audience's mind.

 

[Hero_kidstackz]

I like the idea then again i dont i dont know why rvd defended it i guess just for story line but mr. Kennedy did it due to injury these reasons should only be the reasons why the MiTB should be defended not regularly. Dolph shouldnt put it on the line against Jericho. Why? Because Jericho gets title matches whenever he can leave come back and get a title shot dolph in a sence of reality needs the brief case to break the glass ceiling and become a true Main eventer.

 

[taylor360unc]

I would love for next year to have both MITB winners go 1 on 1 and the winner gets 2 MITB contracts and they cash them both in to unify the titles.

 

[Larry]

How many people here have ever played the basketball game P-I-G or H-O-R-S-E? I used to play W-E-E-D a lot but that's besides the point.

Remember when someone was on the last letter and missed the shot, in order for you to stay alive the person who initially made the shot you just missed had to "Prove It" and make the shot again to eliminate you?

Well I think "Prove It" is a good policy to take with the MITB. Sure, they won the MITB match, but it's crap shoot anyways, anyone can win it, you just have to be at the top of the ladder at the right time. It doesn't take any special ability or skill, it's luck of the draw. So, why not prove it? Prove that you deserve that title shot. Winning the MITB match just proves that you deserve to have the briefcase that allows you the title shot, it doesn't speak to the title opportunity on the contract in that briefcase (If you follow my logic here).

So why not have guys "Prove It" and face people for the briefcase, or have to defend the right to hold that briefcase until they cash it in? This would create an urgency for the person to cash-in because they would have to fight to keep that briefcase week-in and week-out and in the mean time, the stock of that briefcase goes sky-high and you really build it's importance past a one night PPV or one off cash-in. I think it's a great idea and it would ultimately make the holder of it seem more like a legit champion once they cashed in, instead of a guy who got lucky in one match and was literally just gifted a title shot.

 

[80centricher]

I don't believe that the Money in the Bank should be defended because it takes a ladder match made up of at least 8 people (well, at least most of them have) to win the briefcase, so whoever wins it truly deserves the briefcase and should keep it until they cash it in. Instead of defending the briefcases, the Money In The Bank holder should just be put in important feuds to keep them on TV and keep them relevant, much like Edge had a very heated rivalry with Matt Hardy during his time as the MITB holder.

 

[King of the Words]

I would like to see the MITB briefcase defended once a month like a title. And like a title, you can only win it by pin fall or submission. Last year while waiting for D Bryan to cash in it made his character boring and pointless until he cashed in. If he had to be defending it once a month it would have gave his character something to do in the meantime.

I would like to see Jericho and Ziggler at Summer Slam, in a MITB Briefcase vs. Career Match. It could possibly be even a ladder match. Have Ziggler win and look stronger and have Jericho written off t.v. this way. He can also be reinstated if he comes back again.

If Ziggler is going to turn face I would love to see a feud with him and Cody Rhodes over the briefcase where they could have a couple of classic matches and create a great rivalry of two future main eventers.

 

[roethlisberger78]

I dont think it should be like a title and put on the line once a month but I do believe under certain cercumstances it would be a good thing. With how Ziggler was down grading Jericho last night on Raw I think it would be great for Jericho to say Hey put your Moeny in the Bank on the line see if I can win the big one still yet or not. That to me would lead to a huge PPV match and I think it would help put ziggler over big time.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

In my opinion, no. The entire concept of the MITB briefcase is so that a specific, certain wrestler has an opportunity to cash in at anytime for a World Championship match, and anywhere. The concept itself, for the most part, is designed to elevate someone to main event status. At least, that's the general idea of things. It's true that WWE has pulled the trigger too soon, such as with Jack Swagger, or not had the faith that they should have had, such as with CM Punk. RVD, Edge, The Miz, Del Rio & Bryan have all most definitely seen their careers elevated due to MITB.

There are plenty of titles, six on the main roster, and I don't think the briefcases should become titles themselves. To me, it reduces the entire concept of MITB to something that isn't at all special. With the upcoming Jericho vs. Ziggler feud, much as with John Cena, Jericho doesn't need MITB to be a legit contender for either the World or WWE Championships. Jericho's a huge name, he's a multiple time World Champion and has generally been thought of as one of the overall best in wrestling for more than a decade. Having Jericho beat Ziggler for the briefcase would be like taking several steps backwards for no logical reason. Ideally, the point of this feud is to elevate Ziggler and Jericho is an ideal guy for that. He has tons of credibility and is one of ther very, very very few wrestlers who can continuously lose matches while maintaining that credibility. Ziggler is the guy who needs to be Mr. MITB, not Jericho. On top of that, Ziggler is someone that WWE has seemingly been on the verge of pushing as a main eventer for close to two years. He's come a long way over the course of this year in developing his promo skills and you'd have to be blind, foolish or an outright hater not to acknowledge his in-ring ability.

 

[Skinsley]

Like we have seen before, it is ok for a MITB holder to be tricked or goaded into defending the briefcase.
But really, no. What would be the point in trying really hard to win the gruelling MITB match if you could just challenge the winner in a likely less painstaking and risky singles match at a later date?

 

[RememberWaylonMercy]

Good idea. But shouldn't be a constant thing. It'd be an easy way to create stakes during what might just be a regular match.

 

[IT Factor]

The usual scenario with a deserving contender wanting a title shot would warrant a no answer on defending their briefcase. It makes a career when someone wins their briefcase and can sucessfully cash that in.

There are exceptions to the rule, however. If a storyline is big enough that a feud can be furthered or even raised higher by a briefcase defense, then that works towards raising stakes or making the match that more interesting. Then there are outside circumstances that could warrant a winner of MITB having to lose for various reasons: suspension, injury, etc. In those instances, it makes sense for a winner to defend their briefcase. If none of the above is involved, there is no real reason to have an already determined winner put their guaranteed opportunity on the line.