The Future of Money in the Bank

[Blade]

After thinking about the World Titles being unified, I just realised that next year will be the first time there's a Money in the Bank holder with only one champion to cash in on.

We all know that Money in the Bank, when used properly, and given to people who aren't Jack Swagger, can be a big deal. It kick-started Edge's feud with John Cena, which is the feud that made him a main event player. It kick-started Punk's feud with Jeff Hardy, allowing Punk to have his memorable heel turn. It was the start of the rise of Daniel Bryan, between the Yes chants and that Wrestlemania loss to Sheamus. And it gave us one of the most memorable moments of the year when Ziggler cashed in, which is also looking like the highlight of Ziggler's career.

But now that the titles are being unified, it raises a lot of questions about Money in the Bank.

When you have one world title, only the very best rise up to win it. There won't be any Great Khali title reigns, or Christian title reigns or Kane title reigns. It's only the best of the best. There's no secondary World Title to give guys experimental reigns, sentimental reigns or reigns just for their loyalty. WWE have to be more careful with who they award the briefcase to.

So does this become a good thing or a bad thing?

In the pros column, any time a championship is harder to get to, it becomes more credible. If the Money in the Bank briefcase maintains its high success rate for making champions out of uppermidcarders, then we know to sit up an take notice of whomever wins future MitB matches. If, say, Roman Reigns wins the next MitB match, we know WWE are really going for it with Reigns. With one world title, it means it'll be far more exciting when people are elevated into the title picture.

But on the other hand, having one World Title that's more difficult to win does create other problems. If WWE gets cold feet, we may see more former World champions winning the Money in the Bank, like Punk or Bryan. Bryan would never have won Money in the Bank with only one World Title around, and yet it was his World Title reign that led to him being a star.

And, if there's only one World title, and it's reserved for only the very best, it could lead to more unsuccessful cash-ins. Sure, unsuccessful cash-ins may make the title seem more credible, but it ruins the excitement and allure of Money in the Bank. I love the Royal Rumble match itself, but I don't see winning the Rumble in the way I used do. From 2008 to 2011, all four Rumble winners lost at Wrestlemania. After that, it just wasn't quite the same. It added uncertainty, sure, but it doesn't feel like you're watching a star being made anymore.

And then there's the Pay Per View itself. Should Money in the Bank have its own Pay Per View if there's only one briefcase to win? Or do WWE dare crown two briefcase holders with only one world title.

So many questions...

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, if WWE really wanted to, they could still do Money in the Bank as a ppv. One of the matches could be for a shot at the Unified Championship, a name that I don't think WWE will go with if they really do unify the titles, and have another MITB match for the IC title. Or, if they wanted to, they could keep the ppv and add another MITB match for the tag titles. If they really wanted to go nuts with the concept, they could have four MITB matches with one for the World Championship, two for the IC & US titles and one for the tag titles. The same strategy could also be applied to the Elimination Chamber if it's a concept WWE wants to keep as a ppv.

I know the concept has only been traditionally for either a WWE or World Heavyweight Championship shot, but as has been pointed out, that's because WWE has had two World Championships for the pas 11 years. IF that's something that WWE is going to change, then the MITB concept has to change automatically as a result. As I said, they can keep MITB as a ppv concept if they truly wanted to. Otherwise, it'd be better to scrap it as a ppv and return to the original concept of having one MITB match each year at WrestleMania.

 

[MCMG]

I'm not sure what having only one briefcase does. I don't think Damien Sandow was any less credible simply because Randy Orton also won on the same night. He was still the "uncrowned World Champ" and that doesn't change now.

Having two briefcases gives the WWE greater options. In theory, they can have one winner that is already established that can be used to further/start a feud and another winner that uses it to start their career. One briefcase means there are a fewer number of people who could win and challenge for a World Title. When there were two titles there could be a "fuck it" attitude and give a Title run to Jack Swagger. If it doesn't work out so be it. Now, they are going to be more cautious only the best have a chance of winning.

Let's look at Money in the Bank 2011 which is arguably one of the best PPV's since the turn of the century. There were only 6 matches but there were two MITB matches as well as two world titles including one of the fantastic Orton/Christian matches and THAT Punk/Cena match. Yes, the two world title matches were fantastic but the two MITB bouts were also entertaining.

It is a simple formula which makes booking easy and almost guarantees a good PPV. We don't get the problem like at a PPV such as Battleground where there are random filler matches. 4 matches that we should care about and, like in 2011, can all be of high quality.

Taking away one World Title ruins the ppv. Not only is there less one World Title match but they are taking away a MITB match. I suppose they could have one for a mid-card title but does anyone care about someone holding a contract for a match against the Intercontinental Title. Therefore, they could have to scrap one of the most consistently great PPV's of the last 4 years.

With regards, to the Money in the Bank PPV/concept I think the Title Unification is detrimental. Overall, I'm not really fussed but MITB was better off with two ladder matches and two briefcases.

 

[Kris Benwa]

They should have the one where the winner can cash in on the champion at any time but they should make the winner of the other be able to cash in on the first MITB winner to win his opportunity. I know it sounds stupid but it could be neat because if you never know when the first one will cash in his opportunity at the title, the one who has the opportunity at the briefcase will always be trying to cash in because once the first one is cashed in they both lose their briefcases unless the first one loses. So for example if Damien Sandow had one the first one this year and Orton won the second one, Orton would have been trying to cash in on Sandow to win his championship opportunity but when Sandow lost Orton would have gotten his championship opportunity. I like the idea because besides the unique creativeness, it also gives you a safety net winner just in case the first one gets hurt, suspended, isn't ready to win the title etc.

 

[Pedigree1]

I think ultimately the MITB briefcase does make a return to WM! Thats the way it should have been all along.. One briefcase now,the winner will cash in on the eventual winner of the undisputed champion. Only the best of the best,will be the undisputed champion,no more experimental reigns,no more reigns just due to loyalty only the best will wear the strap.

The MITB match should be treated no differently. NO R truth No Kofi in that match,only the top contenders deserve to be in there i.e Cena,Bryan,Orton those top top guys will be in the MITB match or they should be.. I dont think its necessary to have a MITB PPV if we are though to have one,make it only one match!

 

[bioshock]

I would never assume by this time next year there will only be one title, with WWE you never can say. I could even see the MITB go on to be "challenge for any title you like" with some random cash in on the IC title or something, which would promote the belt, but kill the value of MITB, even though when Ziggler didn't cash in it WM29 it kind of made MITB totally pointless.

I wouldn't mind seeing MITB take a year or two off, even though I really liked this years MITB event.

 

[Softcore Holly]

I would never assume by this time next year there will only be one title, with WWE you never can say. I could even see the MITB go on to be "challenge for any title you like" with some random cash in on the IC title or something, which would promote the belt, but kill the value of MITB, even though when Ziggler didn't cash in it WM29 it kind of made MITB totally pointless.

I wouldn't mind seeing MITB take a year or two off, even though I really liked this years MITB event.

I disagree with the Ziggler thing. At the time I too was let down not to see Dolph cash in at WM29, but him cashing it in the next night on Raw was fantastic. If he cashed it in at WM it would've been a great moment sure, but it would've been followed by the big matches like Punk-Taker, Lesnar-HHH, Cena vs Rock 2, which would've made the moment not as special since there were other big moments. Doing it on Raw was the biggest thing to happen that night, and for that 1 night made Dolph feel like the biggest star.

Of course WWE foolishly not choosing to push him afterwards made the MITB feel really pointless, but not the timing itself.

 

[Sundar]

They can just unify the Intercontinental/US titles and have the second MITB match for the unified midcard title. Personally I think the MITB concept has run its course and only devalues the titles because of how easy it is for someone to cash in and failed cash-ins like Sandow's just insult the intelligence of viewers and make the wrestler look dumb. I do agree that the MITB PPV itself and the MITB matches are awesome though.

 

[lifelongfan]

if there is not a MITB PPV i dont wanna c tbe match at WM. WM should be more story lined based with big time1 one 1 matches. how about moving the match to TLC next year that would make sence right?

 

[Dagger Dias]

Money In the Bank is the best of the new PPV brands. It's still a popular concept and match type, I highly doubt the unification of the world titles will make it go away. It instead would likely mean many would get what they wanted.... Only one Money In the Bank winner. They wouldn't exactly be getting the original Money In the Bank format where one winner can pick from either the WWE or World Heavyweight Championship, but now we will no longer have to deal with the whining pertaining to why there should not be a red and blue briefcase anymore. Just one briefcase for one shot at one title, and some filler matches thrown on.

Or....? Here's where it gets interesting.

What's stopping WWE from expanding the Money In the Bank concept? The red briefcase remains for the world title while the blue briefcase remains as well for the Intercontinental Championship. What about the addition of a yellow briefcase for the giant pennies? Or even a pink briefcase for the divas in a match where divas have wrestlers representing them where the male winner gets a green briefcase for the US Championship? They could potentially have a briefcase for every title this way. That seems more like the future of Money In the Bank. The booking may be chaotic if that time comes, but they will have to change up the formula sooner or later.

 

[A11oftheLights]

They should never have moved MITB from WM it was a near perfect opening bout problem is if WWE changes it back they admit a mistake something they hate to do

 

[Adam X]

I've always kind of liked TNA's Feast or Fired idea with each title getting a guaranteed shot if they won.

They could tweak the match types for each as I couldn't see four/five ladder matches working in one night. Plus no way they'd risk the divas in such a match so maybe have theirs be a battle royal or something.

 

[Redrum]

Well if they keep the PPV they could always have a money in the bank match for a shot at the tag titles ( HHH is really wanting to push the tag division in 2014) or where the winner gets a shot at IC/US title to go along with normal match where the winner gets a shot at the unified champion.

They could however scrap the PVP all together which i wouldn't mind and move the match back to WM or maybe Summerslam.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I think it's fine that MITB goes back to only one championship match a year (if unification takes place). I was never in favor of doing the whole thing twice annually.

In fact, I would have loved to see the whole concept abandoned, until John Cena thwarted the bid of Damien Sandow. It always seemed ridiculous that the briefcase was a sure-fire way for a heel to gain the title, usually from an exhausted champion. Personally, I think it would be better if the briefcase holder was successful only half the time. The way it was before Cena-Sandow, you could be assured the challenger was going to take the title once he decided to cash in. The only suspense came when the challenger changed his mind about cashing in at the last moment because he was afraid the champion wasn't incapacitated enough to warrant taking the chance.....but once he handed the briefcase to the ref, you knew damn well he was about to become champion.

It's a cheap shortcut to the title and I never liked the concept......but I suppose it's bearable if the champion retains, at least some of the time.

 

[L@RISANO]

I think it will be better to have One MITB winner. It means that now, only the Best of the Best will be main eventing and the MITB winner would be another Main Eventer or someone that the Big Wigs are looking to push to the Main Event.
Hopefully, the IC gets its prestige back and helps to elevate Superstars to the Main Event, with the MITB a stepping stone to Main Eventing.

 

[justinsayne]

They could still do multiple MITB matches at the PPV, they could have one for the "Unified Champ", & they could do the other for either the tag titles or have a "wildcard MITB" match where the winner can cash in on on the tag titles (assuming he has a partner) or either the IC or US titles. There are still plenty of options, pretty much most of the ideas brought up in the Elimination Chamber thread would be applied to MITB as well.

 

[Bizzzrad]

Personally, I think they will keep the MITB ppv around with just one winner to cash-in on the unified champion (assuming it takes place).

What I would like to see happen.... I hate the MITB concept. They are always fun matches to watch but what the winner gains is truly ridiculous. Just being able to cash-in anytime throughout the year is absurd, no effort is involved in their title win. It kills the meaning and the prestige of the championship in my opinion. I wish they would bring back King of the Ring and then the winner of that would be awarded a title shot at Summerslam or something.

 

[Kidpolean]

I really wish they would take away the cash in anytime you feel like it rule. They need to make it that you have to cash in and have an actual match, it worked for Sandow, he lost but they had a really good match and the crowd was into it. I just cant take it seriously anymore. The fact that nobody, IM TALKIN BOUT NOBODY, has cashed in at WM or in the main event of Mania makes it seem fake and pointless. If it was real, which is what they want you to think right, wouldn't everybody just give themselves the main event of Mania?

Im about to completely contradict myself but one thing that we havent seen is someone cash in in the middle of another title match. This would be very interesting. What if in the middle of a no DQ title match, while both wrestlers are down, the money in the bank holder cashes in to make it a triple threat match than pins the guy that's not the champ. This could lead to a good story and be a huge surprise.

 

[jameyt2003]

MITB should be here to stay. I honestly believe this was the best way to innovate the ladder match. As far as the following storyline, it can be hit or miss. that is where WWE kind of shoots themselves in the foot (Swagger) or cashes in (Edge).

 

[BringThePain834]

I did prefer 2 titles, but since there is now only one, perhaps the MITB PPV could take on a KOTR feel to it, having some matches on Raw and Smackdown for spots and a couple of filler matches on the PPV with the better talents to cover that they're filler matches. have the actual MITB match go on last, meaning that yes, there won't be any intrigue that the briefcase will be cashed in the same night, but competently booked, the matches for the last couple of spots, the Unified title match, and the MITB match itself should then be the main selling points of the PPV.

As I say, I do feel it's a step in the wrong direction to go back to one main title, that they should have gone for the brand extension again. it does of course suffer from them not being able to elevate new younger talent so that both shows would have someone in the top spot that could be there for a few years, but we're far beyond that problem for now anyway.

 

[CrazyMatt88]

Here's a possibility. With only one world title, the Intercontential title is due a huge push up the respectability ladder, have a MITB match with the middle carders for the IC title, to go with the MITB match with the main eventers and maybe one mid carder making a step up for the WWE title. Make the IC title mean something again.

 

[L@RISANO]

The value of cashing in the briefcase is starting to go down...
As some have said, maybe having one for the IC title or some stipulation where that title can also be cashed in on.

 

[Father Uncle Oscar]

Money in the Bank is one of the few things that keeps WWE unique and will have the same longevity as the Royal Rumble. That being said, I do believe, as the guy above me said, that the MitB prestige level is starting to decrease. I think there are two pretty logical ways to go about this:

A) Midcard MitB match. This is self-explanitory and has been discussed to death in this topic, so I have nothing new to add to it.

B) Defend the briefcase. Only 4 Superstars have ever put their contract on the line in a match. Dolph Ziggler was the first to do it since Mr. Kennedy in 2007, as well as the first to put it on the line multiple times, let alone defend it multiple times. If you treat the briefcase like you would a title belt, then more people would be intrigued in seeing who has the opportunity to cash in instead of waiting for the inevitable title match after the ladder match. I'm not saying defend it at every single PPV, but maybe once every two months, and DEFINITELY at Night of Champions.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I would do away with the MITB pay per view, and regulate the MITB match to the opening contest at Wrestlemania again.

With Cena losing to Punk on Raw last year, and Sandow failing at his attempt to cash-in on Cena, WWE is heading in the right direction of changing the monotonous routine of challenger cashes-in, challenger wins title. Having the MITB match as the traditional opening contest at Wrestlemania with one winner reinforces the value and importance of everyone having a real sense of urgency, as they're clawing and scratching to get their hands on one briefcase.

 

[Father Uncle Oscar]

I would do away with the MITB pay per view, and regulate the MITB match to the opening contest at Wrestlemania again.

With Cena losing to Punk on Raw last year, and Sandow failing at his attempt to cash-in on Cena, WWE is heading in the right direction of changing the monotonous routine of challenger cashes-in, challenger wins title. Having the MITB match as the traditional opening contest at Wrestlemania with one winner reinforces the value and importance of everyone having a real sense of urgency, as they're clawing and scratching to get their hands on one briefcase.

I would agree with that except that now that the titles will eventually be unified, I don't think it necessarily has to be at Wrestlemania. Sure, it would give some of these future huge names something to do on the Grandest Stage of Them All, but now there's gonna be one briefcase anyway (at least if they don't add the midcard match), so the sense of urgency will be there. In that case, might as well make it the focal point of the very beginning of its own PPV by having the MitB match open the show, then talk about how the contract winner has a bigger target on their back than they have since there were 2 ladder matches. Just like the Royal Rumble, WWE can take this concept and hype it up to the prestige level they want it to be at, which I believe is right up there with the WWE Title.