Should there be only one Money in the Bank Winner next year?

[pkrebel]

For the last 2 years we have had two contracts for both World Championships but to me having 2 MITB winners is too much, So wouldn't it be better if there was only one contract and the winner of the contract can choose from either the wwe championship or the world championship. I think it would make it more exciting

At the moment we are waiting on Dolph to cash in on Sheamus, which is okay but wouldn't it be better if he was the only Money In The Bank winner and he was shoving the breifcase into Punk and Sheamus keeping everyone guessing which Championship would he choose to cash in on. In my opinion it would be better for the audience to watch and it would be better for Dolph's character build. Just my opinion.

Would you agree or would you keep things the way they are??

 

[NYTaker]

As long as there is two Championship's in the wwe I think there should be two MITB winners, but I hope in the future that there is only one MITB winner because I hope there will be only one World Championship.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It is better for WWE to have two Money In the Bank winners. What if they make a mistake with one? Doubtful, but things happen. Then they would be without another for an entire year. Plus they have two world titles. What they did this year was kind of stupid where it was the red WWE briefcase and the blue World briefcase. It wasn't much better when they were restricted by what brand the respective world titles were exclusive to.

What I would rather see next year is they keep it at two winners and they can choose either world title but the restriction being the red briefcase MUST be used on Raw and the blue MUST be used on Smackdown. That would make it less predictable. Anyone can appear on either brand these days so this idea would work. They could always go back to having just one, but I prefer having two so that they can either have one per title or one per brand.

 

[Boourns]

Personally, I prefer the one briefcase because it has more intrigue. You don't know who it will be cashed in on, you don't know when and that's why it's so good. But, the main reason I think they should return to the one briefcase is because it could plug potential gaps in a storyline for example, imagine that there was one briefcase this year and Dolph Ziggler had it, Cena would have gotten injured, Ryback could face Punk at the PPV and Dolph could cash in as someone who is ready for the main event whilst also opening a myriad of opportunities for creative. Or he could have turned face and declared he was going to use his MITB case at Hell in A Cell and Bob's your uncle.

 

[bittermang]

I gotta go with the one big match. It's more important for everyone to fight over one slice of cake than two.

Imagine if the Rumble ended with the two competitors shaking hands. We won! Then they wrestle for who gets to pick which title, and the loser gets the scraps. That's an ugly system, it pits the value of one belt over the other. That's already what is happening now with the hackeneyed way they try to build the program for the "not Rumble winner selected" title on the Road to Wrestlemania.

A single briefcase does the same. But a single briefcase gives you more options. A briefcase holder could choose to go after a perceived weaker champion. Imagine someone who never uses their briefcase, because a Brock Lesnar had an iron grip on the belt. If they had a choice, they could flip to the other belt. A single briefcase and some sleight of hand could setup a WCW fueled Three Way dance, whoever pins who gets the losers belt.

Plus a single briefcase reduces the number of guaranteed title shot stips floating out there, which I think are clouding creative with too many forced or required options.

 

[FlairFan2003]

I agree, the whole Money In The Bank Ladder Match originally was to mix legit stars with undercarders, with an emphasis on guys who dont normally do ladder matches, and the winner is someone the company has high hopes of building a program around post WrestleMania. Multiple MIB winners, chasing either the World or WWE Champion, gets confusing, is convulated, loses its unique, special appeal, and cheapens the original concept.

 

[XXJJ]

I think their should only be one MITB winner. Having the MITB winner potentially cash it at any time on either champion would make it a little more unpredictable.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I personally think the best year the Money In The Bank briefcases were ever used was in 2010. I would have rather given Miz and Kane the same option as Swagger, but it was okay with me, as long as there was a 3rd Mr. MITB with said option. Without the MITB match at WM, I think the 2 winners should have the option to go for either WWE or World Championship. I would have loved a storyline where, for example, Kane cashes in on the WWE / World Champion, and then immediately after, the Miz cashes in on Kane.

 

[Syborgg]

I think there should be just one MITB winner. They seem to have done away with the brand extentions for the most part. I'd have one big match with like 10 guys and the winner can choose which main event title to challenge for. The only flaw is that most guys would want the WWE championship since it is regarded as the richer prize. However, let's say the World Champ is compromised so much that the briefcase holder can't resist cashing in.

Two winners worked when there were 2 separate brands, but now it would make it much less predictable if the briefcase holder could choose the championship he wants.

 

[BobbyRoode444]

They should go back to 1 MITB winner. Cena's cash in was just setting up a match at a PPV, which I think defeats the purpose of MITB, since Cena was probably getting that main event anyways.

It would be much more exciting if Dolph could cash in for either title, especially since he is in mini-feud with Punk, and they put on a great match at SD last week. To think Ziggler would have been able to be a factor at HITC punk match would have made that ppv a lot less predictable.

same goes for the Royal Rumble winner.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

I think that the concept of one money in the bank gives prestige to the MITB Briefcase itself. Look, every year almost 16 wrestlers have the opportunitty to win that match and that devalues a little the concept in my eyes at least. It should be only one Money In The Bank, one that garantees you a shot to the WWE Championship or WorldHeavyweight Championship.

It would give you unpredictabillity, and more in these time around with both brands being merged. I would make the match the main event for every year in the PPV, unless you have something like John Cena/CM Punk in 2011. It would be easy to pick the chance for the creative to pull the trigger, if the WWE Championship is to crowded then make the MITB holder cash in at the WH Championship.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't think that having two has done any sort of damage. The unpredictable nature of when someone will cash in and where is still there with one or two. At the end of the day, that big surprise is something of a treat for fans when you consider that the internet has taken away so much of the surprise of wrestling.

If I'm not mistaken, the WWE was going back to having one MITB match a year at WrestleMania and they were scrapping the ppv before Wade Barrett got hurt. One advantage that a single MITB winner has is the added uncertainty of which title the winner will go after.

To be honest, either scenario works for me. The MITB ppvs have been a lot of fun in my opinion but having MITB be a specialty match that comes around one time a year for WM sounds fun too.

 

[HBsam31]

I like the fact that there are two. One for each title makes sense, and like this year the can go different routes with each one. Cena cashed in ahead of time, and didn't win the title while we still have the intrigue of when Dolph will cash his in. Having the second one can also be like a redo if they mess the first cash in up, and things don't work out with the person cashing in. Having to gives them more options and I think it should remain that way.

 

[ChefMeefus]

I think they should get rid of the Money In the Bank PPV. Either put one MITB match in the TLC PPV or put it back in Wrestlemania. That being said I believe they should have one winner and like the Royal Rumble winner, they can choose what belt to cash in on. It would give the winner more exposure and TV time having the winner tease who he will cash it on throughout the year. It would give a chance for the winner to test the waters of being a heel or face depending on who holds the belts. Hell, maybe even bring back the old hardcore belt rules where you can cash in at anytime. MITB cashing in has been too predictable in the past and it would be nice to shake things up

 

[Bone For Tuna]

I think the MITB match is a cool concept but I don't want them to kill it by overdoing it, although they have kind of done that already. I never liked the idea of having a MITB, Hell In A Cell or a TLC PPV but MITB kind of makes the most sense out of the three. Hell In A Cell and TLC matches used to be really exciting and you never quite knew when it was going to happen but when it did it would be huge, now there's no surprise to it and who really wants to see three Hell In A Cell matches on one card anyways? Anyways as far as MITB I think they should only have one match though with four guys from each show and they winner can cash in on either champ. I think it would keep it from getting overdone and it would make things a little more exciting. That PPV could be similar to the Royal Rumble where wrestlers work hard to get in the match to get a shot at the gold.