What's next for Money in the Bank?

[Hanley!]

So the Money in the Bank pay per view is coming up again in June. It doesn't look like this stipulation is going anywhere any time soon.

I have mixed feelings about the concept. I think it makes WWE's surprises a little less surprising, because we know the pattern by now. It has also often resulted in guys getting pushed up the card before they were ready (though hopefully now that there's only one world title, this won't happen anymore). On the other hand, it's given us some exciting moments and it has helped WWE push some heels up the card.

At Wrestlemania, Rollins cashed in Money in the Bank during the main event. It's the first time it's been cashed in at Wrestlemania. It's also the first time it has been cashed in mid-match. Which made it a cool moment, because it was different from what we've seen before.

My question is, what would you do next with the Money in the Bank concept in order to keep it from getting stale? The surprise cash-ins can be cool, but they're often relatively predictable and there's a law of diminishing returns on how effective they can be. And people cashing in mid-match at Wrestlemania is the kind of thing you can only really do once.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I had an idea that I would have loved to see this year with Rollins, but there would be plenty of opportunities to execute it in the future. Imagine a heel holding the Money in the Bank briefcase coming up to the Royal Rumble. This performer then manages to sneak a win in some match on Raw, which secures him the #30 spot in the Royal Rumble match.

At the pay per view itself, this heel cashes in the Money in the Bank after the championship match and wins the title. It'd make for a big moment, that would change the whole dynamic coming up to Wrestlemania. Then at the end of the Royal Rumble match, the new champion enters at #30.

The commentators would be selling the idea "what happens if the champion wins the Royal Rumble"? And then the champion would win the Royal Rumble. So now nobody has the right to challenge the champion at Wrestlemania. It would leave an awesome question mark hanging over the championship before Raw the next night.

The heel champion would come out on Raw talking about there being no WWE World Heavyweight Championship match at Wrestlemania this year, because he's decided that he doesn't like (Insert Relevant City Here). Or maybe he'll show up at Wrestlemania and sit at the commentary table and just collect his Wrestlemania paycheck.

The former champion would get his rematch at Fast Lane (or whatever they're calling that pay per view by then), and this would be portrayed as the last opportunity to save the Wrestlemania main event. The heel wins. Still nobody has the right to challenge for the title at Wrestlemania.

Then over the coming weeks, the most popular face at the time would have to convince the heel to accept his challenge for Wrestlemania. How he'd go about doing this would depend largely on the characters involved. He could just be the thorn in the champion's side for weeks - jumping out and attacking him at random - and finally the champion agrees to face him because he can't take it anymore. Or the face could steal the championship and threaten to throw it off a bridge. Or the face steals or threatens something else precious to the heel champion. There are a bunch of ways to make this work, but no matter what option they used, the pop would be awesome when the heel finally agrees to defend the title at Wrestlemania.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So that's just one option that I came up with. Anybody have any other ideas for interesting stories they could do with the Money in the Bank contract? Or just any way to vary up the formula?

[The Legend]

That's not a bad way to go. I kind of wish there was some way to re-visit the way Rob Van Dam cashed in. Take a MITB winner and build him up as somebody that specializes in some kind of match (think Taker/HHH/Foley in HIAC). He builds himself up in this manner until he challenges the sitting champion in that kind of match. Getting a good match, but also giving the cash in guy a clear advantage of the champion. How things resolve from there becomes less important.

[Hanley!]

That's not a bad way to go. I kind of wish there was some way to re-visit the way Rob Van Dam cashed in. Take a MITB winner and build him up as somebody that specializes in some kind of match (think Taker/HHH/Foley in HIAC). He builds himself up in this manner until he challenges the sitting champion in that kind of match. Getting a good match, but also giving the cash in guy a clear advantage of the champion. How things resolve from there becomes less important.

That's the kind of story they should do with the Money in the Bank a little more often. Surprise cash-ins are cool, but if you expect them every year they become less surprising. They should announce the match beforehand a little more often. But this way the challenger still gets a bit of added advantage.

The opposite could even work too, if booked intelligently. If a face was the one cashing in, and he had always failed to win in a particular kind of match. If it had been shown as a major weakness for him, or a hole in his game. He might have a chip on his shoulder about it, and feel like he has something to prove. So he'd then ask for a championship match that really stacks the odds against him. That could be fun.

[The Legend]

That's not a bad way to go. I kind of wish there was some way to re-visit the way Rob Van Dam cashed in. Take a MITB winner and build him up as somebody that specializes in some kind of match (think Taker/HHH/Foley in HIAC). He builds himself up in this manner until he challenges the sitting champion in that kind of match. Getting a good match, but also giving the cash in guy a clear advantage of the champion. How things resolve from there becomes less important.

That's the kind of story they should do with the Money in the Bank a little more often. Surprise cash-ins are cool, but if you expect them every year they become less surprising. They should announce the match beforehand a little more often. But this way the challenger still gets a bit of added advantage.

The opposite could even work too, if booked intelligently. If a face was the one cashing in, and he had always failed to win in a particular kind of match. If it had been shown as a major weakness for him, or a hole in his game. He might have a chip on his shoulder about it, and feel like he has something to prove. So he'd then ask for a championship match that really stacks the odds against him. That could be fun.

I wouldn't be a fan of your second scenario. That line of thinking to me just lacks too much logic. To me you have a great opportunity and you put yourself at a disadvantage to me is bravery to the point of stupidity. Even if he pulls off the victory in the end it seems a little silly to me. You could reverse that and have a heel cash in and declare a match that a face struggles to win. Then have the face overcome that odd and get the victory.

The biggest problem with the story developing this way is other than John Cena in I Quit/Last Man Standing matches I can't think of a single guy on their roster that has an advantage in a specific match stipulation.

[Hanley!]

I think it'd work if you built up to it. Say if the face had lost a particular stipulation a few times before, then he loses to the champion in a match of that type again. Then a while later he wins Money in the Bank and challenges for the title again, but he surprisingly asks for that same stipulation. Just to prove that he can do it.

It would work particularly well if the stipulation was an 'I Quit' match. The face could be mocked by the heel for being a 'Quitter'. So it would make sense for him to want to prove that he's not a quitter, get revenge on the heel and win the championship all at the same time. I'd like to see an angle like that.

Sometimes WWE is too nervous to make a face look weak like that (losing 'I Quit' matches), but it could be done in a way that doesn't sacrifice the face's credibility. If he lost the matches due to the heels violently attacking body parts that were already injured. And it's okay for an underdog face to lose big matches sometimes. It gives him an opportunity to redeem himself down the line, which is always more entertaining than watching an invincible hero prove that he's still invincible.

[The Legend]

I think it'd work if you built up to it. Say if the face had lost a particular stipulation a few times before, then he loses to the champion in a match of that type again. Then a while later he wins Money in the Bank and challenges for the title again, but he surprisingly asks for that same stipulation. Just to prove that he can do it.

It would work particularly well if the stipulation was an 'I Quit' match. The face could be mocked by the heel for being a 'Quitter'. So it would make sense for him to want to prove that he's not a quitter, get revenge on the heel and win the championship all at the same time. I'd like to see an angle like that.

Sometimes WWE is too nervous to make a face look weak like that (losing 'I Quit' matches), but it could be done in a way that doesn't sacrifice the face's credibility. If he lost the matches due to the heels violently attacking body parts that were already injured. And it's okay for an underdog face to lose big matches sometimes. It gives him an opportunity to redeem himself down the line, which is always more entertaining than watching an invincible hero prove that he's still invincible.

Yeah, I still don't like the psychology of it. It's just like when they repeatedly have a face not care at all about his health and run into 3-on-1 assault by a heel faction because he's so blinded by something that he gets stupid. I mean at some point in wrestling, showing intelligence and strategy became only a heel trait because it somehow shows cowardice. I think a face that says he's intelligent and showing that he knows himself and knows what area he is strongest in to take advantage of a great opportunity that he won in a different match doesn't have to be a bad thing.

[PorkChop]

I'd like to see the concept scrapped entirely now. MITB has run its course.

[lyonssv]

I'm glad there is only one MITB match now per year instead of the two or three we were getting in year's past. That was just overkill that really ruined the moment. I still think if used correctly, MITB can still be a good concept to help put a younger superstar over the hump into the main event scene.

However, I'd like to see it as a bi-annual event rather than ever year. Maybe alternate it with a returning King of the Ring? That's what I would like to see.

[Hanley!]

I'd like to see the concept scrapped entirely now. MITB has run its course.

I'm half inclined to agree, but they're clearly not getting rid of it. The concept is well established by now, it's pretty popular and it's responsible for almost all of their big surprise moments now. I think genuine surprises would be more entertaining than a "which of these weeks will this exact surprise take place" situation, but they're not really creative enough for that at the moment.

As long as the concept is sticking around, I'd like to be optimistic and think that they might be able to find new ways to use it.

[ShaneOfan]

Two people will simultaneously grab the case and both be declared winners and there will be two MITB holders

[Messiah]

Meh, at least the Money in the Bank briefcase motivates them to push somebody new. I think it will be much better with only one World Title now.