Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 10:32:03 GMT -5
The MITB PPV worked with 2 MITBs. It's not really such a lofty match to carry a PPV with just one.
Time to abandon the MITB PPV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Dec 18, 2013 11:17:30 GMT -5
Could have an IC Money in the Bank Match... Or, How about the first ever Tag Team Money in the Bank Match.
I think that MITB & Night of Champions (since there's a thread about cutting that one too) are two of the better "themed" PPVs. No need to cut either.
|
|
shaker
Team Rocket
The numbers don't lie - and they spell disaster for you at Sacrifice!
Posts: 779
|
Post by shaker on Dec 18, 2013 11:36:11 GMT -5
I love the idea of a tag team Money in the Bank match. Have it be 4 teams, let all 8 guys in the ring, and magic will happen.
Imagine a Money in the Bank match with the Usos, The Real Americans, Harper and Rowan, and the Prime Time Players.
Tons of double team moves, I think it could be a huge innovation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kayfabe FAN don't want none on Dec 18, 2013 12:01:37 GMT -5
Annual 4-Way Tag Team Championship matches would be AMAZING!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 12:07:07 GMT -5
I think that it's time to shelve the money in the bank match. It served it's purpose but it played itself out. Multi-man ladder matches for various titles is a better way to go and doesn't lean on the lazy booking crutch of a guy cashing in on a downed opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by What? on Dec 18, 2013 12:22:13 GMT -5
I know this has been echoed many times in the past, but the gimmick pay per views were all bad ideas. If you have a heated rivalry in May and you need a Hell in a Cell match, forget it. Its not October yet. I think the money in the bank match was a great complement to the WrestleMania card. It gave a bunch of guys something to do without being stuck in uninspired singles matches for the sake of just being on the card. I think it also allows other matches, more important matches to have as much time as they need to tell the proper story. I'm with you on this one, son.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 12:24:39 GMT -5
Get rid of it and replace it with King of the Ring. Winner gets a guaranteed title shot at Summerslam.
|
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by TGM on Dec 18, 2013 12:45:06 GMT -5
Get rid of it and replace it with King of the Ring. Winner gets a guaranteed title shot at Summerslam. I like this, but WWE has always shown the KOTR winner to be a guy they are going to run with and push hard. I just think they'd screw it up with so many people on the roster these days. Plus, do they really need to waste 30mins minimum (3 ten minute matches) just to get one guy a title shot? Or saddle them with a crappy King gimmick. |
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Dec 18, 2013 12:51:24 GMT -5
Get rid of it and replace it with King of the Ring. Winner gets a guaranteed title shot at Summerslam. I like this, but WWE has always shown the KOTR winner to be a guy they are going to run with and push hard. I just think they'd screw it up with so many people on the roster these days. Plus, do they really need to waste 30mins minimum (3 ten minute matches) just to get one guy a title shot? Or saddle them with a crappy King gimmick.  King Kurt Angle was brilliant. The only bad King of the Ring king was King Mabel mainly because it was Mabel. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 12:52:09 GMT -5
Get rid of it and replace it with King of the Ring. Winner gets a guaranteed title shot at Summerslam. I like this, but WWE has always shown the KOTR winner to be a guy they are going to run with and push hard. I just think they'd screw it up with so many people on the roster these days. Plus, do they really need to waste 30mins minimum (3 ten minute matches) just to get one guy a title shot? Or saddle them with a crappy King gimmick. Well, if you have it as a full tournament with qualifiers and whatnot, it would pad out a lot of the Raw cards for that month. Plus you genuinely have to earn that title shot over a number of weeks (rather than a potentially flukey win in a ladder match) and you don't get to 'cash in' on a sitting duck. It's a more structured way of building a superstar, rather than just shoving them to the top and letting them plummet back down again. I do agree that 'King' gimmicks need to go away forever though. Maybe change the name but keep the format. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 21:23:15 GMT -5
I think that it's time to shelve the money in the bank match. It served it's purpose but it played itself out. Multi-man ladder matches for various titles is a better way to go and doesn't lean on the lazy booking crutch of a guy cashing in on a downed opponent. I've always felt that the matches are really fun, but the premise is too gimmicky. I much prefer something like the Rumble or King of the Ring, where someone earns a title shot in a real match instead of the whole cheap cash-in thing. It's such a weak way to give someone a title without giving them any kind of real push, see Dolph Ziggler or CM Punk in 2008. |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 18, 2013 22:53:48 GMT -5
I think that it's time to shelve the money in the bank match. It served it's purpose but it played itself out. Multi-man ladder matches for various titles is a better way to go and doesn't lean on the lazy booking crutch of a guy cashing in on a downed opponent. The Money in the Bank isn't played out. Just the cashing in on a downed opponent aspect of it is played out The briefcase itself would be a good way to help boost someone to the next level, or at the very least, to break the monotony so that the title picture isn't just a constant combination of Cena/Orton/Punk/Bryan. Without the World Heavyweight Title, they need some other type of means to give newer stars a rub. The briefcase can be used to give someone a title shot that wouldn't get one otherwise. The Money in the Bank is a good concept, but they just need to stop using it as a means to get the title off of top faces without making them "look weak". I'd rather see a midcarder win the briefcase, cash in for a legit match and lose, but still have the rub of winning the actual ladder match and putting on a solid match against the champion. I've said this before, but I think the MiTB should become what the World Heavyweight Title was: the new "test run" prize. The way I thought of it, The Money in the Bank winner would have a specific timeframe at the company's discretion to prove themselves worthy of being a champion/main eventer. If he proves himself worthy, he will be booked to win his cash in. If he fails to impress, then either he will be booked to lose the cash in, or if the company is lenient, he will win the title only to end up as a transitional or midcarding champion. |
|
|
|
Post by DZ: WF Legacy on Dec 18, 2013 23:05:13 GMT -5
I love MITB, so I'd rather they keep it as a PPV with the WWE World title and additionally include a tag team MITB opener.
Also, green w/gold MITB cases now, please.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Dec 18, 2013 23:05:18 GMT -5
I may actually prefer it at Mania, if they scaled it back to only 6 guys.
|
|
