When I read CAP ALLAN'S post it made me seriously re-visit something that I had pondered many times over the past few years; the future of the money in the bank.
Although the matches themselves are off the chart, the whole idea of a guy blindsiding another guy and stealing his title seems cheap. However, the whole concept of a title shot that could happen at anytime is intriguing. So the question is, would I keep the concept? Absolutely. However, ever since they expanded the MITB to its own PPV, the multiplicity of briefcases floating around has lessened the value of the original briefcase. Very much like the idea of 2 world titles lessens the value of the WWE championship, and essentially the whole value in being champion, period.
The same here applies to the money in the bank. If they intend on keeping the Wrestlemania MITB, and at the same time preserve the idea of a PPV centred around the concept of each brand also having a case, the proliferation of these cases floating around, has the potential to create a maelstrom of chaos.
Some things have to change in order for this 'automatic sure thing' to become more of an unpredictable wildcard.
The Royal Rumble is an interesting analogy. Back in the 90's and early 2000's, the winner of the Rumble was almost assured to be champion. Then about a few years ago, they decided that "maybe everyone that wins shouldn't win the championship".Thusly it makes it less 'predictable'.
We start with 3 years ago where John Cena makes a surprise return at the Rumble, winning it, but then gives up his title shot and loses the match at the next PPV. 2 years ago, Randy Orton wins the rumble but goes on to lose to HHH. Last year, Edge makes a surprise return to win the rumble, only to lose to chris Jericho at Wrestlemania.
I agree with this idea that everyone that wins the case shouldn't go on to win, and that it shouldn't be a simple case of 'not if' but 'when'. Of the 8 winners of the money in the bank briefcase, 7 of them have gone on to cash it in, all except Mr. Kennedy, who won the MITB in 2007. An injury forced him to vacate the case, and it was thusly passed to Edge who went on to cash it in against the Undertaker. The question is, would Mr. Kennedy have been champion if he had never suffered the injury? Would we still be having this conversation if this was the 'case'.
So what has to change?
Firstly, someone has to go on to lose his challenge for this to have any validity, and I was thinking all along that the Miz would be the one to lose. But based on the rise of The Miz over the past year, with his charismatic promos and improving in-ring work, the possibility of him becoming champion was only a matter of time.
Secondly, would it not be cool if there was 2 guys who wanted to cash their title shot in at the same time? The idea of the multiple cases causes an interesting dynamic that should be taken advantage of.
Thirdly, more challenges for possession of the cases.
and lastly, put the MITB on someone who is up and coming, and not use it as a means to an end for a feud whose time has come and passed 10 years ago (and I'm refering to you Kane).
Congrats to the Miz for making this MITB run quite memorable, and based on the events this past monday, Orton looks in line to win the rumble, and take back his title at Wrestlemania.