What else can be done with MITB

**Rock Bottom** · 10-12-2011, 06:38 AM

I was just randomly wondering about it, even though there's plenty going on for this year and early next year. Besides a MITB winner cashing in on the other MITB winner that just cashed in, I can't think of much else to be done with this in the near future if the roster remains as it is.

Getting old? Or is it just a different dose of the Royal Rumble as far as pushes go? With the main titles defended and changing hands as often as they are, do you think the Rumble is just a relic of a procedure right now, barring the entertainment of the battle royal itself.

SPOILER: show

I have to say, of all the MITB winners, they've been elevated to another level. I'm not sure how this is going to play out with Daniel Bryan. I'm also not sure who else is going to benefit much from a MITB. I could go for an R-Truth win, but not sure who else.

On the same token, in order for MITB to continue to be taken seriously, it would stand to reason that at least most of the guys be deserving of a main event push, and that it at least remains close to a 100% title win rate.

Should there be only one, or two? Unless they end the brand split, doesn't the SmackDown MITB winner just seem second fiddle like most other things on SmackDown?

Has MITB seen its best days, or does the WWE still have enough up and coming talent to sustain its credibility? Or do you think this just ties in to the nature in which the titles are presented now?

**#BROKEN Hasney** · 10-12-2011, 06:59 AM

I get a multi-man ladder match or 2 on a PPV.

They can take a shit in the briefcase for all I care, although it is fun wondering id someones gonna run out and cash in.

**Disco Apocalypse** · 10-12-2011, 07:00 AM

I'm glad (I guess) that they took MiTB away from Wrestlemania, as I always enjoyed it so much as an opener that the rest of the matches (bar the main event) usually sucked by comparison.

One briefcase (and match) would be better, as it would add that little bit of surprise when a Smackdown guy turns up on Raw. Although recently it looks as though the brand split has been squashed anyway...

I'd like to see a stipulation that it you cash in and DONT win a title, you're fired. That would spice it up a bit...

**Disco Apocalypse** · 10-12-2011, 07:01 AM

Plus go back to the black briefcase... red and blue look lame.

**Fox** · 10-12-2011, 09:27 AM

I think someone needs to fail at cashing in their MITB contract to make things interesting again. Honestly, I think it should have been Jack Swagger to fail first - could have been a good story arc for him where losing his MITB opportunity forced him to "snap" and become a more intense and focused wrestler. I also point to the Swagger cash in as kind of "the moment" when the MITB lost some prestige. The guy wasn't ready and didn't deserve to win the World Heavyweight Championship.

But all that being passed, I think that having someone lose the MITB cash in will create more interest because it will no longer be looked at as this golden ticket to a World Championship reign.

I like what they're doing with Bryan, having him build his cash in toward WrestleMania, and if they do this thing right then they just might make him a star. I also like the idea of a MITB winner cashing in on another MTIB winner who just cashed in, although with the current set up of one RAW MITB holder and one SD! MITB holder, I don't really see how this could "realistically" happen.

It might not be a bad idea to can MITB for a year or two and allow interest in the match to rebuild. Why not replace MITB with KOTR for a couple of years instead?

**MoFo** · 10-12-2011, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox

I think someone needs to fail at cashing in their MITB contract to make things interesting again. Honestly, I think it should have been Jack Swagger to fail first - could have been a good story arc for him where losing his MITB opportunity forced him to "snap" and become a more intense and focused wrestler. I also point to the Swagger cash in as kind of "the moment" when the MITB lost some prestige. The guy wasn't ready and didn't deserve to win the World Heavyweight Championship.

But all that being passed, I think that having someone lose the MITB cash in will create more interest because it will no longer be looked at as this golden ticket to a World Championship reign.

It might not be a bad idea to can MITB for a year or two and allow interest in the match to rebuild. Why not replace MITB with KOTR for a couple of years instead?

This.

**BizarroKing** · 10-12-2011, 10:04 AM

How about actually featuring the MITB winner on SD!?

**MIZantine Empire** · 10-12-2011, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BizarroKing

How about actually featuring the MITB winner on SD!?

been sayin this for a little bit now. im not a bryan fan, but i figure if ure gonna have him win MITB, then he should be on smackdown every week.

as far as if MITB is getting old, to me, no. its helping in getting those people at least a trial run as champ. what i mean by those people, is the people who you wonder if they could pull off being champ..like they did with del rio, the miz, even jeff hardy and edge. as far as the future goes, i could see barrett and kofi pickin up MITB wins..maybe even dolph..i love MITB..i love the months following when you see the champ get destroyed, and you wonder if you are going to hear the MITB winners music..

**Disco Apocalypse** · 10-12-2011, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BizarroKing

How about actually featuring the MITB winner on SD!?

Because it's Daniel Bryan

Still can't understand why they would give the MiTB to wrestlers with no valued gimmick, feuds or momentum. Same thing applied to Swagger, and look how that flopped.

At least with Edge, Punk, Kennedy, Del Rio and Kane, they were involved in feuds or in the middle of the push. MiTB shouldn't START your push.

They might as well have given it to Teb DiBiase, and least the M in MiTB would have been a clever play on words...

**whiteyford** · 10-12-2011, 12:36 PM

You pick exactly when to cash in the MITB,having someone fail,unless it was in a pre-arranged match ala RVD to make an angle from it, seems pointless IMO. I'd get rid of the only being able to cash in on your brands champion part,as much as the brand splits barely there it would open up more options in theory. Maybe reducing it to one MITB match would give it more meaning,but they really need to build up more guys as believable maineventers regardless.

**Rock Bottom** · 10-12-2011, 05:53 PM

What about people cashing MITB in on either the Intercontinental or US champ? Would it bring the briefcase down, or bring the other titles up? Those titles are looking pretty hot right now. When you see Ziggler, you think of the US belt, and likewise for Rhodes. When you see Cena, Punk, and Del Rio, you're not thinking so much about them being WWE champion rather than how many times they'll win and lose it in the year. It was the same with Orton and Christian, even though their feud was well done, it was a bit drawn out. The belt didn't really seem to matter so much, even if it was the focal point.

Mark Henry could be another story entirely, because it doesn't look like he's going to drop the belt any time soon. But a punch to the face could completely prove that wrong.

**Blakeamus** · 10-12-2011, 06:18 PM

I just don't see people wasting a cash in on secondary championships when the whole gimmick is based on having the opportunity of cashing it in for the WWE or World Heavyweight championship.

**Rammsteinmad** · 10-12-2011, 06:32 PM

I'd prefer it if they just did the one match at Wrestlemania again. Can't be bothered to explain my reasons.

But on the bright side, the MITB PPV means two ladder matches in one night, involving half of the roster in two matches. Can't complain there.

**Emperor Smeat** · 10-12-2011, 07:52 PM

They could have more matches involving the case being on the line or even have a case vs lower title (IC or US) match.

The case vs title match could at least allow the MitB holder a quick boost for a push and then build on that until he's ready to cash in or allow a switch to occur if the current holder isn't ready or "worthy" of a title reign push.

If the WWE wants a MitB holder to lose when he cashes in, it could only work on an overtly cocky heel who has a huge ego and ends up getting caught in a quick roll-up pin for the lose.

**Lock Jaw** · 10-12-2011, 09:05 PM

I don't like the MitB anymore. Unless they do a string of winners who don't get the title afterwards, I am no longer a fan.

It just seems to me like they sometimes book themselves into a corner with it... where great stuff can be happening, but then they are like "Oh damn, we gotta cash in this dude's MitB!"

**Graveler** · 10-12-2011, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lock Jaw

I don't like the MitB anymore. Unless they do a string of winners who don't get the title afterwards, I am no longer a fan.

It just seems to me like they sometimes book themselves into a corner with it... where great stuff can be happening, but then they are like "Oh damn, we gotta cash in this dude's MitB!"

This. It's my biggest problem with the concept itself. Once the MitB winner cashes it it, they have to focus on how to build them up to look like a credible champion. It's one of the reasons Swagger's WHC reign sucked so bad. Someone needs to lose on their cash-in. At the very least, have a stipulation where the winner is forced to defend their MitB contract at every show or PPV until they cash it in. It would keep the contract holder actively competing and you can make little mini feuds if they lose the briefcase.

**Lock Jaw** · 10-12-2011, 11:22 PM

Just the past two years.

First, Wade Barrett was in the midst of his big Nexus push. How different would things have turned out if they had let him have a small run with the title, instead of having to put the title on The Miz?

This year, John Cena and CM Punk were in the midst of their thing. Ends prematurely, when they have to put the title on Alberto Del Rio.

**Lock Jaw** · 10-12-2011, 11:23 PM

Just the past two years.

First, Wade Barrett was in the midst of his big Nexus push. How different would things have turned out if they had let him have a small run with the title, instead of having to put the title on The Miz?

This year, John Cena and CM Punk were in the midst of their thing. Ends prematurely, when they have to put the title on Alberto Del Rio.

XL · 10-13-2011, 05:06 AM

1) Take the MitB holder off the active roster for "6 months", then have them return "prematurely" to cash in and win the title. Might help with the "shock factor" but the person would have to be pretty over before this happens.

2) Have the MitB winner win the title without cashing in his briefcase (becoming #1 Contender by winning a Battle Royale/Fatal Fourway/tournament) so he holds the belt and a shot at it or 2 rematches, etc.

3) Have someone cash in during another match effectively having 2 matches going on at the same time or a defacto Triple Threat. Say it's Cena v Punk and ADR cashes in you get Cena v Punk and Cena v ADR at the same time, (Of course, WWE would have Cena win both matches).

**MIZantine Empire** · 10-13-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy Gunn

I like Daniel Bryan, but I think he could have easily waited another year to win it. I was hoping Rhodes would have taken the SD briefcase this year, seeing as the guy can talk and actually has a prominent role on the show, and we can all agree that he is getting closer and closer to the main event. Slow builds FTW.

i was almost certain it would be him or barrett this year..bryan was the one i said would deff not win it..lol

10-12-2011, 06:38 AM	#1
Rock Bottom Ball So Hard University Posts: 8,450	What else can be done with MITB I was just randomly wondering about it, even though there's plenty going on for this year and early next year. Besides a MITB winner cashing in on the other MITB winner that just cashed in, I can't think of much else to be done with this in the near future if the roster remains as it is. Getting old? Or is it just a different dose of the Royal Rumble as far as pushes go? With the main titles defended and changing hands as often as they are, do you think the Rumble is just a relic of a procedure right now, barring the entertainment of the battle royal itself. SPOILER: show They just did a 41-man battle royal on SmackDown. I have to say, of all the MITB winners, they've been elevated to another level. I'm not sure how this is going to play out with Daniel Bryan. I'm also not sure who else is going to benefit much from a MITB. I could go for an R-Truth win, but not sure who else. On the same token, in order for MITB to continue to be taken seriously, it would stand to reason that at least most of the guys be deserving of a main event push, and that it at least remains close to a 100% title win rate. Should there be only one, or two? Unless they end the brand split, doesn't the SmackDown MITB winner just seem second fiddle like most other things on SmackDown? Has MITB seen its best days, or does the WWE still have enough up and coming talent to sustain its credibility? Or do you think this just ties in to the nature in which the titles are presented now?

10-12-2011, 06:59 AM	#2
#BROKEN Hasney BAY BAY Posts: 36,524	I get a multi-man ladder match or 2 on a PPV. They can take a shit in the briefcase for all I care, although it is fun wondering id someones gonna run out and cash in.

10-12-2011, 07:00 AM	#3
Disco Apocalypse The Funkaceratops... Posts: 170	I'm glad (I guess) that they took MiTB away from Wrestlemania, as I always enjoyed it so much as an opener that the rest of the matches (bar the main event) usually sucked by comparison. One briefcase (and match) would be better, as it would add that little bit of surprise when a Smackdown guy turns up on Raw. Although recently it looks as though the brand split has been squashed anyway... I'd like to see a stipulation that it you cash in and DONT win a title, you're fired. That would spice it up a bit...

10-12-2011, 07:01 AM	#4
Disco Apocalypse The Funkaceratops... Posts: 170	Plus go back to the black briefcase... red and blue look lame.

10-12-2011, 09:27 AM	#5
Fox "Ask him!" Posts: 10,072	I think someone needs to fail at cashing in their MITB contract to make things interesting again. Honestly, I think it should have been Jack Swagger to fail first - could have been a good story arc for him where losing his MITB opportunity forced him to "snap" and become a more intense and focused wrestler. I also point to the Swagger cash in as kind of "the moment" when the MITB lost some prestige. The guy wasn't ready and didn't deserve to win the World Heavyweight Championship. But all that being passed, I think that having someone lose the MITB cash in will create more interest because it will no longer be looked at as this golden ticket to a World Championship reign. I like what they're doing with Bryan, having him build his cash in toward WrestleMania, and if they do this thing right then they just might make him a star. I also like the idea of a MITB winner cashing in on another MTIB winner who just cashed in, although with the current set up of one RAW MITB holder and one SD! MITB holder, I don't really see how this could "realistically" happen. It might not be a bad idea to can MITB for a year or two and allow interest in the match to rebuild. Why not replace MITB with KOTR for a couple of years instead?

10-12-2011, 10:04 AM	#7
BizarroKing I'm Brllnt! Posts: 3,139	How about actually featuring the MITB winner on SD!?

10-12-2011, 12:36 PM	#10
whiteyford Out Of Step Posts: 12,059	You pick exactly when to cash in the MITB,having someone fail,unless it was in a pre-arranged match ala RVD to make an angle from it, seems pointless IMO. I'd get rid of the only being able to cash in on your brands champion part,as much as the brand splits barely there it would open up more options in theory. Maybe reducing it to one MITB match would give it more meaning,but they really need to build up more guys as believable maineventers regardless.

10-12-2011, 05:53 PM	#11
Rock Bottom Ball So Hard University Posts: 8,450	What about people cashing MITB in on either the Intercontinental or US champ? Would it bring the briefcase down, or bring the other titles up? Those titles are looking pretty hot right now. When you see Ziggler, you think of the US belt, and likewise for Rhodes. When you see Cena, Punk, and Del Rio, you're not thinking so much about them being WWE champion rather than how many times they'll win and lose it in the year. It was the same with Orton and Christian, even though their feud was well done, it was a bit drawn out. The belt didn't really seem to matter so much, even if it was the focal point. Mark Henry could be another story entirely, because it doesn't look like he's going to drop the belt any time soon. But a punch to the face could completely prove that wrong.

10-12-2011, 06:18 PM	#12
Blakeamus '12 Tipsters Champ! Posts: 2,359	I just don't see people wasting a cash in on secondary championships when the whole gimmick is based on having the opportunity of cashing it in for the WWE or World Heavyweight championship.

10-12-2011, 06:32 PM	#13
Rammsteinmad TPWW's #3 Peep Posts: 20,902	I'd prefer it if they just did the one match at Wrestlemania again. Can't be bothered to explain my reasons. But on the bright side, the MITB PPV means two ladder matches in one night, involving half of the roster in two matches. Can't complain there.

10-12-2011, 07:52 PM	#14
Emperor Smeat Former TPWW Royalty Posts: 66,647	They could have more matches involving the case being on the line or even have a case vs lower title (IC or US) match. The case vs title match could at least allow the MitB holder a quick boost for a push and then build on that until he's ready to cash in or allow a switch to occur if the current holder isn't ready or "worthy" of a title reign push. If the WWE wants a MitB holder to lose when he cashes in, it could only work on an overtly cocky heel who has a huge ego and ends up getting caught in a quick roll-up pin for the lose.

10-12-2011, 09:05 PM	#15
Lock Jaw Skibbidy Lock Jaw Posts: 88,601	I don't like the MitB anymore. Unless they do a string of winners who don't get the title afterwards, I am no longer a fan. It just seems to me like they sometimes book themselves into a corner with it... where great stuff can be happening, but then they are like "Oh damn, we gotta cash in this dude's MitB!"

10-12-2011, 11:22 PM	#17
Lock Jaw Skibbidy Lock Jaw Posts: 88,601	Just the past two years. First, Wade Barrett was in the midst of his big Nexus push. How different would things have turned out if they had let him have a small run with the title, instead of having to put the title on The Miz? This year, John Cena and CM Punk were in the midst of their thing. Ends prematurely, when they have to put the title on Alberto Del Rio.

10-12-2011, 11:23 PM	#18
Lock Jaw Skibbidy Lock Jaw Posts: 88,601	Just the past two years. First, Wade Barrett was in the midst of his big Nexus push. How different would things have turned out if they had let him have a small run with the title, instead of having to put the title on The Miz? This year, John Cena and CM Punk were in the midst of their thing. Ends prematurely, when they have to put the title on Alberto Del Rio.

10-13-2011, 05:06 AM	#19
XL Feeling Oof-y Posts: 17,151	1) Take the MitB holder off the active roster for "6 months", then have them return "prematurely" to cash in and win the title. Might help with the "shock factor" but the person would have to be pretty over before this happens. 2) Have the MitB winner win the title without cashing in his briefcase (becoming #1 Contender by winning a Battle Royale/Fatal Fourway/tournament) so he holds the belt and a shot at it or 2 rematches, etc. 3) Have someone cash in during another match effectively having 2 matches going on at the same time or a defacto Triple Threat. Say it's Cena v Punk and ADR cashes in you get Cena v Punk and Cena v ADR at the same time, (Of course, WWE would have Cena win both matches).