Sidebottom Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Time flies. What are our thoughts on the concept? What are it's strengths / weaknesses? Fond memories and missed chances? For me, having two briefcases was as redundant as having two belts. Especially when it was a reductive holder, such as Damien Sandow. The concept has also been used as a cheap heat vehicle too often in my opinion. Cena cashing in on Cena was fine as it set a tone, but the scenario was repeated far too many times. Looking back to RVD winning: it was a breathe of fresh air for the booking: Rob used the opportunity to put the odds in his favour: getting a world title shot at an ECW event in home territory. I'd like to see more stuff like this go down. Rusev winning for instance and booking himself in a Russian show, Daniel Bryan requesting a submission match, etc. What say you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlekitten Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I hate it. The matches, the concept, the execution of the 'push', the lot. Just another thing to devalue the belts and produce forgettable mid card title runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofu_chipmunk Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 The surprise cash in was a great surprise the first time Edge cashed it in. Subsequent similar cash-ins have been less inspired. As mentioned by the OP, the Rob Van Dam cash in worked really well, too. The Money in the Bank match still produces some fun moments, but given the placement of the event in the WWE calendar, I wonder if the Money in the Bank match would be best served to name the title challenger for Summerslam instead of the current concept that produces cheap title changes and title reigns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 It's beyond tired and needs to go. It does more harm to the talent than good. If they're not willing to go all out on a title run for a guy, then don't do it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russellmania Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I just hate how it completely undermines the IC/US titles. Why should any wrestler care to challenge for one of those belts when the MITB contract is objectively superior as a means to get into the World Title picture? I also think it is goofy as hell that the guy has to carry that stupid briefcase around all year and present it when it's time to cash in. It is like an 8 year old's notion of how contracts work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I also think it is goofy as hell that the guy has to carry that stupid briefcase around all year and present it when it's time to cash in. It is like an 8 year old's notion of how contracts work. Yeah, the briefcase needs to go. It's stupid. It should only feature in the actual match, where it's necessary to actually physically retrieve something to win. There is no need for a physical representation of a guaranteed title opportunity at any time/place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bierschwale Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 The surprise cash-ins have made it so that you already know that there's a 90% chance of a heel win, and now with only one title, the pool of potential winners is going to be much smaller. They haven't booked it creatively at all, and it's kind of deranged to me that there's only been one DQ loss on a cash-in. It's just played the fuck out. I'd also say that it has the same problem that EC had/has, in that with so many competitors, the matches themselves just don't stay memorable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 It was even dumber when they had matches with more than 8 guys. There were a couple that had 9 or 10 people. Guys would just disappear for half the match to clear space. Cluttered mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I liked the Edge, Punk and Ziggler cash ins which is a really low ratio. I liked the first couple of matches until they started putting guys in the match that couldn't make good use of the gimmick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmo Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 I also think it is goofy as hell that the guy has to carry that stupid briefcase around all year and present it when it's time to cash in. It is like an 8 year old's notion of how contracts work. Yeah, the briefcase needs to go. It's stupid. It should only feature in the actual match, where it's necessary to actually physically retrieve something to win. There is no need for a physical representation of a guaranteed title opportunity at any time/place. Yeah I always thought it would be a good place to use the Million Dollar title if you want a physical representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(BP) Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Booking issues aside, no gimmick match translates worse to video games than MITB. Just awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayfabe1984 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 It's beyond tired and needs to go. It does more harm to the talent than good. If they're not willing to go all out on a title run for a guy, then don't do it at all. Not to mention it seems like every single indy fed, at least in my area, does some sort of MITB type deal. I've seen it done in some other indies as well. It's become more of a crutch to fall back on in the way of developing new people instead of them just working up the ranks. In terms of WWE, while I like the idea of having it, I agree that the US or IC titles should be used to build new people. Not a briefcase. TNA's version of this "Feast or Fired" is just beyond stupid. Plus, who carries a briefcase these days anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bierschwale Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 At least NJ stole it for the G1 winner and have used it terribly, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russellmania Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 It's beyond tired and needs to go. It does more harm to the talent than good. If they're not willing to go all out on a title run for a guy, then don't do it at all. Not to mention it seems like every single indy fed, at least in my area, does some sort of MITB type deal. I've seen it done in some other indies as well. It's become more of a crutch to fall back on in the way of developing new people instead of them just working up the ranks. In terms of WWE, while I like the idea of having it, I agree that the US or IC titles should be used to build new people. Not a briefcase. TNA's version of this "Feast or Fired" is just beyond stupid. Plus, who carries a briefcase these days anyway? I sort of half-joke a while ago that the MITB winner should just show the ref a pdf of the contract on his smartphone when he goes to cash in. That could actually work really well for a guy like Tyler Breeze at some point in the future since he always carries around his iphone anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 I like the match and I like the gimmick, but I liked it better when it was a WM semi-main event match full of top or on the cusp guys. They really watered it down during the brand split era when belts stopped meaning anything. and then they made it into it's own PPV because they were desperate for a hook, sames as they did with HIAC A MITB match at Mania this year would be great because they have a bunch of guys that deserve a big showcase match but aren't slotted right. Ziggler, Ambrose, Harper..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 They really watered it down during the brand split era when belts stopped meaning anything. They debuted it right in the middle of the brand split era... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 I wrote a lengthy post here ages ago of why I think TNA's Feast or Fired in one of the dumbest ideas in wrestling history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zenjo Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 Booking issues aside, no gimmick match translates worse to video games than MITB. Just awful. Don't tell me that trying to climb up a ladder over and over again, only to be pushed off each time for 20m+ until one of the five opponents wins (unlikely) or you rage quit as nobody has even got close yet (likely) isn't an entertaining way to pass the time. In real life if I never saw any variation of a ladder match ever again it would be a good thing. It's more like watching a game show than an actual wrestling match. The MITB cash in at any time concept is retarded and only serves to devalue the world title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 MITB is cat shit. I can't believe they even run this gimmick. In reality it shows they're lazy. It's lazy booking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 I hate it. The matches, the concept, the execution of the 'push', the lot. Just another thing to devalue the belts and produce forgettable mid card title runs. Your not the only one. The only time ive ever liked it was when RVD won the thing and had a actual match. Never liked the idea of getting a title match at and time even if it means the champ has already had a 40 minute match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parties Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Adjusting the concept to make the winner the #1 contender for Summerslam makes a lot of sense, as it would elevate someone, give them a raison d'etre in the summer months, and knowing when the match is happening and building to it would actually create more excitement than the current approach of "The cash-in kicks off the RAW after a PPV, or happens directly after a PPV main event." MITB's appeal was that it was something unpredictable, but it's become all too formulaic in the cash-ins. It's a flawed concept in that they rarely take advantage of the spontaneity. You now have Battleground between MITB and Summerslam - which would actually help build suspense if they were willing to book the champ and #1 contender on opposite sides of a tag match or something. Utilize the champ in a way that isn't a title defense to keep Summerslam important. The Brock run's actually been great for this, and which WWE hopefully learns from: defending the top title 4-6 times a year is more exciting than defending it 12-15 times a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 It would be ballsy to do the cash-in on a house show where they only have footage from a fan's cell phone. But there's no reason for them to take that risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Doing cash in's regularly on house shows with screwjob endings would a fun way to freshen it up. No title changes, weasling out of it being an actual cash in, etc.. Might give some good heat too. Rollins' character would fit that. Having him challenge mid card belts (still screwjob endings) in a house show setting would probably be good fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Actually, doing it on Superstars on the Network would make sense. That show is basically a weekly mini-pay-per-view. One big angle every three months or so would probably be a good move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 What about NXT. Have the champ go down for commentary. Guy comes out and challenges him and the champ has to wrestle in street clothes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.