[BehemothSuplex]

So pretty much since its inception MITB has been a key driver of storylines within WWE. Its been key in the legacys of several of the top guys and then up and comers and is now a set part of the yearly calendar along with Mania and the Rumble. Now in 2022 however it feels stale and the last few years have had mixed long term benefit on those winning it in terms of building credibility up the top end of the card.
So I was thinking we could as a fanbase think of ways to put some spark back in the concept.

Here's my take.
*Scrap Money In The Bank as a PPV Concept - Adds unpredictability and can be used to boost B PPVs as an optional stakes match
*Don't make MITB always a ladder match. Vary up the match type to keep it fresh. You could have MITB Chamber matches, MITB a reward for winning King Of The Ring, MITB Multi-man Hell In A Cell etc...
*Don't have MITB as an show opener or mid show match. It needs to be Main Event to maximize the crowd engagement - Obviously with Mania as an exception.
*Use MITB to build long term stories much like the Rumble used to do.

Anyone got anything else?

 

[toontownman]

Bare with me but..They should put a ring on top of a building and have wrestlers fight their way up the building to get to the ring to win.. weird and likely something they would never consider.

.. I actually liked the concept, they just should have had lumberjacks on different levels stopping wrestlers getting to the top lol. Talking of which aren't WwE bringing back American Gladiators with WWE superstars?

OK, I was no help. All good ideas BTW. I don't mind them resting the concept for a few years.

 

[VodooPimpin]

I’d say maybe have the winner get to choose which title he competes for as well as what type of match type. This way they have an advantage to win it. Maybe they could switch it from ladder match to cage match where u have to escape the cage to get to the briefcase instead of climbing the ladder. Or on top of hell in a cell. Last idea is have more people involved like maybe 15 or 10 guys in the traditional mib match so we could get some tlc like action

 

[baddass 6969]

Have the triple cage from Ready to Rumble and have the briefcase be on the third cage, have it be so many people get eliminated, so have like 8 enter the match, four people get eliminated, next four make it to the second cage, then two get eliminated, then the third cage is where the briefcase is.

 

[wwetna1]

Change nothing. It’s one of their best selling/watched and attended ppvs which is why it’s stadium status. It is bigger than Survivor Series.

Now if you wanted to make it more interesting you couldn’t make 3 matches and let there be a tag belt briefcase

 

[The Quintessential Mark]

Long term booking and capitalization of the winning talents is the key not the match concept that sells a one off entertainment performance for a night.

 

[Corporate Rock]

Have the triple cage from Ready to Rumble and have the briefcase be on the third cage, have it be so many people get eliminated, so have like 8 enter the match, four people get eliminated, next four make it to the second cage, then two get eliminated, then the third cage is where the briefcase is.

As long as David Arquette is the special guest referee or mystery opponent haha.

 

[nunzioguy]

I would scrap cash ins after matches. It’s been done to death.

When Edge was carrying it around all 2005, it felt special that he could have a match any time he wanted, but he had to make it count.

Does he wait until next Wrestlemania to do it?

It’s like having a shot at the Super Bowl any time you want it. Instead it’s just the wait until the champion is down and out. It’s boring now. Especially when faces do it.

 

[RapShepard]

Only thing I'd add is make it a stipulation that the MitB Briefcase must be defended once a month or the contract becomes void.

This way it solves the problem of MitB winners often looking weak before the cash in. If they're forced to defend it to retain it they look strong for whenever they cash it in.

 

[Sincere]

Only thing I'd add is make it a stipulation that the MitB Briefcase must be defended once a month or the contract becomes void.

This way it solves the problem of MitB winners often looking weak before the cash in. If they're forced to defend it to retain it they look strong for whenever they cash it in.

It would also provide more stakes to creatively build PPV matches and storylines outside of the immediate title picture.

 

[LPPrince]

Only thing I'd add is make it a stipulation that the MitB Briefcase must be defended once a month or the contract becomes void.

This way it solves the problem of MitB winners often looking weak before the cash in. If they're forced to defend it to retain it they look strong for whenever they cash it in.

The reason I don't like this is it makes the MITB feel like just another championship. Whats the point of competing for a briefcase you have to defend on a monthly basis like its a championship title, only to use it at some point to win...a championship title that has to be defended once a month(in theory)?

I think MITB is fine but the reason it feels overdone is they have multiple MITB holders. I feel like there should only be one per gender, and he/she can cash in for whatever championship they feel like.

So lets say someone wins it yeah? Why assume they're gonna cash in for a World title? Maybe they grab a tag team partner and cash in their briefcase to force a tag team championship match.

I feel like they can do different things with it, but the concept itself is fine. "Less is more" is something I wish WWE would get on board with

 

[thorwold]

Is Money in the Bank not one of their most successful shows? Like, I'm pretty sure it trails only Mania, the Rumble, and maybe Summerslam in terms of popularity. They're not going to scrap it.

 

[American_Nightmare]

Let's be honest here, Money in the Bank only works if a heel wins it.

 

[Zappers]

Keep the match itself. Have no problem with the match, ladder, suspended briefcase, etc...

But the winner can't cash it in "whenever" "wherever" he/she likes. Scrap that idea, of during/after matches clause. Ditch all that sneaking in, taking advantage.

Go with a mandatory announcement prior to any RAW/SD/PPV. MITB holder asks for the match and that MITB holder gets a title shot. Title holders next title match has to be against him/her.

Call it the Rob Van Dam Rule

 

[Zappers]

Only thing I'd add is make it a stipulation that the MitB Briefcase must be defended once a month or the contract becomes void.

This way it solves the problem of MitB winners often looking weak before the cash in. If they're forced to defend it to retain it they look strong for whenever they cash it in.

My only question with that. (which I sorta like the idea) Is then it makes the initial ladder match not so important. Anyone can beat the case holder, and become the new contract holder. What was the point of enduring that ladder match.

 

[Well You Know]

I think MITB is fine but the reason it feels overdone is they have multiple MITB holders. I feel like there should only be one per gender, and he/she can cash in for whatever championship they feel like.

What did I miss...? Isn't this....exactly what it is?

I don't remember there being multiple holders of the briefcase. It's changed hands but only one person with a briefcase.

 

[InexorableJourney]

The winner of the Money in the Bank briefcase gets the most bespoke match ever.

-4 on one match, anyone beats the champion and the MitB holder gets the title
-MitB holder picks the other 3 wrestlers for the match
-title changes on countout or outside interference
-MitB holder picks the ref

 

[LPPrince]

What did I miss...? Isn't this....exactly what it is?

I don't remember there being multiple holders of the briefcase. It's changed hands but only one person with a briefcase.

There have absolutely been multiple holders of briefcases; you'd have one on Raw and one on Smackdown

 

[Well You Know]

There have absolutely been multiple holders of briefcases; you'd have one on Raw and one on Smackdown

Ahhh, my apologies. Ignorance on my part as that was most likely at a point that I wasn't watching. I need to get on Peacock and freshen up on some history I guess.

 

[LPPrince]

Ahhh, my apologies. Ignorance on my part as that was most likely at a point that I wasn't watching. I need to get on Peacock and freshen up on some history I guess.

No worries! A quick example although from years past is 2011; when Punk won the WWE Championship from John Cena at MITB 2011 they had Alberto Del Rio attempt to cash in on him for the championship but not Daniel Bryan who also had a briefcase; people often wondered how it would've looked if Punk had to immediately defend his newly won championship against both briefcase holders on that night(didn't have to defend against any but its an interesting what if)