WWE's Money in the Bank: Why Not Having It at WrestleMania Is a Good Thing
We are now one week away from WrestleMania XXVII, and now that the card has been confirmed, we can already sort out the differences that make this year's showcase of immortals stand out.
One of the most notable things that makes the 27th WrestleMania stand out from its recent predecessors is the lack of a Money in the Bank ladder match.
We all know how the match works: A selected group of WWE Superstars participate in a ladder match. Hanging from above the ring is a briefcase.
The WWE Superstar who can climb a lader and retreive the briefcase is dubbed the new "Mr. Money in the Bank," and they now have an instant contract for a world title match of their choosing that lasts for exactly one year.
In the past, Edge, Rob Van Dam, Mr.Kennedy, CM Punk, Jack Swagger, Kane and The Miz have all become Mr. Money in the Bank, and all have successfully cashed in their title shots to become a world champion in the WWE.
The Money in the Bank match made its debut at WrestleMania XXI back in 2005, and it became a pay-per-view highlight of the next five consecutive years.
The concept became so popular that last year, WWE turned the WrestleMania match into its very own self-titled pay-per-view.
Instead of one ladder match for both brands, the Money in the Bank pay-per-view featured two matches—one for each brand. Instead of a single black briefcase, there was a blue briefcase for SmackDown and a red briefcase for Raw.
But although the Money in the Bank pay-per-view was a success, there were already rumors circulating across the Internet that WWE was planning on taking the match off of any future WrestleMania cards.
As it turns out, the dirt sheets were correct. There will not be a Money in the Bank ladder match at WrestleMania XXVII.
But that's not to say this is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is one of the smartest decisions WWE has made with in recent years, and I have two good reasons to support this case.
The first reason is that the Money in the Bank match has become too big to not be its own pay-per-view main event.
The grandest stage of them has almost always been about the company's biggest stars. The WWE Championship match. The World Heavyweight Championship match. The Undertaker and his streak. Those are the reasons people pay to see WrestleMania.
So instead of holding MITB down as a sideshow attraction, why not make it the main attraction?
With a Money in the Bank pay-per-view, you get not only one, but two winners. And because it is a stand-alone event, there is much more time for build-up between the contenders.
The other reason can be summed up with the old saying that "two is company, but three is a crowd."
While one MITB match is nice and two MITB matches are great, is there anyone else that feels like three MITB matches is overkill?
Anyone that watched WWE in 2010 knows what I'm talking about.
There were three Mr. Money in the Banks last year: Jack Swagger, Kane and The Miz, and of the three contract holders; only The Miz's four-month reign with the briefcase was memorable.
Jack Swagger's reign lasted less than a week, and his subsequent world title reign was similar to his MITB reign: nobody really cared.
Kane's MITB reign ended on the same night he won it, when he cashed in on a tired Rey Mysterio. While Kane proved that MITB winner can have long title reigns, the only thing I really remember when he held the Big Gold Belt was Edge torturing Paul Bearer with pizza.
But The Miz's reign was an entirely different story and will probably go down as the best MITB reign since Edge held it in 2005.
There should either be one Money in the Bank match at WrestleMania or two brand-only matches at a self-titled pay-per-view. Given the choice between the two, the smart choice would be to pick the latter. That gives us two potential future main eventers, instead of just one.
So before anyone shakes their head in disapointment because WrestleMania XXVII won't feature a Money in the Bank ladder match, just remember that the Money in the Bank pay-per-view is only three months down the road.
What do you think of WWE getting rid of MITB at WrestleMania?
Instead of looking it as someone won't become Mr. Money in the Bank in April, think of it as two WWE Superstars will become Mr. Money in the Bank in July.
And if given the choice between one winner, two winners or three, look for the happy medium in between. One is alright, two is better, but three is overkill.
Although the nostalgia of watching the ladder match on the grandest stage of them all will obviously be missed, WWE did the right thing by making the smartest decision.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?