Mikk

How?

Couple of years back the Survivor Series only had 1 of the titles defended on it as the others champions were in the traditional survivor series matches instead.


I think i'm making perfect sense.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

So what exactly is wrong with a mix of main eventers and midcarders in the MITB match, while other main eventers compete for the titles?

__________________

Mikk

I've never said there was a problem with it, i've said it wouldn't draw.

I mean there is a reason its on so low at Wrestlemania, on its own, it wouldn't draw as well without the bigger names involved.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

It would include some bigger names like I said, it just wouldn't be ALL big names....

__________________

iamthedestroyer

Here's how I see it working. Think of the Royal Rumble as far as PPV format goes. Meaning a WWE Championship, World Heavyweight Championship, and ECW Championship match. Along with one more match which could simply be whatever is the hottest non title or lower title feud (example: Jericho/Mysterio IC Belt) at the time.

For the Money In The Bank match even if they plan to have a non Main Eventer win they could do something like half Main Eventers half Mid-Upper Mid Carders. Per example if it were done this month the card for the PPV might look like.

PPV's are roughly 2.5 hours. Sometimes a little longer.

Money In The Bank Ladder Match
Raw: Shawn Michaels, Jack Swagger, Kofi Kingston
Smackdown: Edge, Jericho, Morrison
ECW: Christian, Shelton Benjamin
Time Frame: 35-40 Minutes+Entrances

World Heavyweight Championship
Street Match
Jeff Hardy VS CM Punk (C)
20 Minutes+Entrances

WWE Championship
John Cena VS Triple H VS Randy Orton (C)
25 Minutes+Entrances

ECW Championship
William Regal VS Tommy Dreamer (C)
10 Minutes+Entrances

IC Championship
Matt Hardy VS Rey Mysterio 10 Minutes+Entrances

That's roughly 2 hours of matches and entrances. The remaining half hour would be for production videos and whatever else the WWE throws in. It wouldn't be too hard to throw in a filler match if necessesary. The format is some what like the Royal Rumble's where there are only a few matches in order to account for the special attraction's length.

If they hyped it up as an equal to the Rumble just based on the track record of the former winners much like JR had done on Smackdown during one of CM Punk's recent matches they could really get it over. Also they could do qualifying matches and such on the weeks leading to the PPV. As you can see I think it would draw as a PPV because you've got two big money title matches along with two undercard matches to support.

In theory, the best time to air the PPV would be as a replacement for Judgment Day. This way it'd be very close to WrestleMania timeline wise, but it wouldn't interfere with Backlash which usually draws better than most regular PPVs due to the hype from the WrestleMania hang over.

__________________

Y 2 Jake

What's the point? The best MITB match was the first, they've got gradually worse since.

Also, the idea of the Money In The Bank is to give somebody fresh a world title shot. Who'd buy a main event, that used to be a mid card attraction, headlined by Finlay?

__________________

TrueBlue

they should get rid of the whole cash in any time you want bullshit. just win Money In The Briefcase! and get a match at SummerSlam or something.

Anyway, No, it shouldn't have it's own PPV. it's just a lazy way for WWE to get mid-carders into the main event scene without building them up. that's why CM Punk isn't really seen as a credible champion to some. And it's a normal ladder match but with more people. The Royal Rumble is structured to be THE event at the PPV, a ladder match isn't capable of beiong that.

Sir Nicky Talent

This is basically the point in my thread. No reason to duplicate or bring it up.

__________________