Adam wilkinson

Money in the Bank, Should there Be One or Two?

Lately there's been alot of discussion about this. Some people say keep it the way it is and some say no, change it to one.

For the people who say there should only be one I must disagree with you, for several reasons.

One, if there is only one how do you expect other talents to get a chance? alot of you complain that WWE doesn't give their guys enough chances well BOOM here's two.

Secondly, even if your favorite doesn't win the match, as long as they put on a good show they will get noticed.

Thirdly, and most importantly we need two MITB's because more than one star needs to have a push.

When more than one guy is getting the spotlight, we can see new things from people that we've never saw. For one, I hope this year the winner will cash the case and go on to have a long run and not lose the title two months later to Cena, Punk or Orton.

For a while now there has been two MITBs why change it now? We need new faces and new champions we need
'the next big thing'. We can't get that with only one guy. We need a new leader for both the RAW and Smackdown brands.

Cena has been the "it" guy for some time now and it's finally time for a new guy to step up and take his place because he won't be here forever. Same with Orton in Smackdown, WWE needs to stop depending on them and give guys like Ziggler, Rhodes, Barrett, and McIntyre a chance.

Money In the Bank has done wonders for superstars like Edge, The Miz, and CM Punk. They won, became champion and took over later down the road. They couldn't have done that with only one MITB match. Except Edge, who won the first MITB before they had two.

I saw a comment the other day that said "I hope it's just one MITB, it would mean a ton more to the winner that way" True, it would mean more it really really would, but it would mean less opportunities for other guys.

I think WWE should just go with the flow and keep the two MITBs. what about you guys? Is it time for a change or No?.