Adam wilkinson



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?.
JAYBONE
I agree...Keep 2 matches. And not even because there's 2 shows...but there are 2 championships: the WWE belt and the World Heavywieght belt. If they had the belts unified then i'd say have 1 big match with like 20 guys. But as long as there are some "brand specific" guys on each show, then yeah, kee...
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
nathan orange
Good blog like always and i dont mind the two MITB matches but Christian never won MITB and Edge and Punk both did it when there was only one MITB match that was at WrestleMania of course Edge only one it once put cashed in Mr Kennedys MITB after he beat him for it in a singles match but Punk did wi...
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Angela Arnold
Finally someone who agrees! and yeah I like that idea about having 20 guys fighting for it then it would really mean alot to the winner for sure
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Angela Arnold
Thank and oh let me go in and change that lol I swear I thought he did lol
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Angela Arnold
I'll use the Miz lol
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Steven L Brey
Well for one thing Christian has never won money in the bank so I'm not sure where that came from but anyways I enjoyed money in the bank more when it was a one shot deal at wrestlemania...having two matchs kinda waters down the surprise factor of winning the match and wondering when that superstar ...
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Angela Arnold
Yeah I changed that and put the Miz, and I think if WWE builds up a good storyline and like like Nathan said have someone lose it would actually be great! have one guy cash in and win and one guy cash in and lose.
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Steven L Brey
Hmm that would mean a face would have to win one then and have a schedualed match and lose it...because you know if a heel acquires the contract he would cash it in at the perfect time...it would be tough booking to book a contract winner to lose there match without diminishing the meaning of the ma...
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Angela Arnold
But thats just the entertainment biz, you win some you lose some.
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
JAYBONE
I know it was "leaked"/discussed that Wade was going to come back around that time and win it. And I personally think that sucks as much to reveal something like that so far ahead of time...BUT this is the WWE we are talking about here. Plans change all the time, even up to the last minute. For exam...
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Steven L Brey
Here's a idea iv been thinking about...I think it be neat for WWE to put on a single MITB match but use all developmental talent...as in people we have never seen in a wwe ring before...have them put on the match and the winner gets the contract....or have one for current wwe talent and another for ...
  • June 21, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Angela Arnold
The only reason why the RAW guys are coming to SD is because Randy is gone Randy is gone and thu need ratings. I have no idea was SD guys are on RAW though.
  • June 22, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Angela Arnold
*why*
  • June 22, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Steven L Brey
Smackdown guys are on raw to help boost interest in smackdown....they continue storylines and feuds on raw and normally promote smackdowns main event in hopes people will tune in.
  • June 24, 2012
  • ·
  • Reply
  • ·
  • Report
  • ·
  • Like
  • ·
Adam wilkinson
Write a comment...
Adding your comment


Remember to Follow Us...

Around the web...