What will Sheamus vs. Reigns do to the ratings?

[Jacob Fox]

It still adds to the element of surprise though, if the unexpected happens. Now the only time its unexpected is with a money in the bank cash in.

The problem with your thinking here is that if the belt changes hands more often, then it's not unexpected. If the belt is changing hands more often, then we expect it to change hands and when it does it loses that excitement. It's not unexpected if it happens every couple months.

 

[Green Jesus]

>Babyface scratching and clawing torwards title
>Finally gets it
>Le wild MITB holder appears
>Tomfoolery ensues

Really, I would like to say it's the same thing as the Daniel Bryan/Randy Orton, and then proceed to insult wwe for recycling a feud so soon. But in reality its not the same thing, it is just a shittier version.

I love MITB and don't want it gone, but it was used in the least creative way possible this time around. Such a wasted opportunity.

 

[edge4ever]

MITB is still a good idea and gives people the opportunity for a guaranteed shot at the title. What WWE should do with this, to make it interesting, is allow the superstar to pick the PPV of their choosing to use their title match. It may sound silly but it would leave curiosity as the MITB winner now must pick a PPV within the coming year and he won't know who will be champion or what the stakes may be.

That may be a "bad" idea, but the point is that they can try things to make it more interesting and allow superstars to now always cash in at random. They can actually challenge the superstar and let them know ahead of time. Like cena and RVD did.