wrestling / Columns

High Road/Low Road 07.16.10: Money In The Bank Pay Per View

July 16, 2010 | Posted by Sat

Welcome back to the High Road/Low Road!

A brief explanation of the column: Sat takes the High Road (positive view) on angles, gimmicks, and other wrestling related “stuff” while Chad Nevett takes the Low Road (negative view).


High Road:

I’ve said this multiple times about the WWE needing to give all of their PPVs a gimmick. The WWE has started to do this in the past year or so, but one of the mistakes that they have made is that some of the new gimmicks are not very good. In the case of the Money in the Bank pay per view, the WWE added a pay per view gimmick that is very good.

Low Road:

The problem with gimmick PPVs is that, often, two or more matches using the same gimmick is too much. Hell in a Cell works because you only got one or so per year, but three on the same night cheapens the gimmick and, also, doesn’t necessarily work with the stories. The same thing with Money in the Bank. It’s only been a few months since WrestleMania and having two MitB matches on the same night may not work as well. Part of the appeal is in the rarity of the gimmick and having it three times in as many months takes some of the luster away.

High Road:

Having a Money in the Bank pay per view is a good idea because you are taking a match that everybody loves and featuring it twice on a pay per view. This pay per view seems a lot like the Elimination Chamber pay per view. The WWE took a match that everybody liked and made it into a successful pay per view. The same can be true for the Money in the Bank pay per view.

Low Road:

Elimination Chamber was basically No Way Out and was slowly built up to with a gradual shift from having one Elimination Chamber match early in the year to having two and, then, only then. While people like MitB, one just happened at WrestleMania and this PPV might have benefited from more time between the PPVs.

High Road:

The one problem with having a Money in the Bank pay per view match is that nobody will ever cash in at WrestleMania. It does not make sense to cash it in at WrestleMania because if somebody does decide to do that then the element of surprise is gone. I think that there is a chance for somebody to cash in the Money in the Bank briefcase that they win at this pay per view because the element of surprise will be there. The Money in the Bank pay per view allows for somebody to cash in the title shot at WrestleMania.

Low Road:

What’s great about cashing the shot in at ‘Mania as opposed to any other time? The goal here should be finding the ideal time and place for the ideal wrestler to cash in their shot, not trying to write stories around some idea that it must be cashed in at WrestleMania.

High Road:

The Money in the Bank matches that we will see are different than the one that happens at WrestleMania. The one at WrestleMania features wrestlers from both brands. The other major difference is that these briefcases can only be cashed in on the winner’s champion while the WrestleMania one can be cashed in on any champion. The differences are there which leads me to believe that we will be seeing a Money in the Bank pay per view and also a Money in the Bank match at WrestleMania.

Low Road:

This also takes some of the surprise away and, also, a tool to shift a wrestler from one brand to the other. By limiting which belt a performer can cash it in on, there isn’t a constant sense that it can be cashed in once one of them has been used. Suddenly, one of the champions is safe. As well, having three Money in the Bank matches per year seems a bit much. It’s one thing when this introduces the PPV, but to keep having the multi-brand match at WrestleMania has far too many of these briefcases. Again, part of the appeal is the rarity.

High Road:

The two Money in the Bank matches at this Sunday should be better than the one at WrestleMania because there will be less people in this match. The match at WrestleMania was way too crowded and guys were disappearing from the matches for large amounts of time. I think cutting down the competitors should allow for us to see some better Money in the Bank matches.

Low Road:

For some, eight guys is still too crowded. As well, because of the total being 16 performers, the talent pool to draw upon is weaker and doesn’t lead to using just the best possible performers. While a guy like Kane fits in well, having the Big Show in the same one makes the match look unappealing.

High Road:

At WrestleMania, we see midcarders in the Money in the Bank match. This also holds true for the Money in the Bank matches at this Sunday’s pay per view, but the difference is that we will also see some main eventers in it. I think seeing some main eventers in the Money in the Bank match is one of the main attractions for the pay per view.

Low Road:

With the Royal Rumble acting as an event that only main eventers seem to win, Money in the Bank was the chance for midcarders to elevate themselves. With established main eventers in the match, especially the Raw one, that aspect of the match is in danger and that’s a big appeal to some fans. It’s great to see a group of young, hungry talent going after that shot that can propel them into the main event.

Are you taking the High Road or the Low Road?

High Road

Low Road

Both Roads


Simply write “High Road”, “Low Road”, or “Both Roads” in the comment section.

Results for Drew McIntyre/Teddy Long Visa Situation:

High Road: 10%
Low Road: 86%
Both Roads: 05%

Sat: I was expecting this to be a low road, but not by this much.

Chad Nevett: Yeah, this was a blowout. I haven’t loved this story, but it hasn’t been that bad.


These are all of the e-mails that we received this week. We do not respond to the actual e-mail, but the reply to your e-mail will be below.

Freddy Neuwendyke Writes:

The problem isn’t so much that it makes him look like a dope for not renewing his Visa as much as it’s just more of the lame Drew McIntyre versus Teddy Long storyline. Unless Teddy finally steps in the ring and wrestles McIntyre himself this is just boring politics. Sure Matt Hardy and Kingston have fought with him but they’re just accessories to the feud. You could have pretty much anyone fill that role.

Babyface authority figures who screw the heels just doesn’t work in the long term. Sure it’s fun at first to watch the heels get a dose of their own medicine but in the end it just makes the babyfaces look like little punkasses who need someone else to fight their battles for them. Faces are supposed to be stand up guys who go out there and kick ass on the heels not busters who hide
behind the boss. No respect.

Sat: Technically, we already saw the “wrestling match” between Long and McIntyre and I don’t want to see that again. I do agree that the WWE needs to abandon the general manager versus a wrestler stuff.

Chad Nevett: This story hasn’t had too much of Long screwing McIntyre, thankfully. That’s only been recent, so, at least, it seems justified. But, you’re right, the face authority figure/heel wrestler dynamic doesn’t work too long. Thankfully, McIntyre had an even bigger authority figure on his side for the first part to balance things out.


Below are the comments for last week’s columns and our responses. Every comment will not be included because it makes our lives a lot easier. The comments section was last looked at on Sunday Night Pacific Time.

Eboney Writes:

If this was any more of a Low Road, the devil himself would be booking it.

People flat out don’t care about Drew. They’ve been pushing hard for what.. 8-10 months and still can’t muster a reaction on a taped show? It is just another case of politicking over on SD that doesn’t have any feasible results. And do you really need two of these cases on the same show? (With the other being Michelle McCool)

Sat: I can’t argue with Michelle McCool politicking; I’ve made my opinions clear on that. I think Drew McIntyre is getting over slowly, but the problem is if it had been anybody else the WWE would have released the wrestler.

Chad Nevett: I think the WWE hoped McIntyre would come around quicker in the ring and that just didn’t happen. Personally, I’d rather have them try and push someone too long than give up if it doesn’t work within a couple of weeks. If they had given up quickly, people would have just complained that McIntyre wasn’t given enough of a chance.

The Gold Standard Writes:

low road. I agree with nevitt. Outside a cool entrance and a pretty swank finisher he has used more politics than wrestling ability to get where he is at

Sat: Nevitt? Chad should love this. Anyways, I think the McIntyre does have two things going for him and that is the finisher and the music.

Chad Nevett: It’s Nevett! It’s written out for you! (Sorry, this happens far too often online and it bothers me… mostly because it’s in written form.) I also think McIntyre has a good look. He actually looks like Triple H when Hunter Hearst Helmsley was starting out. That gives me some hope. I think he just needs to be pushed down the card a little and given some time to improve in the ring.

Guest#7001 Writes:


Anything involving that vanilla, talentless hack Drew McIntyre is an automatic low road. He has been pushed hard for months and is still not getting over, abort this loser already.

Sat: Drew McIntyre has been getting better, but the problem is that he started off really badly and the improvement has been gradual.

Chad Nevett: His work on Smackdown this past Friday was good. Good on the mic and his best in-ring performance yet. I think he just needs more time.

HBK’s Smile Writes:

Low Road. I kind of liked the McIntyre-Hardy feud (especially early-on) and the McIntyre-Kofi mini-feud, but I agree that this immigration turn makes Drew look dumb. Not the impression one wants to give to a conniving heel

Sat: I don’t think the immigration thing makes him look dumb. To me it is that Drew had better things to do.

Chad Nevett: Yeah, he just looks like an idiot to me, on screen and in real life.

Guest#2117 Writes:

Low road.

First, this is a continuation of the McMahon/Teddy Long probation angle that will not end or progress.

Second, this is part of the McIntyre/Long angle that does not really progress. McIntyre losses continually, still has one up on Long. Does this make sense? Even Austin got an ultimatum from McMahon to win one for himself, because Vince was tired of Stone Cold depending on him.

Third, it just isn’t interesting to me. Feuding with Hardy made the Kingston matches meaningless. Hardy wasn’t shown as much of a proxy for Teddy, however. Hardy can’t cut a promo, so that part didn’t get me interested either.

So the whole thing is pretty much a good argument for simplified stories – two people don’t like each other and will settle it in the ring.

Really, internet spoilers aren’t killing wrestling. Lifeless feuds drive me to check out spoilers so I don’t waste my time on something not worth watching.

Sat: The one thing I agree with is that this as to end and I can’t see how that happens unless McIntyre goes to RAW or Teddy Long is fired.

Chad Nevett: With McIntyre earning his spot, the story could resolve itself with McIntyre just winning and being outside of what Long can punish, so they just revert to a normal GM/wrestler relationship. That would suit me just fine.

mogamer Writes:


The guy just doesn’t have it. And despite being pushed hard, the audience knows it too. I sure as hell hope that he doesn’t win MiTB. Damn, I probably wouldn’t watch SD for quite some time. 🙁

Sat: I think Drew is winning Money in the Bank which is definitely a bad idea.

Chad Nevett: I’ll go along with Drew winning Money in the Bank if he doesn’t succeed in cashing it in. I think his character is already on that path where he needs to fall before he can come back, so I don’t think this would damage him as much as other wrestlers.

The Great Captain Smooth Writes:

Both roads. Low, because so many people just don’t care about Drew. High, because Drew is going against a GM that is actually well liked by the crowd. I don’t know if this is going to finally get Drew over, but Long is a guy who could help him do that.

Sat: I think Drew feuding with Matt Hardy has helped Drew more than feuding with Teddy Long.

Chad Nevett: I think putting Drew up against three well-liked guys (Long, Hardy, and Kingston) helps him.

s1rude Writes:

Low road, but I don’t see it as a blanket condemnation of McIntyre’s abilities – just bad booking. Repeatedly losing and falling back on VKM makes them both look bad: Drew weak and Vince dumb. The Hardy feud was just getting going and they blow it off on free TV with not much hype. The deportation angle was just unnecessary – they had filmed him for that week’s SD; leave it at that and see what happens. You can always go to this story if it turns out he will be gone for a while. I don’t feel strongly about the guy either way, but I hope he at least has a chance to come back from this and get a shot at generating some heat on his own merits.

Sat: Always going to McMahon worked for awhile, but I think it stopped working when McIntyre started getting losses stricken from the record books.

Chad Nevett: They definitely overused that technique. It would have been better if it was used maybe one out of four times with McIntyre winning the other three matches. That way, when McMahon bailed McIntyre out, it would seem more like a minor thing when McIntyre is successful most of the time.

ROH Commish Writes:

High Road.

The chosen one gimmick is played but McIntyre has done well with what he’s been given. Working with Kofi and Hardy has done well for him. Hardy has benefited tremendously even moreso than Drew. Hardy has not been this strong a babyface in a while. Kofi also looks good by winning and defending the title against him as Drew had it for a while.

The deportation bit was a blow-off to the feud just in case Drew was gone for months. Nevertheless, for a mid-card angle this has been quite good.

Drew does work good matches and the one at fatal 4 way was a hot opener.

On Smackdown, they did a good job of transitioning from the Long-McIntyre feud to shining the spotlight on MITB.

Finally, Drew has not been overpushed. WWE needs to commit to new guys to get them over. Simple as that. No one gets over with stop and start pushes. Look at TNA.

Sat: Reading this made me wonder if it is the writing that is holding McIntyre back. I just assumed it was McIntyre, but who really knows?

Chad Nevett: I think McIntyre still needs that amazing match that all young guys need, but, otherwise, he’s got a good overall look and package.

JLAJRC Writes:

Low Road. The Visa situation just seemed to be convenient excuse to just end this storyline. Drew needs a new gimmick badly.

Sat: The chosen one gimmick is what it is. I don’t think it as a lot of long term potential, so he will need a new gimmick eventually.

Chad Nevett: I think it will work better if McIntyre was more successful on his own and not entirely dependent on McMahon. More like McIntyre gets put in matches he doesn’t deserve yet, but manages to win, making McMahon look good for backing him.



Your reasons for taking the High Road, Low Road, or Both Roads and suggestions for future High Road/Low Road are welcome at [email protected] or in the comment section. Your reply will be included in next week’s column.


article topics

comments powered by Disqus