Money in the Bank Season Week 3 - Triple Threat POV | Smark Out Moment

Money in the Bank Season Week 3 - Triple Threat POV

Posted by Jonathan Maldonado Friday, May 25, 2018
Welcome to another edition of Triple Threat from Smark Out Moment, where three of us get together to discuss three questions based on one big topic going down in the week of professional wrestling.

This week, Jonathan Maldonado, Robert DeFelice and Callum Wiggins will share their thoughts on the developing storylines in the third week of Money in the Bank season.

Let's discuss...

Question 1: Seth Rollins continued his hot run picking up the win in his tag match with Roman Reigns on Raw. The Intercontinental Champion is still without a clear challenger for his title at Money in The Bank. Who do you see filling that void?

MALDONADO: This is an interesting story for World Wrestling Entertainment to mess around with. The usual suspects are all involved in the Money in the Bank match as of now, except for Elias. With Raw already sending four superstars into the match, I imagine they keep an even split between Raw and SmackDown. That means the final spot to be determined will go to an SDL superstar and leave Elias outside looking in.

The Drifter has been hot all year and is ready for a push in the IC picture. He'd be the perfect opponent to keep Rollins busy and put on a fun match at MITB. If that's not in the cards, a rumored return of former Rollins tag team partner Jason Jordan may lead to a confrontation. And there's always the pending return of a certain lunatic...

DEFELICE: With nobody necessarily needing to fill that role, we might end up getting an open challenge and maybe an answer by Dean Ambrose. Of course, Rollins is so over right now, so in my opinion the best course of action is for him to challenge Brock Lesnar to a match for the Universal Championship. Maybe he can be wrestle somebody lesser for the IC open challenge and then challenge Brock to a match. Either way, Rollins is so over that it would be a mistake to not put him on the show.

WIGGINS: I think Seth Rollins is being geared to be the next challenger for the Universal Championship at SummerSlam, which probably means he will be dropping the Intercontinental Championship somewhere down the line. I don't feel that will be at Money in the Bank though, as I believe he'll defend the title against the most entertaining person currently not involved in the ladder match - Elias. The Drifter is rapidly gaining momentum and his involvement in the Intercontinental scene will definitely generate a lot of fan interest.

Question 2: Asuka will now take on Carmella for the SmackDown Women's Championship at MITB. Does Asuka lose her second straight shot at the title on a PPV?

MALDONADO: What a corner to be backed into for WWE. Carmella is a fun champion, a great heel and really good on the mic. She's believable as a sneaky champion and should in theory continue her reign. The problem is who she shares this division with.

Asuka is in this division and getting her second shot at the SmackDown Women's Championship. On paper this should be a no contest. And this is Asuka we're talking about, a dominant force. The problem is her streak ended at WrestleMania and has been largely irrelevant since then. This is a situation of choosing the lesser of two evils; ending a championship reign before it should or handing Asuka another loss on a big stage.

DEFELICE: This seems to ultimately be a lose-lose situation for the blue brand. Carmella shouldn't lose, but Asuka's been largely irrelevant since WrestleMania, so I want her to win here. It will be interesting to see what happens.

WIGGINS: If logic were a thing in WWE today, this would be very straightforward to answer. Carmella's a very good talker, she's charismatic and is a heel that actively works to get herself booed, which are all commendable traits. But I think it's time to revert to a 'wrestler' holding the SmackDown Women's Championship by crowning Asuka.

I understand her loss at WrestleMania has now allowed for more creative freedom in how her match finishes, but Carmella would not gain any credibility by beating Asuka as it would only serve to further hurt the Empress of Tomorrow's future. Putting it out there now - Asuka wins or we get a screwjob finish.

Question 3: In the midst of the MITB season chaos, WWE is gearing up for some major changes in the coming year through 2019. The first change is moving to four-hour pay-per-views starting with MITB. Is this the right move?

MALDONADO: I've got mixed feelings about this. As a wrestling fan, I'm always excited for more wrestling. The chance to spend more of my lazy Sundays with WWE and a beer or two is very welcome. Maybe I have a bit more free time than most fans, but I for one will be here for all of it.

On the other hand, this is a ton of content, more than can be reasonably expected for most fans to consume. With five hours a week already dedicated to core, main roster programming, asking for four more hours plus a pre-show is overkill territory. Throw in NXT and the weeks that include Takeover, and we're over 10 hours in a week of content. This definitely helps grow the WWE Network archive, which is important, but with the impending move to FOX, WWE needs to train fans for live eyes.

DEFELICE: Upon reading this news on Wrestling Inc., I screamed "no!!!!" This is not a good move for WWE, as I don't believe that the core of their programming is enticing enough to increase the actual output of programming. It's not to say that I wouldn't love four hour pay-per-views, I just do not think that they're doing enough right now to get me excited for this extra hour of content.

At the very least, looking at Money In The Bank, this seems to allow more time for the performers to have stronger, and more memorable gimmick matches. If nothing else, to look at the positives, at least pay-per-views will be longer than Monday Night Raw again, and who knows if we'll be looking at a better product in the very near future. I'm optimistic, albeit skeptical.

WIGGINS: I'm struggling to remain optimistic about this. Now, as a fan of NJPW, I'm used to long shows every couple of months. But they almost always deliver, in the same way that I'd happily watch a four-hour edition of NXT. After the abomination that was Backlash, you certainly won't hear me cheering for making WWE PPVs even longer.

I can't speak for everyone, but at least for me and I think a large percentage of other fans, this is the wrong move. But, especially after these new TV deals of sign, our opinions will matter even less. So, it's the right move to artificially demonstrate to their shareholders that people are watching the WWE Network even longer than last year because, no matter how much fans complain about oversaturation, we'll continue to sit through those four hours month in and month out.

Those are our thoughts on the issue, but where do you stand?
Let us know your answers to these questions in the comments below!

WWE Triple Threat Review logo segment

Subscribe to Smack Talk on iTunes and Stitcher

If you would like to sponsor a post on this website, purchase an ad, become an affiliate, or take part in any kind of promotional opportunities of the sort, please use the contact form to send us an email and we'll get in touch as soon as possible.


Current EVENTS

Superstar Spectacle 2021 PPV Live Results

WWE Superstar Spectacle Predictions and Results

Watch Royal Rumble 2021 PPV Live Results

WWE Royal Rumble 2021 PPV Predictions and Results

Watch NXT TakeOver 33 PPV Live Results

WWE NXT TakeOver 33 PPV Predictions and Results


If you would like to join the Smark Out Moment writing team, please send an email via the contact form.






Follow by Email