Please send in your questions to WZMailbag@gmail.com or post them on our forum at this link. Feel free to leave your feedback on the comments and on my twitter @MaxCruzePW.
The winner of MITB is able to hold on to the briefcase for up to a year, right? So, hypothetical: Let’s say MITB was on June 22 this year. And next year MITB is on June 5. What if the winner of this year’s MITB held on the the briefcase past next year’s MITB, then between June 5 and 22, we’d have two MITB briefcase holders for the same title. Do you ever see this happening?
Theoretically, that is a great idea, I love it! I don’t, however, see it happening. Audiences these days have short intension spans, it would just bore some fans silly. As much as I love the idea, I don’t see it happening.
Will the authority ever rebuild as a dominant force?
These heel GM figures usually run their course about a year into, so I say we’re close to the end of them. It’s all about keeping the audience entertained, after all. I hope they’re done, I’m tired of heels running the WWE.
Can you please explain what the point of an on air contract signing for a match is? It seems like only one out of a hundred matches need a contract. I believe that the contract signing thing makes no sense, is over done and always ends up being the same thing with a table being flipped and the opponents brawling. Technically speaking shouldn’t every match have a signing? What are your thoughts on them? Are they proof of lazy creative booking?
They are just there to create anticipation and suspense for big matches, and yes technically every match should have one but that’s WWE logic for you. There have been some good contract signings on the past but you are right, they are very stale and predictable most of the time. And yes, giving us a contract signing does show that WWE is lazy in creating new material – better this than goofy characters…oh wait.
