WWE: 10 Questions You Most Want Answered (April 26)

8. King Of The Ring Compared To Money In The Bank

From @MikeBatesy: Is King of the Ring a more productive concept than Money In The Bank?

Absolutely not. If King of the Ring was more productive it would still be around. Money in the Bank is one of WWE's best PPVs over the year every year because the Money in the Bank matches are almost always great. This year we'll likely only get one of them since there's only one major WWE World Title, but that should be an exceptional match. The idea of King of the Ring was great. There were problems in its execution because the winner of the KOTR was not pushed enough. The winner of that tournament should have been given a major title match within a month or two. It did happen for a guy like Brock Lesnar in 2002, but for most of the others they weren't rewarded. That's part of the reason why King of the Ring died. Fans didn't care about it enough. It wasn't our fault. Blame the booking team. Money in the Bank is a terrific idea because the payoff has generally been really good. Fans know that when they watch a MITB match they're seeing a bunch of guys putting their bodies on the line and the winner of that match has a good chance of being a future WWE/World Champion because of it. We've seen it so many times over the years. Fans care about Money in the Bank match because WWE treats it like a big deal. King of the Ring died because there wasn't a big enough payoff. Do I think it should be brought back? Sure, but only if it was booked right.