By James Caldwell, Torch assistant editor

This one is different. It's not WrestleMania, but it's closer than any off-brand PPV in recent memory. On Saturday, there was a noticeable calm before the storm on the eve of weeks of speculation finally playing out at the Money in the Bank PPV Sunday night.

Does C.M. Punk grab the title belt as soon as the bell rings and leaves Chicago in Colt Cabana's WrestleMania 22 getaway car? Does Cena go through the standard routine of sell, sell, sell, then make the comeback and quiet Punk - the voice of the anti-Cena fans? Does the MITB winner cash in on either Cena or Punk to set up Summerslam as a transition? Is there something bigger afoot - an invasion, a double-cross, a double-cross and a triple-swerve, another McMahon family member involved, perhaps even a riot?

WWE has created a scenario for their audience to let their minds run wild. It's not last month's Capitol Punishment PPV, where WWE lined up the latest heel (R-Truth) for Cena to knock down in standard fashion. There was no buzz last month. No one was calling our Livecast to discuss the possibilities of Truth leaving WWE with the title belt and heading straight to the looney-bin.

So, what's the result? Are viewers who are expecting something huge - because of all the TV time put into hyping Cena-Punk with McMahon involved - being set up for disappointment or a truly shocking moment?

The concern for most people ordering tonight's PPV looking for something "shocking" is Vince McMahon. He has all the money he could ever have and seems to be content playing mind games for his own fascination. This time, have his mind games extended beyond the locker room to the vocal minority of the audience that he allowed to "have their say" for a few weeks through C.M. Punk? Was it WWE merely raising expectations for the frustrated audience, only to have the rug pulled out from under them with Cena conquering the "voice of the voiceless," and that's it?

But, on the flip side of this buzz-worthy event is whether this story has engaged a broader WWE audience that simply watches the show, might buy a ticket when the circus comes to town, and orders an occasional PPV. There's a certain segment of the audience that simply wants to spend some time with John Cena and other top stars in a fantasy world WWE creates. They invest in the stories they're told from 9:00 to 11:05 p.m. EST on Monday nights. And that's it. They're not looking for more details on the Internet. They don't know anything about wrestler deaths - they still think "steroids" is the "bad word" in wrestling. They don't know there's an entire segment of the audience frustrated with the product and moving on to UFC or checking out completely. As far as they're concerned, WWE is their cool world and The Rock made it a little cooler when he came back during WrestleMania.

When Punk launched his anti-WWE, anti-Cena, anti-McMahon, anti-Rock, anti-everything campaign three weeks ago, was damage done to the viewer that simply invests in what they see for two hours on Monday nights? When Punk raised questions about WWE - even in a storyline context designed to sell the PPV - did it shatter a rose-colored view of WWE as "putting smiles on people's faces" and all of the wrestlers in the theater being happy to perform their roles for the satisfaction of the home viewer?

Looking back to Punk's initial promo, the bigger question than whether it connected with the audience is whether there was damage done to the casual viewer's acceptance of the product. And, if there was any damage, was it significant?

The 2.9 rating on Monday night was a disappointment, no doubt. I'm sure it was an interesting week in WWE headquarters as blame was passed around. But, who knows why the rating was the lowest of the year outside of last week's Fourth of July episode. Home Run Derby, TNT premieres, people breaking 52-weeks-per-year viewing habits on Fourth of July, viewers not buying Punk as a central figure, it just being one of those things, etc. But, one factor looming over this is whether the casual audience has been disenfranchised. And, if so, is that short-term or long-term?

It could be like the first time someone figures out/hears about/gets told that pro wrestling is scripted and the wrestlers are co-operating with each other. There's a certain period of time when a person goes through the process of accepting it or leaving it. For many casual viewers who only know what WWE tells them on TV, there might be a period of time where they're deciding whether to continue supporting a product that Punk ripped apart - even in the context of a storyline - and perhaps made them ask questions they've never asked before. Or, will they simply chalk it up to Punk being a "bad guy" and the same weird-o, cult-like leader who lied to Nexus for months?

Whatever happens on Sunday night in the John Cena vs. C.M. Punk main event could reinvigorate both audiences, though, and potentially make the casual audience forget about their concerns supporting the product and re-invest in the latest plot twists & turns they follow along with on Monday nights.

Or, it could lose both audiences. If WWE goes with the standard fare of Cena-conquers-latest-heel, they'll lose the audience interested in WWE only in the last month. If Cena comes out of this with more damage to his character following the damage done by Rock during the WrestleMania lead-up, will WWE also lose a broader segment of the audience that bought into WWE and Cena - by virtue of being the leading actor in the theater - as cool and credible and standing up for what's right? (It's why Rock's video this week completely tearing down Cena should never make WWE TV.)

There's an audience that just wants to invest in the stories without worrying about whether each week's developments are good for business, whether a certain wrestler is burnt out on the schedule, whether Vince McMahon is really crazy or just Mr. McMahon, whether backstage politics pushed up or down one of their favorite wrestlers, whether WWE is a company with a checkered history, or whether Cena is cool or not.

WWE "opening up the issues" on their own TV show eventually got WWE where they needed to go for PPV business purposes - the WWE Title, WWE, and John Cena are in jeopardy on Sunday night. But, was damage done in the process of getting there? What reward is on the other end of this for the risk card WWE played?

Sunday night at Money in the Bank, WWE will get to the other side of this storyline. Will both audiences join them? One audience? Neither audience? And, what are the long-term ramifications or potential benefits when WWE arrives where they're going? Everything is lined up for a buzz-worthy PPV Sunday night. Where they go from here - and whether the audience joins them - should be equally as intriguing.

PWTorch assistant editor James Caldwell will be covering tonight's PPV with live play-by-play alongside Torch editor Wade Keller. Also, join Caldwell and Torch columnist Greg Parks for a special post-MITB edition of the PWTorch Livecast at 11:30 p.m. EST taking live phone calls on the PPV. URL - http://tinyurl.com/4xhzw6s

We suggest these recent related articles...

CALDWELL'S WWE "NXT: HOUSTON" LIVE RESULTS 9/17: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of Balor, Joe, Bayley, more from debut show in Texas

CALDWELL'S LIVE REPORT - 7/12 Lone Star in Houston, Tex.: Alberto El Patron no-shows, Dreamer vs. Hoyt new main event; plus Duggan, Snitsky, Cabana vs. Mahal, Joey Ryan, Rowe vs. Hernandez, Ivellise, Catrina, Houston Carson, one title change, more

CALDWELL: A Top 10 for 10 Years - Hall of Fame, George, Sweet Tea, Studio B, Duke, Three-Pack, and you!