Why did WWE begin changing PPV names?

[rko102]

Alright, now I don't know how many people are gonna reply to this thread, and I don't know if this question has been asked before, but I was thinking about it and I'm curious.

First off, as it pertains to my question of why WWE started changing pay-per-view names, I'm going to make one exception to the discussion about this.

I'm fine with ECW One Night Stand having been changed to Extreme Rules because especially in 2007 and 2008 when it was called One Night Stand with the Extreme Rules subtitle it was way too long a pay-per-view name. But aside from that, here's what bugs me.

Vengeance was one of my favorite pay-per-views of the year, even when they called it Vengeance: Night of Champions in 2007, but then when it became Night of Champions in 2008 and I realized the 'every championship is defended' concept was permanent, I got really annoyed. My reasoning behind that is that I love championship matches, but when a pay-per-views is nothing but superstars and divas either retaining or losing their championships, I find it gets boring and repetitive. What do you think?

Second of all, when WWE changed the name of The Great American Bash to The Bash because they wanted it to 'appeal' to a worldwide audience and not just reflect the United States, that also bothered me. First off, this company has been doing the GAB for years, as well as WCW doing it before they went out of business, and NWA before that. People all over the world would purchase it on PPV and watch it, and I don't think any of them thought to themselves: "God, I'm so annoyed this pay-per-view is called The Great American Bash! WWE just loves to show off that they're an American company, thinking they're better than us or something!" See what I mean? That makes no sense and I'm sure the world population didn't give a shit if it was called The Great American Bash, and besides, The Bash just sounds stupid, and the new design for the PPV, from the logo to the stage, is horrendous in my opinion.

Next we have WWE Unforgiven, which was changed this past year to Breaking Point, which, so far it seems was a one-time pay-per-view since Night of Champions has been moved to September and no pay-per-view name for July has been announced as of yet.

At the time WWE began changing names after the GAB, I began thinking Vince found TNA to be a threat, and that he felt like copying their ideas for some reason. I even spoke with a friend of mine who is a big TNA fan and he said a number of the new WWE PPV names seemed kind of, well, similar, to TNA pay-per-views already in existence, especially the concepts (eg. WWE Hell In A Cell & TNA Lockdown)

No Mercy became Hell In A Cell, Cyber Sunday became Bragging Rights, and Armageddon became TLC. And the upcoming pay-per-view, Elimination Chamber, was formally known as No Way Out.

I don't understand why WWE had to change any of their pay-per-view names, as well as some of the pay-per-view concepts. I've spoken with friends of mine who are not only wrestling fans but wrestlers in training, and we've all agreed that yes, change is good, but too much of it as once is annoying, and that Vince should stick to what he does best instead of changing everything around. The worst one is Bragging Rights, because the SmackDown vs. Raw tag match reminded me so much of Survivor Series, and that was the next pay-per-view less than a month later. Can you say dumb?

The classic pay-per-view names that had been around for years were what made WWE themselves in my opinion, and I find that they've changed their image so drastically in the past couple of months that they don't even seem like the same company anymore. From this, to the guest host gimmick on RAW, and numerous other reasons I could cite but which would take us off topic, WWE seems to be having an "identity crisis", to quote what someone else once wrote on the forums.

Anyway, let me know what your opinion is on all of this. Is it good WWE changed their pay-per-view names, as well as some of the concepts? Is it bad? Or do you not really care. Please elaborate, and I look forward to reading your replies.

**P.S., Judgment Day has been taken off the pay-per-view list this year....so now we go straight from Backlash to Extreme Rules. Go figure.

 

[Low_Ki]

Well I totally agree with what you are saying.

The whole name-change does put them in an identity-crisis situation. I much preferred the old PPV names but in a strange way they all represented what the WWE/F used to be about. They were 'Attitude Era' PPV's.

I'm English and I have never once taken offense to the Great American Bash PPV. Hell I used to watch then in WCW. The whole gimmick PPV thing is way too much in my opinion. People say that TNA kills gimmicks (and they do) but PPV's like TLC just kill off the whole fun of the match type.

Another thing that really grinds my gears in relation to this thread is that during the Christian/Shelton Benjamin ECW title match at TLC, they stopped the bloody match because of blood. When three years ago Triple H and Ric Flair were bleeding like stuck pigs at Taboo Tuesday. Remember that?

Its just another way to appeal to the younger audience I guess, but it is a shame. I don't watch WWE PPV's anymore bar the Rumble and Mania if I can be bothered, so I guess in that respect its just another way for Vince to market the company to make more money.

 

[hunterXhunter21]

I don't really care. It is no different from when they went from In Your House to what they have now. Or when they took away King of the Ring and turned it into whatever it is now. So it makes no difference to me. People are still gonna buy what ever is being hyped that month.

 

[gtajoker01]

i dont know why. its crazy.. they dont need to have an entire ppv full of no dq matches all they need is 1. Decent wrestling -without anyone getting dq'ed or interfering 2.Decent feuds 3.decent promos. and they need to build up their mid and lower card because they cant rely on orton,hhh,hbk,and batista and cena and edge and undertaker to carry wwe forever.i guess its a way to bring in more money since their younger audience likes to watch violence

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

The reason the titles of the PPV's were changed was to coincide with their new strategy of providing themed PPV's.

Themed PPV's like Hell in the Cell, TLC, Breaking Point, etc. were designed to stimulate interest in their PPV's since their buyrates have taken a hit as of the past couple years. However, there had to be a strategy to communicate this to the PPV buyers that the events had changed and that they were now offering THEMED PPV's, so what they did was change the name of the show to reflect the THEME of the PPV. That helps spread the word and send the message to the viewer that the PPV has a specific theme to it.

It's all part of their strategy to change the PPV's themselves and spread awareness that this is being done to the PPV buyers. There is no better means of communicating this then by actually changing the title of the PPV to reflect these changes.

 

[Athena]

The reason the titles of the PPV's were changed was to coincide with their new strategy of providing themed PPV's.

Themed PPV's like Hell in the Cell, TLC, Breaking Point, etc. were designed to stimulate interest in their PPV's since their buyrates have taken a hit as of the past couple years. However, there had to be a strategy to communicate this to the PPV buyers that the events had changed and that they were now offering THEMED PPV's, so what they did is change the name of the show to reflect the theme of the PPV. That helps spread the word and send the message to the viewer that the PPV has a specific theme to it.

It's all part of their strategy to change the PPV's themselves and spread awareness that this is being done to the PPV buyers. There is no better means of communicating this then by actually changing the title of the PPV to reflect these changes.

Sidious is right here - WWE needed to make changes to their PPVs because of the declining buyrates, but it really hasn't helped so far (according to recent buyrate statistics). But what they don't realize is

A) If you are going to have themed PPVs, then you need to make sure that gimmick match is well-represented throughout the show. The recent Hell in a Cell PPV comes to mind, but for all the wrong reasons. The cell matches were good wrestling matches, but terrible cell matches. Why go through all the effort to promote the "Devil's Playground" only to have the cell itself play such a little role in all THREE cell matches? It not only makes the company look stupid for promoting something as violent but then having little to no violence in the matches, but tarnishes the HIAC match as a whole

B) The PPV is still going to have low buyrates regardless of what gimmick matches are featured if there is little to no buildup for the matches on the card. Every match could be a Texas deathmatch, but if the fans don't care/don't know who is going to appear on the card, they're much less likely to spend $40 on it. These new, three week feuds that suddenly seem to have grown popular with the creative team might make for decent Raw ratings, but they certainly do not translate into PPV buys.

 

[wwediehardmark]

i think there doing it to change with times and the superstars because what they're trying to get ppls attention thinking "oh i would like to see a ppv with all tlc matches". but really is that what we want????????

 

[slipstatic77]

The names of the PPVs now totally lack any kind of edge. They are more functional than anything else. Another sign that the Attitude era is dead. As a side note, how can you have a PPV with 3 HIAC matches, and not one drop of blood was spilled. What a waste. PG era sucks.

 

[Supernova]

At the same time though, they've come up with ridiculously bland names. And also they've restricted themselves too much with the themes being based on specific gimmick matches. It's akin to calling Summerslam "Mixture of Wrestling Matches in the Summer PPV" or Wrestlemania "A normal PPV but everything's more important PPV"

 

[gully side adidja]

Extreme Rules: Well i believe extreme rules is a better name than one night stand, as for the gimmick for it, i like it the one night in the year where everything is extreme is intriguing.

The Bash: stupid name change,the great american bash was wcw's 2nd biggest ppv, wwe destroyed the legacy of that.


Breaking point: sounds cool a lot more than unforgiven, i quit submission matches can make you reach a breaking point, ' have you reached your breaking point?, will you give up or not'?

hell in a cell:completly stupid, sounds stupid too, hell in a cell is the most brutal match in wwe, it is the place to settle long violent feuds, why waste it on one night with three matches with, relatively short feuds?, i agree with the headliner, the cell wasn't even used a lot(bar dx vs legacy).


tlc: stupid name change but a interesting concept, armageddon sounded more epic.


wwe do need to fresh up some ppv's, maybe 3 ppv name/gimmick/concept's, not 6 changes.

 

[rjdonuts]

I, too, am not a fan of the changes. I long for the IYH days. The attitude era (99 in particular) is when the PPV names became solidified. Before that, PPVs that were not the big five (Rumble, WM, KotR, Summerslam, and S Series) were often named according to prominent matches or storylines: Buried Alive, Beware of Dog, Canadian Stampede, Bad Blood, D-Generation X, Rock Bottom, Breakdown, Over the Edge, etc. This was an engaging way of naming events. The event fit the stories... now the stories are being written to fit the events. This seems like a weaker way to tell a wrestling story. That is why I long for a return to constantly changing PPV names save the, now, big 4.

 

[Mr. TM]

They took poor selling pay per views, and added a bit of spice to the content as well as the title. Most titles just coincide with the content now, with the last one moving from No Way Out to Elimination Chamber. This helps sell the pay per view as names like "Hell in a Cell", "Elimination Chamber" attract people to the pay per view to buy the event.

 

[SHAYAN_CENA_Y2J]

As one of the posters said,Those PPV names had an attitude era style,and also the content of PPV did not match PPV's name.Theme PPVs are fun,I enjoyed most of them .They made things fresh and interesting.Of course there was some disappointments.e.g. HIAC.This is a horrible idea to have 3 HIAC matches in same night.It just destroys the unique style of HIAC.They had better change it to a cage PPV which contains steel cage too.It was a smart move to keep Backlash because a theme PPV right after WM can ruin the atmosphere build by Mania.I also think there can be some other fun theme PPVs,for example a tournament one or a fan-involving PPV like the thing that Cyber Sunday was,but in a different way.

 

[The Wolf]

Themed PPV'shave a place in wrestling but the WWE is doing it all wrong. First of all the Hell in a Cell and the new Elimination Chamber PPVs similar ideas and they can be combind into one and keep the name of a PPV No Way Out. The only problem is not everyone can pull off those kind of matches. Breaking Point is another pretty good idea but it can be combind with Extreme Rules to make it work best, have match that push them to the limits. TLC well this was just stupid! It is a good match but once again noteveryone can pull it off. GAB bring it back that is all that needs to be said on that. If Vince wants to give TNA a run for their money he needs to introduce something new, also get rid of the PG era if the MNWs start again he will lose the way things are going WCW came close and I see alot of the same brains in TNA right now. Bragging Rights well it to much like Survivor Series and way to close. Cyber Sunday was either way good points and bad so alongs they get better.

 

[BladeRunner]

I liked cyber sunday because the fans got to decide the matches. That was awesome. Because usually the fans made good matches.

And the Great American Bash is a tradition, like Clash Of The Champions, and to get rid of the "America" part is just plain UN-American

They do a tribute to the troops every year, but leave out the "America" in Great American Bash? That's hypocrisy.

Some of the new ones worked tho. I actually enjoyed bragging rights, that was one of the better ones.

Nevertheless, I still think they should cut down on PPVs to make them more special, and also so they can build them up more on the normal shows.

 

[JJohns]

I guess I get to be the asshole here and actually defend WWE.

With very few exceptions, the PPVs that had their names changed were generally the worst drawing PPVs of the year. That especially goes for the Great American Bash/The Bash.

As far as the no blood at HIAC is concerned, that was WWE's decision to start with, and I hate to say this, but the IWC is WRONG in thinking that it's a bad policy. Blood isn't needed in wrestling, just like chair shots to the head aren't necessary. All it takes is a cut to open up too far and we get a bloodbath like the Mass Transit incident.

On top of that, I even applauded that WWE stopped the Benjamin/Christian match when Christian was busted open hardway. There is precedence there from MMA. As much as WWE and UFC try to state that they aren't in competition with each other, in a way they are as many people are fans of both organizations.

I know everyone wants to go back to the Attitude Era when everything was more "relaxed" as far as the rules were concerned. It's not going to happen. Not after the Benoit situation. Wrestling is a different animal in these last couple of years, and the true fans will learn to adapt as pro wrestling continues to evolve.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I'm fine with ECW One Night Stand having been changed to Extreme Rules because especially in 2007 and 2008 when it was called One Night Stand with the Extreme Rules subtitle it was way too long a pay-per-view name. But aside from that, here's what bugs me.

Actually they changed the name because they are PG now and "One Night Stand" is too controversial sounding for a name for a PG rated PPV. I'm ok with that change and many of the other ones.

Vengeance was one of my favorite pay-per-views of the year, even when they called it Vengeance: Night of Champions in 2007, but then when it became Night of Champions in 2008 and I realized the 'every championship is defended' concept was permanent, I got really annoyed. My reasoning behind that is that I love championship matches, but when a pay-per-views is nothing but superstars and divas either retaining or losing their championships, I find it gets boring and repetitive. What do you think?

You don't like Night of Champions because it's nothing but championship matches? You DISLIKE Night of Champions for the same reason that I happen to LIKE it.... you are entitled to your opinion though, and I respect that, so I'm going to challenge you to a debate at the end of this post. Night of Champions is the best candidate for 5th biggest show of the year because every title being on the line makes it a really special show. Wrestling is about winning championships to prove you're the best, right? Well, how is a show about ALL championships not special then?

Second of all, when WWE changed the name of The Great American Bash to The Bash because they wanted it to 'appeal' to a worldwide audience and not just reflect the United States, that also bothered me. First off, this company has been doing the GAB for years, as well as WCW doing it before they went out of business, and NWA before that. People all over the world would purchase it on PPV and watch it, and I don't think any of them thought to themselves: "God, I'm so annoyed this pay-per-view is called The Great American Bash! WWE just loves to show off that they're an American company, thinking they're better than us or something!" See what I mean? That makes no sense and I'm sure the world population didn't give a shit if it was called The Great American Bash, and besides, The Bash just sounds stupid, and the new design for the PPV, from the logo to the stage, is horrendous in my opinion.

"The Bash" sounds like a bad name to me too, but I think the main reason WWE changed this name was to distance the PPV from its ancestor in WCW. Even though WWE owns the rights to the WCW version of The Great American Bash, it makes sense to me that they ("they" meaning Vince) probably would be more comfortable having only shows that he came up with. So he turned it into "The Bash". The whole appealing to worldwide audiences might have been a secondary reason to hide the main one, that's my theory anyway. Either reason makes sense in the end.

Next we have WWE Unforgiven, which was changed this past year to Breaking Point, which, so far it seems was a one-time pay-per-view since Night of Champions has been moved to September and no pay-per-view name for July has been announced as of yet.

You're wrong on this part. Breaking Point isn't a new name for Unforgiven, it was a brand new PPV. Unforgiven was ended, along with a few other PPV's.

No Mercy became Hell In A Cell, Cyber Sunday became Bragging Rights, and Armageddon became TLC. And the upcoming pay-per-view, Elimination Chamber, was formally known as No Way Out.

Wrong again. No Mercy was ended, as was Cyber Sunday. Hell In A Cell & Bragging Rights were both brand new PPV's in 2009. You're right about Elimination Chamber being renamed from No Way Out, though.

I don't understand why WWE had to change any of their pay-per-view names, as well as some of the pay-per-view concepts. I've spoken with friends of mine who are not only wrestling fans but wrestlers in training, and we've all agreed that yes, change is good, but too much of it as once is annoying, and that Vince should stick to what he does best instead of changing everything around. The worst one is Bragging Rights, because the SmackDown vs. Raw tag match reminded me so much of Survivor Series, and that was the next pay-per-view less than a month later. Can you say dumb?

Wait, what? Bragging Rights is the worst of the new PPV's? I thought that was the best of all the themed shows! Ok, I'm adding that to the things we will be debating about if you accept my challenge. Bragging Rights was nothing like Surivor Series because Survivor Series is a classic "Big 4" PPV about team elimination, Bragging Rights was about Raw VS Smackdown, I'm not seeing the similarity.

The classic pay-per-view names that had been around for years were what made WWE themselves in my opinion, and I find that they've changed their image so drastically in the past couple of months that they don't even seem like the same company anymore. From this, to the guest host gimmick on RAW, and numerous other reasons I could cite but which would take us off topic, WWE seems to be having an "identity crisis", to quote what someone else once wrote on the forums.

The themed PPV's can work in the long run if more work is put into them. This change made the "less important" shows seem more important. You said so yourself that many of the names sounded the same. This ends that problem to an extent. I didn't like some of the themes myself, but it's better than going through all the random similar "less important" shows in between bigger shows like the "Big 4" and Night of Champions.

Anyway, let me know what your opinion is on all of this. Is it good WWE changed their pay-per-view names, as well as some of the concepts? Is it bad? Or do you not really care. Please elaborate, and I look forward to reading your replies.

Most of the changes were for the better and should be able to work in the long run. I completely disagreed with most of your post, especially the parts about Bragging Rights and Night of Champions.... however I would like to debate this with you.

WHY do you find it boring that Night of Champions has all the titles on the line? That theme is what makes it one of the best shows every year.... and WHY did Bragging Rights remind you too much of Survivor Series? I see little to no similarities between the two, the themes are completely different because one is Raw VS Smackdown and the other is about team elimination.

I'm willing to debate this further if you still disagree.

 

[SHAYAN_CENA_Y2J]

I really mark for DAGGER DIAS here.

NOC was one of my dreams that came true.Every Major Sports community has competitions for Championships.I think it was a nice Idea and done very well.But the problem within it is they have too championships to be on the line in same night.There would be short matches and this reduces the quality of PPV.WWE should look for a solution.A nice idea is to book some Champ vs. Champ matches.

Bragging Rights was also one of my favorites.I can remember first days that Raw & SD! became independent brands,There was a competition among them.I really missed that situation.When there are two brands who are trying to receive more attraction,There should be some battle.But some plans can improve this BR PPV.For example World titles not being defended in this one.For instance Put Champs in a Match.WWE champ vs. WH,Us champ vs. IC,etc.

Also they can create a type of match including 10 or 12 Superstars,Not a one-fall Tag team match,to hype PPV more.Something like War Games,or else.

 

[DR.Dopenhagen]

LoL soon Royal Rumble will be renamed "modified Battle Royale that goes really long" they will hav 3 rumbles one for each brand and ECW will hav the fabled 4 man Rumble

and bragging Rights is stupid why not merge Bragging Rights and Survivor Series and hav a Smackdown vs Raw survivor series elimination tag match

Night of champions sux cuz all belts are on the line i think that takes some of the prestige out of the belts and it also means 2 divas matches on one night plus wwe has way to many belts and the brands need to remerge that way we have 2 shows a week to build feuds and stories and ECW wrestlers can wrestle on Superstars before going to Raw or SM, give Superstars a cruiserweight belt and we might finally see an interesting match on WWE TV

 

[Dagger Dias]

LoL soon Royal Rumble will be renamed "modified Battle Royale that goes really long" they will hav 3 rumbles one for each brand and ECW will hav the fabled 4 man Rumble

That would be funny.

and bragging Rights is stupid why not merge Bragging Rights and Survivor Series and hav a Smackdown vs Raw survivor series elimination tag match

I disagree here. Survivor Series is one of the "Big 4" and will continue to do well every year as long as they actually build up the world title matches, they don't need Smackdown VS Raw matches. Bragging Rights is the best out of the new PPV themes. Obviously we won't see an Iron Man match every year, but we could see title VS title matches, without any of them being on the line, just for adding points to that wrestler's brand. Have the ECW title match begin the show then all the "bragging rights" matches come next. IC champion VS the US champion , Womens champion VS Divas champion, World champion VS the WWE champion, and finally the Raw VS Smackdown elimination match closes the show, with the winning brand celebrating. It's a really great idea and I hope to see something like that. Even if they don't, Bragging Rights is a great PPV and there would be no point in discarding it in favor or a Smackdown VS Raw match at Survivor Series.

Night of champions sux cuz all belts are on the line i think that takes some of the prestige out of the belts and it also means 2 divas matches on one night

How in the world does having all belts on the line damage prestige for ANY of them? It adds to the prestige to have a show when all belts are on the line because wrestlers should (kayfabe) desire many championships, that's the case with most real competitions. Night of Champions is an awesome PPV that has a special feel to it that only Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and the Royal Rumble can replicate.

plus wwe has way to many belts and the brands need to remerge that way we have 2 shows a week to build feuds and stories and ECW wrestlers can wrestle on Superstars before going to Raw or SM, give Superstars a cruiserweight belt and we might finally see an interesting match on WWE TV

Not ANOTHER rant about someone wanting the brands to be merged back together, that's suggested far too often on here! It's never going to happen. Raw = WWF. Smackdown = WCW. You have to realize that the WWE is the result of a federation merge that took place when Vince bought WCW, the roster is too big to not have the brand split. The only brand that could be shut down without doing too much damage is ECW because it's an hour long show about newcomers and jobbers, so it could be turned into a Heat/Velocity ripoff like Superstars if they ended it as a brand. Also, the Cruiserweight belt is never coming back.

I'm willing to debate this further if you still disagree.

 

[DR.Dopenhagen]

thats a shame i really miss the cruiserweight title it gave Kidman and Helms something to do rather than jobbing to monster heels like snitsky and mike knox.

you make a good point with bragging rights(god that name sux) having all champs fight each other would be sweet but in the shape its in at the moment i dont the think wwe's creative team could come up with a storyline good enough to tie the brands together and really make it seem like they were after the bragging rights for their brand plus with the amount wrestlers jump from show to show why should we believe they want their show to win?

i guess night of champions is actually pretty good but they do need to ditch those womens titles its not like one diva on the roster derserves to be champion cuz none of them can wrestle their just eye candy with belts and the design for the divas title is just HORRIBLE! it looks like a plastic toy

 

[Dagger Dias]

thats a shame i really miss the cruiserweight title it gave Kidman and Helms something to do rather than jobbing to monster heels like snitsky and mike knox.

That title was good for the smaller guys, jobbers, and sometimes newcomers. Want to know what it's been (more or less) replaced by? The ECW Championship. That's what's now opening most PPV's, and (disregarding Christian) has been held by jobbers who would be nobodies on the bigger shows. Cruiserweight Championship itself is dead though. I don't see it coming back.

you make a good point with bragging rights(god that name sux) having all champs fight each other would be sweet but in the shape its in at the moment i dont the think wwe's creative team could come up with a storyline good enough to tie the brands together and really make it seem like they were after the bragging rights for their brand plus with the amount wrestlers jump from show to show why should we believe they want their show to win?

The Bragging Rights name fit to me because of two reasons. The first one is the Iron Man match. The wrestlers who win those truly have "bragging rights". The second reason is that whichever brand wins, does in a sense have "bragging rights" as well. It's a little cheesy, but it works. The creative team could come up with good storylines for it, but they'd need to start building tension between the brands on the episode of Raw following the PPV that comes before Bragging Rights. The brand warfare has to start IMMEDIATELY at that point, it would lead to a better Bragging Rights PPV.

i guess night of champions is actually pretty good but they do need to ditch those womens titles its not like one diva on the roster derserves to be champion cuz none of them can wrestle their just eye candy with belts and the design for the divas title is just HORRIBLE! it looks like a plastic toy

They can't get rid of the female titles. There are women on the roster who legitimately enjoy wrestling, it would be unethical to not let them have titles to compete for just because the female division is less popular. You're almost right about the Raw divas, although some of them (Kelly, Eve, Maryse) are showing a lot of improvement in the past year or so and can become good champions to further improve the division. Smackdown, on the other hand, has plenty of women who can put on good matches. Mickie, Beth, Michelle, and Natalya are all great female wrestlers. I'd put the Raw diva match early on Night of Champions to get it out of the way, probably 2nd after ECW or the tag team belts. Smackdown's diva match however could be placed in between the world titles or right before them, to give the fans a bit of a break from cheering. That's how I'd do it, and it's still a great PPV despite the girls having 2 belts. It's really not that big of a deal. In fact, it's special for the divas division to actually get 2 matches in one night. When was the last time (disregarding Night of Champions) that we saw 2 divas matches on PPV? Exactly my point.

 

[Tastycles]

They changed the PPV names to identify the fact that they were themed shows. The jury is still out on some of the themes, but I only wish that they had been a little bit more innovative on the names of the PPVs. Breaking Point and Bragging Rights are quite good, but I don't know why they couldn't have used the No Way Out name for Hell in a Cell or something as it seems a little obvious. Still, as I said the jury is out on the theme PPVs, so we shall see.