5 Pay-Per-Views WWE Should Ditch

No one really seems to know what the future holds for WWE pay-per-views.

There is talk that the upcoming launch of the WWE Network will cause drastic changes to the company's PPV philosophy, with some saying that PPVs as we know them will cease to exist.

Although we can't be sure what changes will be made to the WWE's PPV model, I think we can all agree on one thing: Something needs to change.

I don't know all the business behind making some major changes, and I don't know how it will affect the WWE's revenue.

But I'm here to make a suggestion that could drastically alter the WWE's PPV business.

Here are five PPVs that the WWE should ditch. 

5. No Way Out/Elimination Chamber

I'm actually not completely against No Way Out sticking around.

Allow me to explain.

From 2000 to 2009, No Way Out was the WWE's February pay-per-view, generally playing a huge part in the build to WrestleMania.

In the last two years of its previous existence (2008 and 2009) before its reboot in 2012, it was headlined by Elimination Chamber matches in which the winner typically went on to WrestleMania as the WWE Champion, World Champion or the No. 1 contender for one of those titles.

But in 2010, No Way Out was replaced (although essentially just rebranded) with Elimination Chamber, continuing the tradition of naming pay-per-views after specific matches.

Personally, I hated this decision and think that the WWE should reverse it by doing this: Getting rid of No Way Out in its current June slot and changing the Elimination Chamber name back to No Way Out.

I don't really see the purpose behind bringing No Way Out back when the only match at this year's PPV in which there was "no way out" was the main event Steel Cage match between John Cena and Big Show.

I'd prefer that Elimination Chamber be called No Way Out again and still center around two EC matches, but also have the flexibility to change things up a bit in scenarios where two EC matches aren't necessary or warranted.

Essentially, I like the No Way Out name better, but I like the Elimination Chamber concept more.

See what I'm saying?

4. Night of Champions

I'm not a fan of Night of Champions. At all.

It's a great concept on paper (with all WWE titleholders defending their titles in one night), but it often results in rushed matches that don't receive a ton of build.

When the WWE is essentially forced to feature six titles matches on one show, some of the matches come across as forced, too. While I'm all for seeing all titles defended (because each title should seem important), I'd rather there be a good story leading to a title match than having one just for the sake of having one.

And another big problem: Remember what match headlined Night of Champions in 2011?

It was Triple H vs. CM Punk, which didn't even involve a title.

Like I said before, the concept of Night of Champions definitely isn't a bad one. It's the execution of it that's often the problem.

If we're going to get a pay-per-view that is supposed to center on all of the WWE's champions, then each feud should be meaningful and the PPV should be headlined by an actual title match.

Should those two problems be fixed, I might change my tune on this one.

3. Over the Limit

Over the Limit might be one of the WWE's biggest pay-per-view failures in recent memory.

Part of this has to do with the fact that the PPV takes place in May, which is traditionally one of the WWE's worst months of the year because the WrestleMania and post-Mania buzz has died down at that point.

But a lot of it has to with the Over the Limit name.

What is Over the Limit supposed to mean exactly? Is it the name for a WWE PPV or an advertising campaign to stop drunken driving?

You see what I mean.

There is no real selling point behind the Over the Limit name, and when you combine that with when it takes place and how it often only has three weeks of build, you have a recipe for disaster.

OTL has been a miserable failure in terms of PPV buys, and the quality of the show hasn't been great, either.

I feel like the WWE would be much better served bringing back a PPV with some actual name value (like King of the Ring, perhaps) than using the Over the Limit name, which sounds more like the tagline for a public service announcement.

2. TLC

Two of the most unique match concepts in WWE history have to be the ladder match and the TLC match.

Both of these matches have revolutionized pro wrestling and played a huge role in some of the biggest feuds and story lines we've ever seen.

But the problem with giving TLC its own pay-per-view is that it waters down what had previously been a fantastically unique concept.

TLC and ladder matches had been used as the climax of long-running rivalries (like with Edge and John Cena at Unforgiven in 2006) or on the big stage of WrestleMania (Edge and Christian vs. The Hardy Boyz vs. The Dudleyz).

But by giving TLC its own PPV, the WWE is forced to hold TLC and Ladder matches at a time when they may not necessarily fit with the feuds or story lines.

I mean, did the Triple Threat match between CM Punk, The Miz and Alberto Del Rio in December really need the TLC stipulation?

No, not at all.

That's the problem, in that we now see TLC and Ladder matches a few times in one night when they should be saved exclusively for special occasions, or in other words, feuds that need it.

Also, who the hell wants to see a chairs match? Easily one of the worst match concepts in WWE history.

1. Hell in a Cell

How Hell in a Cell ever became its own exclusive pay-per-view is beyond me.

A perfect example of how the HIAC match should be used came earlier this year, when two men whose careers have been defined by their participation in HIAC matches (The Undertaker and Triple H) ended their year-plus long rivalry by competing in an epic HIAC match that ranks as one of the best bouts in WWE history.

The HIAC concept worked so well here because of the two superstars involved and both the intensity and length of the feud.

But now that Hell in a Cell is its own PPV, the HIAC match has lost a lot of its luster and, like TLC, become a watered-down concept.

Why did Mark Henry and Randy Orton need to face off in a HIAC match last year? What about CM Punk, John Cena and Alberto Del Rio?

These feuds did not have the animosity or the depth to require a HIAC stipulation, which is one that should happen only on extremely rare occasions during extremely heated feuds.

When you have two major superstars, an epic storyline and an intense rivalry, that's when you use a HIAC match.

You don't use it simply because that's the name of a pay-per-view.

Hell in a Cell as a PPV needs to go bye bye, or else the WWE will kill the importance of arguably the greatest gimmick match concept in the history of pro wrestling.

Drake Oz is a WWE Featured Columnist for Bleacher Report. You can follow him on Twitter and ask him any wrestling-related questions on Formspring.