When the Royal Rumble wasn't the main event...

[agent817]

I had thought of this topic recently. What are your thoughts on when the WWF did this in the mid-to-late-1990s? From 1996 to 1998, the Rumble played second fiddle to the title matches on the card. If it was the semi-main event, that wasn't all too bad. At the same time, however, the Rumble is the primary selling point.

A more egregious example was in 2006 when the Rumble was the third-to-last match on the card while the two title matches came after. I thought that was a stupid move. I could understand that Kurt Angle vs. Mark Henry went on last because of that bit with the ring getting destroyed, but did Edge vs. Cena need to happen after the Rumble, too?

It's weird how in the '90s this happened three times, but it took nearly a decade for something like this to happen again.

[celtics543]

I think it goes on last because a face usually wins while a heel usually wins the title match. End the show on a good note and send people home happy.

[Hulkshi Tanahashi]

The first Rumble event didn’t end with the Rumble match. It ended with a Young Stallions/Islanders match.

And the 2013 Rumble PPV ended with the CM Punk/Rock WWE Title Match.

[fg]

In my opinion, a Royal Rumble match should always go on last (with some exceptions).Makes it more anticipated.

[Mozenrath]

I think putting the Rumble on last just makes more sense, given you risk people being exhausted going into the title match. Besides, Royal Rumbles usually have weak challengers because the PPV is sold on the basis of the Rumble match, and with the 'Mania build, only rarely is there any chance of a title change.