That's the beauty of being a publically traded company and having to answer to so many regulatory agencies, politicians, and investors; the amount of creativity you are able to express is VERY limited.
The use of Chikara was only for the fact that they seem to embrace the "Super Heroes of Wrestling" mentality of the Ultimate Goodies meet the Most Horrendous of Baddies. I could have gone with the Lucha Va Voom route, but I don't think that is their overall intent with their product.
Honestly, I figured TNA would have jumped at this chance by now. Since WWE has taken such big hits to their abilities to think outside of the box, TNA has the better situation in that they only answer to three groups that I can think of; The Panda Energy sponsors, the Spike TV representatives, and the Fans of the product. Panda will require the repayment of the money invested but while Daddy Carter is alive, I don't see it as a debt that will be collected upon in the near future. The Spike Reps have no room to bitch as TNA has been the top show on their channel for quite some time and they have been more than accommodating to Spike in terms of moving spots to make way for Bellator, sticking to the guidelines for usage of blood on TV, etc. The fans that TNA have currently are the hardcore’s, which is why the numbers don't fluctuate the way WWE's have over the past 3 years.
Since TNA is in what I would consider to be the most "stable" (not better) position in wrestling at the moment, I feel they would benefit the most from a big risk. They took a risk signing Lagana and the product has become much better since. They risked letting a top star (Abyss) switch to a character that was kind of silly and it has been a success (for me at least) thus far. The risk of going Live has driven up the approval rating of consistent fans. The risk with the A&8s attack on Sting managed to at least get people talking about TNA in a good way instead of just bitching about Hogan when the company came up in conversation (how A&8s will turn out is still up for debate). My lengthy point is that TNA is taking managed risks (latest example: lowering PPV #'s to 10) and they seem to be working overall, but I think they would take the least amount of damage if they took a huge risk.