As I sat watching the latest PBA game, I couldn't help but marvel at how new franchises consistently struggle to find their footing in this competitive league. Having followed Philippine basketball for over a decade, I've seen countless expansion teams come and go, with only a handful managing to build truly competitive rosters from scratch. Just last week, I was analyzing game tapes from the early 2000s, and it struck me how the most successful teams always seemed to follow certain patterns in their roster construction. The challenge of building a winning PBA new team isn't just about signing big names—it's about creating synergy, understanding roles, and learning from both historical successes and failures across different collegiate programs.
I remember watching UST's Karim Abdul during his prime years—the man was an absolute force who once dropped 26 points in what remains one of the most memorable scoring performances by a foreign student-athlete. That kind of offensive explosion isn't something you see every day, but it demonstrates exactly what teams should be looking for when building their core. Similarly, Adamson's Lenda Douanga matched that 26-point output on another occasion, proving that dominant big men can completely change a team's offensive dynamics. What fascinates me about these performances isn't just the numbers themselves, but the context—both players were surrounded by specific supporting casts that enabled them to thrive. When I look at current PBA expansion teams struggling to find their identity, I often think back to these historic FSA performances and wonder why more teams don't study them systematically.
The real problem, in my opinion, lies in how teams approach the draft and free agency. Too many general managers get caught up in the hype of scoring averages without considering how pieces fit together. Take Soulemane Chabi Yo from UST and FEU's Prince Orizu—both put up 25 points in separate games, but their playing styles couldn't be more different. Chabi Yo was more of a finesse player with excellent footwork, while Orizu dominated through pure physicality. Similarly, NU's Issa Gaye and Adamson's Papi Sarr also scored 25 points in their standout games, yet each brought completely different skills to the table. The mistake I see expansion teams making is collecting talent without considering these stylistic differences. They'll sign three power forwards who all want to operate in the same spaces, then wonder why their offense feels clogged and predictable.
Now, if you're building a PBA new team from the ground up, here's what I believe are the five key strategies that actually work based on historical evidence. First, prioritize two-way players over pure scorers. Looking at that list of high-scoring FSAs, the ones who actually succeeded at the professional level were those who could contribute on both ends—players like Alfred Aroga from NU, who dropped 24 points but was equally valuable for his defensive presence. Second, establish a clear hierarchy early. When UE's Charles Mammie scored his 24 points, he was the undisputed focal point of that offense—there was no confusion about roles. Third, balance your roster between youth and experience. Fourth, don't underestimate the importance of chemistry—sometimes signing a slightly less talented player who fits your system better pays greater dividends. And fifth, always have a contingency plan for injuries, because basketball is unpredictable.
What many teams fail to realize is that building a winning roster requires understanding not just what players can do individually, but how they'll complement each other. When UP's Malick Diouf and UST's Adama Faye both scored 23 points in their respective standout games, they did so using completely different approaches. Diouf was more of a pick-and-roll threat, while Faye preferred isolation post-ups. An intelligent GM would recognize that these players would fit differently depending on their offensive system. Similarly, FEU's Mo Konateh—who dropped 22 points in his memorable performance—exemplifies the type of efficient scoring that sometimes gets overlooked in favor of flashier options. I've always believed that consistent 15-point contributors are often more valuable than players who score 25 one night and 5 the next.
The most successful expansion teams in PBA history understood something crucial: statistics only tell part of the story. When UST's Mo Tounkara scored his 24 points, he did it within the flow of the offense—not by forcing shots. That's the kind of player who typically translates well to the professional level. Meanwhile, some of the highest-scoring FSAs on that list never quite found the same success in the PBA, often because their scoring came at the expense of team chemistry. That's why my third strategy—establishing clear hierarchy—is so critical. Players need to understand their roles from day one, or you end up with the kind of disjointed offense that plagues so many new franchises.
Looking at current PBA expansion teams, I'd estimate that about 60% of them make the same fundamental mistake: they try to replicate existing successful teams rather than building something unique to their personnel. The truth is, what worked for a team built around a dominant center like Papi Sarr won't necessarily work for a team constructed around a versatile forward like Soulemane Chabi Yo. Each roster has its own DNA, and the best GMs recognize and cultivate that rather than forcing players into uncomfortable roles. I've seen too many talented imports come through the PBA who put up impressive numbers but failed to elevate their teams—often because the coaching staff didn't build the system around their strengths.
The real revelation for me came when I compared the career trajectories of these high-scoring FSAs. Those who succeeded in the PBA typically played for coaches who understood how to maximize their skills while masking their weaknesses. For every Karim Abdul who transitioned successfully to the pros, there's another player with similar stats who struggled because he was placed in the wrong system. That's why my fourth strategy—prioritizing chemistry—is non-negotiable. The difference between a good team and a great one often comes down to how well the pieces fit together, not just how talented they are individually.
If I were building a PBA expansion team tomorrow, I'd start by identifying two cornerstone players who complement each other perfectly—perhaps a dominant big man in the mold of Charles Mammie and a versatile wing who can create his own shot. Then I'd surround them with role players who excel in specific areas: three-point shooting, perimeter defense, rebounding. The final piece would be finding a veteran leader who can stabilize the team during rough patches—someone who may not put up huge numbers but understands how to win. This approach has worked for successful franchises throughout PBA history, and I'm confident it would work today. The key is resisting the temptation to chase big names without considering how they'll mesh together on and off the court. After all, basketball remains a team sport, and the most impressive individual statistics don't always translate to wins.
