I still remember opening the PBA official website that December morning in 2018, scrolling through the final standings with that familiar mix of anticipation and anxiety. As a longtime basketball analyst who's followed the Philippine Basketball Association for over a decade, I've developed what you might call a love-hate relationship with their ranking system. That particular season stands out in my memory because it perfectly illustrated what made the PBA's approach both fascinating and, at times, downright confusing for fans and analysts alike.
The 2018 season featured twelve teams competing across three conferences - the Philippine Cup, Commissioner's Cup, and Governors' Cup - with San Miguel Beer ultimately dominating the landscape. What many casual observers don't realize is that the PBA doesn't use a straightforward win-loss percentage across the entire season to determine rankings. Instead, they employed what the league officials called a 'tiered, merit-based structure' that created some interesting dynamics. I've always found this system intriguing, though I'll admit it sometimes left me scratching my head when trying to explain it to newcomers. The basic framework divided teams into different tiers based on their conference performances, with varying weight given to each tournament.
Looking at the raw numbers, San Miguel Beer finished with the best overall record at 27-11, followed closely by Magnolia Hotshots at 26-12. These two teams consistently performed well across all conferences, which speaks volumes about their organizational depth and coaching stability. What impressed me most about San Miguel was their remarkable consistency - they never dropped below the top four in any conference. Meanwhile, teams like Barangay Ginebra finished third overall at 24-14, showing significant improvement in the latter half of the season. As someone who values team development, I found Ginebra's progression particularly satisfying to watch.
The middle of the pack told a more complicated story. Alaska Aces and Rain or Shine both finished at 22-16, but their paths to that record differed dramatically. Alaska started strong but faded in the final conference, while Rain or Shine did the opposite. This is where the tiered system really came into play - a team's final standing wasn't just about their win total, but about when those wins occurred and in which conferences. I've always felt this approach unfairly penalizes teams that peak early, though I understand the league's desire to maintain excitement throughout the season.
Then we have the struggling franchises - Blackwater Elite at 13-25, Phoenix at 12-26, and the bottom-dwelling Kia Picanto (now Terrafirma) with a dismal 5-33 record. Having watched Kia struggle throughout that season, I genuinely felt for their fans. Their 17-game losing streak at one point was tough to witness, and it highlighted the competitive imbalance that occasionally plagues the league. While the tiered system aims to reward excellence, it can sometimes exacerbate the struggles of developing franchises.
What fascinates me about analyzing these standings years later is how they both revealed and concealed team quality. The 'merit-based structure' the league implemented meant that not all wins carried equal weight - victories in the Philippine Cup, for instance, counted more heavily toward certain tiebreakers and seeding advantages. This created situations where teams might strategically rest players in less consequential games, something I've never been entirely comfortable with as a purist who believes every game should matter equally.
The tiered approach also impacted playoff seeding in ways that casual fans might not have noticed. A team like TNT KaTropa finished with a respectable 21-17 record but found themselves with a tougher playoff path due to the conference-based weighting system. Meanwhile, GlobalPort (now NorthPort) at 16-22 managed to secure a more favorable position in certain playoff scenarios because of their strong performance in specific conferences. This inconsistency in how teams were evaluated based on the same win-loss records remains one of my biggest criticisms of the system.
Reflecting on that season's standings today, I'm struck by how accurately they predicted some franchise trajectories while completely missing others. San Miguel's dominance continued for years, while some middle-tier teams like Alaska never quite reached that elite level again. The standings also failed to capture the narrative of teams on the rise - the 2018 season didn't adequately highlight the potential of teams like Columbian Dyip (now Terrafirma), who showed flashes of competitiveness despite their 9-29 record.
As I look back at that final standings sheet, what stays with me isn't just the numbers but the stories they told - and the stories they missed. The PBA's tiered system created a competitive landscape that was simultaneously transparent and opaque, rewarding certain types of team building while penalizing others. While I appreciate the league's attempt to create meaningful competition throughout the season, I've come to believe that a simpler, more straightforward ranking system might better serve both the teams and their passionate fans. The 2018 season will always represent, in my mind, both the promise and limitations of the PBA's approach to determining who truly ranks where.