PDA

View Full Version : Revising PBA History



KobeWanKenobi
12-02-2008, 09:26 AM
The PBA has for a long time been a part of our conscious minds. And yet, up to know, PBA history needs revisions. The biggest and primary gripe with PBA history is the fact that franchise history aren't recorded correctly.

In the NBA, we know the Los Angeles Lakers started off as the Minneapolis Lakers, which was bought by Jack Kent Cooke and transferred to LA. Later on, Jerry Buss bought the Lakers from Cooke. But despite who owned the team, the Lakers as a franchise counts all its titles and records from the Minneapolis Lakers years to the Los Angeles Lakers years.

That is not the case with the PBA. In the PBA, Crispa is a defunct team. When in reality, Crispa's franchise continues to exist.

True, Crispa as a team basically disbanded in 1985, but its franchise was bought by Shell. So the Crispa franchise lived on with Shell. Later on, Shell disbanded and was bought by Welcoat. So basically, up to now Crispa/Shell still lives in the PBA in the form of Welcoat/Rain or Shine.

And that means, the titles and win loss records of Crispa and Shell should be counted under one franchise only. That means the Crispa/Shell/Welcoat franchise has won a grand total of 17 titles (13 with Crispa and 4 with Shell).

The same is true with Great Taste and Sta Lucia, Tanduay (Elizalde) and Purefoods, Pop/Swift/Sarsi and Coke. These teams trace their franchise from the original franchise they were bought from.

One exception. In 1985, San Miguel disbanded and Alaska took San Miguel's players. Alaska shouldn't trace its franchise with the original San Miguel team because:

1. San Miguel took a leave of absence.
2. Alaska was admitted as a new franchise.
3. San Miguel returned (with NCC players) by reactivating their franchise.

But in the end, it should not be the team owner but rather the franchise which the PBA keeps track of. Crispa's franchise is still alive, same with Great Taste, Tanduay of the Elizaldes, and Pop/Swift/Sarsi. And wouldn't it be a much more glorious history for the teams if the REAL franchise regardless of owner comes to fore?

Sam Miguel
12-02-2008, 10:07 AM
Kobe, I am a little confused with what you are saying.

I have always thought that when a team calls it quits for whatever reason, that team's franchise ceases to exist for me. Perhaps technically and legally I am in error, but it seems illogical to think that when a team's franchise is bought and then taken over by another organization that they still count titles from the old franchise / team. And I have always thought this way whether in the PBA or the NBA.

In the NBA I would perhaps make an exception, perhaps, and only because in the case of the Lakers and the Jazz that they retained the original team monicker. When the Lakers moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles and when the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Utah they retained the team names. In the case of the Oklahoma City Thunder, formerly the Seattle Super Sonics, I would no longer consider the Thunder along with the Sonics. To me those are now two completely different franchises.

Buying an existing franchise is actually more of a business decision on the part of an organization looking to get into professional sports such as in the PBA, i.e. it is relatively easier to get into the PBA by buying a franchise up for sale rather than to go through establishing an original franchise from scratch. Again, perhaps technically and legally the franchise as a juridical instrument that confers a certain status with duties and rights thereunto appurtenant, continues to exist but only under another name. But it cannot be denied that in reality there is a whole new organization that now owns and operates under that franchise.

It does not seem fair to have say the old Shell Rimula teams of Benjie Paras and Ronnie Magsanoc not have their own team history, team glory and team pride by simply sweeping all of their individual and team accomplishments under the Crispa Redmanizer rug.

In the same vein, it does not seem fair to say that the Double Grand Slam teams of Bogs Adornado, Atoy Co, Abet Guidaben and Philip Cezar should be extended into the team history, team glory and team pride all the way up to the latter day Shell teams.

My take on the matter is this: whoever presently owns and operates a franchise had little or nothing to do with the organization from which he bought said franchise. He is in fact looking to make his own mark, build up his own brand equity, grab his own market share, through participation in the PBA. He is looking to win his own championships, produce his own MVP's and Mythical 5 members, build his own dynasty even. The operational terms here are "HIS OWN".

Should Rain Or Shine win this ongoing PBA All Filipino Cup, does it not sound amiss to say for instance "Rain Or Shine has won its 18th (forgive me, I am not absolutely sure how many titles Crispa and Shell have between them, and I am in the office so surfing for that information will take more time...) PBA title!" How could they do that having been in the PBA only two full seasons? Because Shell and Crispa before them won all of the previous titles?

Therefore the records of the current franchise holder should never be an extension of the original and even other previous holder of said franchise.

The_Big_Cat
12-02-2008, 01:55 PM
The PBA has for a long time been a part of our conscious minds. And yet, up to know, PBA history needs revisions. The biggest and primary gripe with PBA history is the fact that franchise history aren't recorded correctly.

In the NBA, we know the Los Angeles Lakers started off as the Minneapolis Lakers, which was bought by Jack Kent Cooke and transferred to LA. Later on, Jerry Buss bought the Lakers from Cooke. But despite who owned the team, the Lakers as a franchise counts all its titles and records from the Minneapolis Lakers years to the Los Angeles Lakers years.

That is not the case with the PBA. In the PBA, Crispa is a defunct team. When in reality, Crispa's franchise continues to exist.

True, Crispa as a team basically disbanded in 1985, but its franchise was bought by Shell. So the Crispa franchise lived on with Shell. Later on, Shell disbanded and was bought by Welcoat. So basically, up to now Crispa/Shell still lives in the PBA in the form of Welcoat/Rain or Shine.

And that means, the titles and win loss records of Crispa and Shell should be counted under one franchise only. That means the Crispa/Shell/Welcoat franchise has won a grand total of 17 titles (13 with Crispa and 4 with Shell).

The same is true with Great Taste and Sta Lucia, Tanduay (Elizalde) and Purefoods, Pop/Swift/Sarsi and Coke. These teams trace their franchise from the original franchise they were bought from.

One exception. In 1985, San Miguel disbanded and Alaska took San Miguel's players. Alaska shouldn't trace its franchise with the original San Miguel team because:

1. San Miguel took a leave of absence.
2. Alaska was admitted as a new franchise.
3. San Miguel returned (with NCC players) by reactivating their franchise.

But in the end, it should not be the team owner but rather the franchise which the PBA keeps track of. Crispa's franchise is still alive, same with Great Taste, Tanduay of the Elizaldes, and Pop/Swift/Sarsi. And wouldn't it be a much more glorious history for the teams if the REAL franchise regardless of owner comes to fore?


Ikumpara mo na lang ang PBA franchise sa isang membership card. Kung ayaw mo na maglaro sa association, binibigay ang membership card mo sa panibagong player na gustong maglaro sa association.

KobeWanKenobi
12-02-2008, 02:44 PM
Kobe, I am a little confused with what you are saying.

I have always thought that when a team calls it quits for whatever reason, that team's franchise ceases to exist for me. Perhaps technically and legally I am in error, but it seems illogical to think that when a team's franchise is bought and then taken over by another organization that they still count titles from the old franchise / team. And I have always thought this way whether in the PBA or the NBA.


That's not true. In order for a company to play in the PBA, it has to be granted a franchise by the PBA.

One of the faster ways of joining the PBA is to buy the existing franchise of an existing team. That is what Shell did when Crispa disbanded. They bought Crispa's franchise

Basically, a franchise is the team itself along with the rights to play in the PBA. Whether it retains the players or not, the team remains in existence if the franchise is bought by someone else.



In the NBA I would perhaps make an exception, perhaps, and only because in the case of the Lakers and the Jazz that they retained the original team monicker. When the Lakers moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles and when the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Utah they retained the team names. In the case of the Oklahoma City Thunder, formerly the Seattle Super Sonics, I would no longer consider the Thunder along with the Sonics. To me those are now two completely different franchises.


Here is a sampling of teams in the NBA that enjoyed a change of location and/or monicker.

Denver Rockets/Denver Nuggets
Philadelphia Warriors/San Francisco Warriors/Golden State Warriors
Buffalo Braves/San Diego Clippers/Los Angeles Clippers
Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers
Rochester Royals/Cincinatti Royals/Kansas City Omaha Kings/Kansas City Kings/Sacramento Kings
Chicago Packers/Chicago Zephyrs/Baltimore Bullets/Capitol Bullets/Washington Bullets/Washington Wizards

As you can see, whether it be a monicker change or a location change or both, the franchise history remains. The current Oklahoma City Thunder will always consider the Seattle Supersonics as part of its history. That's how the NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL consider team histories.



Buying an existing franchise is actually more of a business decision on the part of an organization looking to get into professional sports such as in the PBA, i.e. it is relatively easier to get into the PBA by buying a franchise up for sale rather than to go through establishing an original franchise from scratch. Again, perhaps technically and legally the franchise as a juridical instrument that confers a certain status with duties and rights thereunto appurtenant, continues to exist but only under another name. But it cannot be denied that in reality there is a whole new organization that now owns and operates under that franchise.


Isn't that the same as the NBA? Buying a team is a business decision. And more so in the NBA because NBA teams are money making entities compared with PBA teams.

As you yourself said, the franchise continues to exist albeit with a different name. So why put a disconnect on the franchise itself by disconnecting it from its real history.

Just because the Floros sold their franchise to Shell who later sold their franchise to the Welbest franchise doesn't mean there are three franchises that existed. There is only one franchise but with three different owners.

Same case as in the NBA. The original Minnesota Lakers were bought by Jack Kent Cooke and bought to LA. The same LA team was later bought by Jerry Buss. At least three different owners. But the franchise is still the same and thus their history remains the same.



It does not seem fair to have say the old Shell Rimula teams of Benjie Paras and Ronnie Magsanoc not have their own team history, team glory and team pride by simply sweeping all of their individual and team accomplishments under the Crispa Redmanizer rug.

In the same vein, it does not seem fair to say that the Double Grand Slam teams of Bogs Adornado, Atoy Co, Abet Guidaben and Philip Cezar should be extended into the team history, team glory and team pride all the way up to the latter day Shell teams.


Why would it be unfair for Paras and Magsanoc? Every franchise has its day in the sun and that does not diminish the accomplishments of the other generations.

Going back to the Lakers example. Are George Mikan and the original members of the Minneapolis Lakers shortchanged for being lumped in the same category as Laker greats like Magic Johnson, Jerry West, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain and the like?

In fact, being lumped together makes Mikan and his teammates even greater by being part of an even greater team. Making Paras and Magsanoc part of a 17 championship franchise is much better than making them a part of a 4 championship franchise.

There's not even a disconnect between Shell and Crispa. The original members of Shell in fact were Crispa stalwarts Philip Cezar, Bernard Fabiosa and Willie Pearson. They were joined by former Crispa star Bogs Adornado.



My take on the matter is this: whoever presently owns and operates a franchise had little or nothing to do with the organization from which he bought said franchise. He is in fact looking to make his own mark, build up his own brand equity, grab his own market share, through participation in the PBA. He is looking to win his own championships, produce his own MVP's and Mythical 5 members, build his own dynasty even. The operational terms here are "HIS OWN".

Should Rain Or Shine win this ongoing PBA All Filipino Cup, does it not sound amiss to say for instance "Rain Or Shine has won its 18th (forgive me, I am not absolutely sure how many titles Crispa and Shell have between them, and I am in the office so surfing for that information will take more time...) PBA title!" How could they do that having been in the PBA only two full seasons? Because Shell and Crispa before them won all of the previous titles?

Therefore the records of the current franchise holder should never be an extension of the original and even other previous holder of said franchise.


If owners want to make a name for themselves, then explain to me why Jerry Buss did not rename the Lakers when he bought it from Jack Kent Cooke? Why the current owners did not dis-assocciate themselves from the Celtics that won eight straight in the 1960s?

Besides, if we use your argument, then San Miguel only has 16 legitimate titles, not 17. Because there's a disconnect between the 1975 to 1985 San Miguel Beer team who won two titles and then disbanded to the 1986 to Present San Miguel Beer team which was basically based originally from the NCC team which also won one title in the PBA as a guest team.

The answer here is history my friend, history.

Remember the saying, "ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay di makararating sa paroroonan." By making the franchise history richer and deeper, you make the franchise worth even more.

Kid Cubao
12-03-2008, 09:38 AM
kobewankenobi has a point, though. however, we must also realize that the NBA is governed by economics that may be distinctly different from that of the local pro league. the most striking difference is that a PBA club exists to market the mother company's product lines. crispa is/was in the t-shirt and fabric business, toyota in motor vehicles, san miguel in the food and beverage business. supposing that shell bought their PBA franchise from crispa, what sense would there be from shell's marketing standpoint that they were continuing the winning tradition of crispa? eh di ang lalabas dyan, shell pa ang nakiki-ride on sa pangalan ng crispa. baka crispa pa ang mas makilala kesa yung shell azodrin bokbusters.

in terms of historical revisionism, i don't think there ever was, because in the PBA context, any ballclub begins its history upon the assumption of ownership. if a franchise changes hands, then the new owners will begin their own history. look, did we ever see crispanatics shifting their allegiance to shell? no. it's all about economics--if the NBA rewards continuity, the PBA doesn't.

KobeWanKenobi
12-03-2008, 02:49 PM
Actually, while the NBA and the PBA has slightly different economic models, the PBA on its part can actually enhance its own economic model by doing things differently. Its the PBA's right to put additional value on what it owns.

By associating history to a franchise, its technically adding more value to a franchise. In return, that franchise gets more valuable for both the future seller and the buyer.

Kid Cubao
12-03-2008, 03:24 PM
in time, yes, when the existing ballclubs would have been celebrating their milestone years without any changes in ownership. again, it's the ballclub's prerogative whether to honor tradition by tracing their roots to earlier teams that have had championship success.

but like i said, if it will inadvertently result in any amount of free publicity and marketing mileage to another business interest, then it most probably won't. ganun talaga. they'd rather add value to the name and reputation of their respective ballclubs by achieving success on their own. eventually, they will associate history if they stay long enough in the business.

by the way, crispa attempted a comeback some years ago in the PBL. yes, they honored tradition by harking back to the great players of the dalupan and manotoc years. unfortunately it did not lead to PBL success.

KobeWanKenobi
12-03-2008, 05:20 PM
I don't think that should be a problem. For instance, would the Welbest franchise be concerned about Crispa getting credit? I don't think so since Crispa has stopped manufacturing. Would it be concerned about Shell getting some credit? I also don't think so since any future success by Rain or Shine adds to the mystique and tradition of their franchise. Its a win-win scenario since they're not competitors anyhow.

One good example is Ginebra. Not everyone likes to drink chemical tasted alcoholic drinks or are concerned with Anejo (is it still being sold), Gilbey's Gin, or St. George Whiskey. But it has transcended from being a product team to a franchise team, slightly foregoing promotion of a product to naming its team as a franchise, ergo the name Barangay Ginebra. There's now less emphasis on the product and more emphasis on the franchise.

In fact, its now the Ginebra spirit/tradition. No matter who's playing, what's important is "never say die".

That's what I'm suggesting. It worked with Ginebra, why wouldn't it work with other franchises.

RockLobster
12-03-2008, 07:10 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with all the technicalities, but for a layman like me, a spectator, a fan, I'm not sure if it makes sense for me to hear Don Dulay say that he's a "champion player" of a Welcoat, a "champion team", just because they trace their franchise back to Crispa. I don't think that's fair to Atoy Co, Abet Guidaben, Philip Cezar, Bernie Fabiosa, and to the rest of the real champion players of Crispa. Actually, I'm not so sure if I care about the franchise at all--shouldn't it be just about the team? From the looks of it, a franchise is just a license to play in the league, and enjoy commercial benefits, nothing more. The intagibles are what counts, and that's championships won by the team, and not claimed by merely buying the franchise.

KobeWanKenobi
12-03-2008, 10:49 PM
That's absurd. You can't claim to be a champion if you haven't won yourself. That's reaching for something you never even tasted.

For example, the late great Boston Celtic Reggie Lewis can't, if he was alive, can't claim to be a champion even though the Celtics have won 17 titles because the Celtics never won a title while he was playing. The only claim to fame he can assert, is that he played for a franchise with a winning tradition.

A local example would be Gabe Norwood. If the PBA revised the franchise history, the only claim he can come up with is the fact that he played for a franchise that has had a history of winning.

But if you do win a championship, you can lay claim to the tradition of excellence your forebears earned. So Kevin Garnett can brag to the world that he is one part of the Boston Celtic championship teams. Same argument for Norwood should Rain or Shine win a championship in the future.

RockLobster
12-04-2008, 12:12 AM
^But that follows you're initial argument. But hey, admitedly it's a layman's perspective, and just now, I'm understanding what you're trying to say.

I think the issue is that the concept of a PBA franchise is somewhat different from that of the NBA (sorry I haven't had a chance to go through the other comments so I'm not sure if this has already been pointed out). In the NBA, the franchise and the team are almost inseparable, that it's a business operation in itself. Here, the franchise is a mere agreement or contract, the team operates under a corporation, and the basketball "operation" is not necessarily a legal entity by itself; it is not even the core business of the corporation that owns it, but merely part of its marketing or sales or public relations arm.

I guess what I'm driving at is that counting championships falls under the corporate or team concept, not the franchise. For example (and I have to admit my initial illustration may not have been the right one), the Welcoat owners can't--and probably won't--say that their "franchise" has won a total of 17 titles, because they can only speak for Welcoat as their team, and neither for Crispa nor Shell.

KobeWanKenobi
12-04-2008, 12:57 AM
I could care less of what a corporation thinks with respect to the number of championships it has won. Heck, if they think they only won one championship, that's what they can lay claim to. What I care about is the number of championships a franchise in the PBA has won.

Because the franchise is the team regardless of what corporation owns it. This is the same whether it be PBA or NBA. In the PBA, a single corporation owns a team. In the NBA, the only difference is that the owner could be a single person, a single corporation, a consortium of investors, or a company. But regardless of the owner, in the end, what is important is the franchise and its history.

A franchise deserves just as much recognition as a corporation deserves recognition for winning a championship. It is in that regard that the PBA has disregarded or belittled its own history.

My point is this. If the PBA adds more historical value to a franchise, both the franchise and the PBA wins.

Because a franchise with a solid history of success then transcends the corporation owning it, and becomes an identity in itself bringing more loyal fans. More loyal fans help bring more revenue for both the league and the corporation owning the team that has these fans.

Think about Jack Nicholson supporting the Lakers no matter who owned it. Then apply it to the PBA where the closest thing to a franchise with loyal followers is Ginebra. Then multiply it several-fold. Now you got a recipe that contributes to more success for the league.

Paul of Bataan
12-04-2008, 01:07 PM
but the thing is, the franchise AND THE BRAND kept changing hands. there's no point in drawing a PBA team's historical roots without turning it into an exercise of reductio ad absurdum.

to wit, let's ask benjie paras if he ever played for crispa. i bet he'll say he played for shell, not for the team shell originally bought the franchise from. if his answers otherwise, you can have my kate and edith too ;D

KobeWanKenobi
12-04-2008, 01:35 PM
Just because a franchsie changed hands doesn't mean the franchise is no longer the same. Changing hands means changing owners. Changing owners mean the franchise is still the same, the only thing different is the owners.

Of course Paras won't say he played for Crispa. But he can say that he played for a franchise that was once owned by Crispa.

And then he can say that he was part of a legacy of success that was first seen under the ownership of Crispa and continued under the ownership of Shell.

What's absurd here is denying the truth that the current Rain or Shine franchise, even though it changed hands, can historical be traced back to its original owner Crispa.

Paul of Bataan
12-04-2008, 02:00 PM
Of course Paras won't say he played for Crispa. But he can say that he played for a franchise that was once owned by Crispa.

And then he can say that he was part of a legacy of success that was first seen under the ownership of Crispa and continued under the ownership of Shell.

the thing is, he won't. and i bet neither would ronnie magsanoc.

RockLobster
12-04-2008, 08:17 PM
What's absurd here is denying the truth that the current Rain or Shine franchise, even though it changed hands, can historical be traced back to its original owner Crispa.


Out of technicality, yes. But if one does hear that from a Rain or Shine representative, whether it's the owner or a player, I'm sure the reaction would sound like this: "Really? If I remember correctly, Crispa won two grand slams; you got your 12th win in three conferences just yesterday. That doesn't seem to be much of a team that traces it's franchise roots to the great Redmanizers."

danny
12-05-2008, 04:59 AM
The legal franchise remained intact but the* owner of the* frachise changed hands already. In the Philippines, the franchise is not the team itself but just a legal* slot ,with all the rights, vacated by the former owner.

When commentators refer to a ball club as a "franchise", I assume they are referring to the Brand or the corporate image and not the legal franchise per se. The legal franchise is nothing* but a "slot", a vacuum to be filled when the current owner could not fulfill their role. The owner of this legal PBA franchise can name his team whatever he wants to. If there were consecutive name changes, then go ahead and connect the roots of ball club.

When Toyota gave up their slot, their legal franchise,* say in favor of Honda,* I suppose the new owner will use Honda and not Toyota.* In the Philippines, teams are named according to brands that the owners of the legal franchise seem fit. No "franchise" in the American sense exists here. The dream is to have a US style business model. It's not even an appropriate model for obvious reasons.

No need to revise THEIR history. We are already bombarded with too much "branding". Besides, if these corporations believe it will add value to their products, they will do it themselves. Let us not underestimate the power of capital in planning for their perpetual asset accumulation. I for one do not care about their corporate history. It's THEIR history, not my people's history anyway. Unless of course I work for their corporation. :)

Joescoundrel
12-05-2008, 08:26 AM
Crispa - Shell - Welbest. This is a case of totally and wholly different and distinct organizations / corporations who took over a franchise, Shell from Crispa, Welbest from Shell.

Gilbey's Gin - Ginebra San Miguel - Anejo Rhum - Gordon's Gin - Barangay Ginebra. This is a different case, where only the name / monicker of the team changed but the franchise was not turned over to a different organization / corporation. (Let us not be confused when the San Miguel Corporation bought up Distelleria La Tondena Incorporada sometime in the early 1990's, that was a totally different transaction done outside the PBA)

And I'm with Paul Of Bataan on this: Surely two-time MVP Benjie Paras and Ronnie Magsanoc would never ever claim they played for Crispa, neither would Gabe Norwood ever claim "his franchise" has already won two Grand Slams as explained by RockLobster. Heck I'll bet if we asked Philip Cezar he would never say he played for Crispa after 1985, since in fact he was absorbed by Shell after Shell took the franchise.

I believe what we have here is what is known in Parliamentary Debate as a "Definitional Challenge", more specifically, what is meant by the term "franchise" in the specific sense of the PBA.

By franchise do we mean a legal instrument or document or contract of some kind that grants an organization the right to field a team in PBA competitions and place a representative on the PBA Board and other rights and duties, i.e. one must have a franchise to be in the PBA?

Or by franchise do we specifically mean a particular team, i.e. the Crispa franchise or the Toyota franchise?

Or is there some other definition?

nastrans
12-05-2008, 11:57 AM
In the case of the NFL's Cleveland Browns, when the old Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens, the agreement was that the city retained the team name, colors, championships, franchise history, etc. while the relocated team was considered as an expansion team.

Perhaps in the league's case, it is the call of the succeeding owners if they would recognize the lineage but from a normal fan, Rain or Shine is more associated with their success in the PBL than their original lineage which was the famed Crispa Redmanizers.

RockLobster
12-05-2008, 12:26 PM
^Totally agree, and by "original lineage" we only mean the franchise that was taken over from, not the original team's championship tradition.

KobeWanKenobi
12-06-2008, 01:50 AM
@Paul and Joe

Of course Paras and Magsanoc won't accept it because they accept the history as thought to them. There's a saying, history is written by the victors or in our case, history was written by the buyers.

But

The real history doesn't have to follow what the victors say or what the new owners decide. History should be decided by the truth.

And the truth of the matter is, there are franchises whose tradition goes back further than what the current owners say. And as custodians of what we know is the truth, let what is right come out.

@Nastrans and Rocklobster

Cleveland comes as an exception and not the norm because the league, the fans and the city wanted to keep the team in Cleveland but the owners wanted to move to Baltimore. The norm for all leagues is that when a team changes owners and/or location, the previous history moves with the franchise.

As pointed out to me by another poster (Percival O. Flores) in another forum (MyPBA), the Oakland As and the Baltimore Orioles of MLB both ignore their predecessors' history. But in the eyes of the MLB historians, they link the history of the Orioles and As with their previous locations. So even though the owners don't consider the previous history of the franchise, the league considers the true history franchise.

Which is what I hope the PBA would do. Rewrite the history of the franchise as what it really is. If corporations only acknowledge the history under their ownership, let the corporations do so. But for any official PBA publication or any PBA approved news report, the real franchise history should come out.

@joescoundrel

To answer your question, in the eyes of the PBA, a franchise is a, as you would say, "a legal instrument or document or contract of some kind that grants an organization the right to field a team in PBA competitions and place a representative on the PBA Board and other rights and duties."

Which is why in the PBA, there's what they call a franchise fee for corporations wanting to start an expansion team in the PBA. On the other hand, a corporation owning an existing team may sell its franchise to a new buyer.

Take note the term, sell the franchise. Which means, no new franchise was created, but rather a transfer of ownership of the franchise. So in essence, this is not a scenario where the old franchise was destroyed and a new one created but rather a continuous existence of a franchise under different owners.

Which thus goes back to my point. Addressing the real history of the franchise from its inception to the present including the previous and current owners.

KobeWanKenobi
12-06-2008, 02:06 AM
By the way, here's an analogy.

Since the beginning of time, or rather since the time the landmasses of earth became what it looks like right now, there was a group of 7,107 islands populated by various groups of clans, tribes, etc.

Around the 1500s a new owner of these islands came in, and the owner is Spain and they named it the Philippines or Islands of King Phillip II.

Around the late 1800s a new owner took the Philippine Islands from Spain and it is the United States of America.

In the 1940s, the Philippine islands were forcibly taken by Japan from the USA.

In 1945, the US of A again took possession of the Philippine islands.

In 1946, the natives of the 7,107 islands took ownership of the Philippine Islands and renamed it Republic of the Philippines.

Now tell me, when we discuss the history of the Philippines as a nation, do we discuss it only from 1946?

No.

We discuss it from the earliest possible time. The time of Magellan and Lapu-Lapu when in fact during that time, there wasn't even a nation of the Philippines to speak of.

Joescoundrel
12-06-2008, 08:41 AM
^ Well then, by that same logical extension, when we speak of basketball in China we should then probably say something like this...

"Chinese basketball goes through Wang Zhizhi and Yao Ming. And they trace their basketball roots all the way to Adam and Eve, yes all the way even to the ancient lands of Om and Ur..." ;D

KobeWanKenobi
12-06-2008, 11:40 PM
How can there be a logical extension on your argument when basketball wasn't even invented during the time of Adam and Eve?

danny
12-07-2008, 01:16 AM
There are different ways and interpretations in approaching Philippine history.* You have Zaide's data entry, Agoncillo's sociology and Constantino's anti-imperialist approach. You can also add JoMa's PSR, a poor man's Maoist approach.

In the PBA you want* your US style "franchise approach", the Team as the product and brand* itself complete with it's history.

Anyway, from a business perspective, enumerate to us the barriers to such US-style model. You'll then have an idea why this model won't fly, on why the PBA never bothered to adopt this revisionist history.

blue scorpion
12-07-2008, 05:28 PM
The real history doesn't have to follow what the victors say or what the new owners decide. History should be decided by the truth.

And the truth of the matter is, there are franchises whose tradition goes back further than what the current owners say. And as custodians of what we know is the truth, let what is right come out.



But truth is relative. Therefore, so is history. It is relative to the person writing the history. For example, the pro-EDSA 2 forces may consider the revolution in 2001 as just, constitutional and the people's mandate for change. On the other hand, the anti-EDSA 2 forces have been claiming that it was unconstitutional, a mistake, a lesson learned and has no place in a democratic world. Same goes for other historical events. A German will have a different take on the World Wars and so will an American. The Japanese will have a different take on World War 2 and so on. A person writing Taiwan's history and a person writing the People's Republic of China's history will have a different view on the Chinese civil war.

Going back to the PBA, the PBA and the NBA are business establishments. In order to make money they use different approaches. In the NBA, the NBA teams are like production companies and the NBA is the movie house. Production companies invest millions of dollars in making a motion picture so that the motion picture will be as entertaining as it can be. The production company earns money through ticket revenue, sponsorships and non-pirated DVDs/ VCDs. Same goes for the NBA teams. The NBA owners spend millions of dollars in order to have a popular team who when they play, they can sell out the entire arena, fill up the commercial slots in tv, receive a lot of sponsorships like Gatorade and sell team paraphernalia. Therefore, you will really ride on the history of the team. If the team has won numerous championships like the Celtics, naturally, you will mention and acknowledge that because a winning team with a good basketball tradition will really sell.

Now if the production company got new ownership, like let us say Bill Gates buys Warner Bros. It is still the same production company with a different owner and maybe with a different name if the name is changed. However, it is still the same production company. Same case with the NBA team. A new owner comes and the team gets a new name but it is still the same basketball team.

On the other hand, the PBA teams are like billboards and the PBA is the owner of the said billboards. In billboards, the companies spend millions of pesos just to advertize there product in the said billboard. So that people who are riding their cars or in the streets can see the companies in the said billboard. The companies earn money through the increase in demand caused by the billboard advertisement. In the PBA, a similar thing happens. The company owners pay millions of pesos in order to pay for the players' salaries and other operational costs just so that they can have the company name in front of the jerseys and in order for the basketball team to carry the company name wherever it goes. The PBA team owners earn money through the sales increase caused by the name recall and advertisement in the PBA basketball team.

Now, supposing a tobacco company stops advertising in a billboard and a shoe company starts advertising in the said billboard, will it matter to the present shoe company or to the present group of consumers that a tobacco company once advertized in the said billboard? No. For them, the two companies are different. One sells tabacco and one sells shoes. the time is the tobacco company advertized in the said billboard is the past and the time the shoe company's advertisement in the said billboard is the present. Do we need to show that the two companies share a common history through the common billboard? Same case for the PBA. The time Crispa owned the PBA team was the distant past. The time Shell owned the PBA team was the recent past and the time Welcoat owns the PBA is the present. Can we say that they are the same team especially since the have different products and different target markets? Shell sells petroleum while Welcoat sells paint. Crispa....I really do now the nature of their business as I was not yet born in their era in PBA basketball. Shell targets all kinds of drivers and automobile owners as their market while Welcoat targets the constuction companies, construction workers and hardware store owners as their market.

Kid Cubao
12-08-2008, 09:59 AM
tuloy pa rin pala ang usapan ;D

basta ang sa akin, the NBA is governed by a different set of economics from the PBA. it so happened that the NBA rewards continuity and tradition, while the PBA rewards the here and now, and as has been stated many times over, because of the league's marketing muscle especially in the provinces. the only way for a franchise to honor its history is if stays long enough, and if ever they have a tradition to commemorate.

now the connection between rain or shine and crispa: yan ang saksakan ng labo. what's better is to trace the lineage of crispa to its MICAA days, since a number of its PBA pioneers were holdovers from the older league like narciso bernardo and haba-haba abbarientos. sa halimbawang ito, malinaw na taglay ng PBA crispa ang tradisyon ng tagumpay mula pa nung nasa MICAA sila.

The_Big_Cat
12-08-2008, 12:44 PM
^Akala ko din tapos na ang boxing. ;D