Jump to content

Has All Century Team Been Announced?


Billboy1

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Overall not a bad list. I was scratching my head at the inclusion of Dan Miller and Jack Mimlitz, but each made 1st team all conference one year and 2nd team all conference another, and each played on a championship team (Miller on the 1948 NIT champs, Mimlitz on the 1957 MVC champs).

Lisch and Highmark should not have made it at the expense of Harry Rogers, David Burns, and even Marque Perry.

Rogers especially is a terrible snub. 2-time 1st team all conference. Played for a co-regular season conference champion. All-time leading scorer in the era when guys could only play 3 years. Highest single season PPG 24.5 in 1973.

Burns made the 1000 point club in just 54 (!) games and owns the highest career PPG (min 2 season) in school history at 19.4. Burns made 1st team all-conference each of his 2 seasons - including a year when SLU's conference featured the national champion.

Marque Perry - like Burns and Rogers - made 1st team all-conference in a conference that sent a team to the Final 4.

Highmark and Lisch were local kids who came on board and stuck it out when the program was in turmoil. They're 5th and 6th on the scoring list. While neither made 1st team all-conference, they did receive all-conference recognition in multiple seasons. I don't fault people for voting for them.

No offense to Grawer or his fan club, but I was pleasantly surprised by the coaching selection of Hickey, Spoonhour, and Majerus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had problems with the inclusions on the initial list. On some points the voting went better than I thought in that recent player didn't dominate the voting.

Still something I hadn't anticipated, old timers dominating the voting. Frankly not the right old timers either.

I believe Miller is still around and was at tonight's game. A lot of the older people around me stood up and looked in his direction. He was one of the worst players on the initial list and should not have made it this far. Miller may not be one of the 50 best Billikens, much less 16. I know stats are skewed but he shot 25% in his career. He wasn't known as a shooter, but still.

Mimlitz is a better player than Miller but once again does not belong in the final 16. Both these guys have been fixtures in the SLU and larger St. Louis community and get points for that. Harry Rogers is very much the same but was rudely snubbed. Funny.

I could do without Monroe Douglas as well. He's not top 16. Neither is Kevin Lisch. Joe Wiley is borderline. Roland is as well.

The biggest snub is Rogers. He is at the very least one of the top 5 players to ever put on a SLU uniform and could very well be top 3. David Burns is the other major snub. I would rate him as the best PG in SLU history. Others who belong Ray Steiner, Big Rich, Jimmy Irving, Kelvin Henderson, maybe McKinney and Perry. Of course Love belongs I believe in the top 16 but wasn't even on the initial list and Dobbs should be in the conversation, definitely top 25.

Voting certainly appeared to be skewed to 80s players, ie Douglas and players pre 60. Wiley is the only player included from 60-84. That is ridiculous. Historically I believe Douglas, Lisch, Wiley are the most overrated Billikens in history, while players like Burns, Rogers, Irving, et al are grossly underrated.

Much like MLB did when Stan the Man wasn't included on their All Century team I hope SLU makes an exception and adds a school choice in Harry Rogers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Rogers should definitely be on the team. One can make an argument on who should and shouldn't be on the team.

There should be no discussion about Harry- He should be on the team. A Great Billikan

Very much agreed- Harry Rogers should be on this team, no question, averaged 24.5 PPG in '72-'73, 1,491 career points in 3 years during a time when freshmen were ineligible to play on the varsity, played on a team that finished in a 3 way tie for the MVC title in '71. He was the star of the team in the early '70's.

Harry Rogers was also a SLU Assistant Coach under Ekker. The omission of Harry Rogers from this fine All-Century Team venture really stands out.

My opinion is David Burns (19.4 PPG for his career, #1 in school history, shared Metro Conference player of the year honors), Lewis McKinney, Marque Perry, and Jim Irving should also be on this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet is the online voting had little to no impact on who actually made the team and that makes the fact that certain players were excluded even more inexcusable.

Are you suggesting the Athletic Dept. just made up the team? In my mind that doesn't explain Mimlitz or Miller. For those 2 to be included I would think their family and friends stuffed the ballot box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been coming to all the games since 78 and the best three Billikens I've seen are Hughes, Burns and Bonner. Burns has to make the list. H es was co conference player of the year with Darnell Griffith( I believe Griffith was player of the year in college basketball, but only co player of the year in the conference, that's how good Burns was)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Rogers and Jimmy Irving were better players than most who were selected. Both should have been included. Monroe Douglas I think was overrated. Douglas improved little after his freshman season. Grawer complained that he did not work on his game during the summer. How Miller got selected is a mystery to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting the Athletic Dept. just made up the team? In my mind that doesn't explain Mimlitz or Miller. For those 2 to be included I would think their family and friends stuffed the ballot box.

How do you come up with 16 players and 3 coaches without manipulation from the athletic department? I think Miller and Mimlitz made it because they are still around and well liked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were going to come up with a weird number like 16, they should have just made it 20. Then guys like Burns, Irving and Rogers could have been included. (Should have been anyway IMO.)

And I didn't vote for Hughes and don't think he should be on there.

And if you're gonna have 3 coaches, why not 4 and include Grawer?

The whole thing was a clunky mess as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you come up with 16 players and 3 coaches without manipulation from the athletic department? I think Miller and Mimlitz made it because they are still around and well liked.

Didn't the Post-Dispatch have a large say in it as well? Assuming they used the sports writers and the athletic department to make sure nothing was too skewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they know

If they were going to come up with a weird number like 16, they should have just made it 20. Then guys like Burns, Irving and Rogers could have been included. (Should have been anyway IMO.)

And I didn't vote for Hughes and don't think he should be on there.

And if you're gonna have 3 coaches, why not 4 and include Grawer?

The whole thing was a clunky mess as usual.

Agreed, very clunky. Why didn't they announce how many were going to be on the final team when voting started? I assumed there was only going to be five players and one coach, because that's what we voted for. Has there ever been a vote like this where the individual ballots allowed so few spots, with so many more spots on the final team?

I am very curious who the top vote-getting coach was, and who the top five players were. I wonder if they were embarrassed by the winners, and that's why they decided to expand things so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, very clunky. Why didn't they announce how many were going to be on the final team when voting started? I assumed there was only going to be five players and one coach, because that's what we voted for. Has there ever been a vote like this where the individual ballots allowed so few spots, with so many more spots on the final team?

I am very curious who the top vote-getting coach was, and who the top five players were. I wonder if they were embarrassed by the winners, and that's why they decided to expand things so much.

That's my take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...