Has All Century Team Been Announced?

[brianstl]

My guess is that five players and the coach that got the most votes were not embarrassing. I don't think they ever planned on going with the top five in the vote. The vote was just a way to get unique daily visitors.

They knew before the vote who would make the team and it was constructed to please as many people as possible.

My guess is if Grawer had a better relationship with the school they would have put him on there, too.

[hsmith19]

If the voting was a total farce and they unilaterally picked the players they thought would please everyone, I understand leaving Harry Rogers off even less. Miller and Mimlitz making it but not Rogers is random enough that I have to wonder about the ballot-stuffing theory.

It also wouldn't explain why they didn't announce ahead of the voting how big the final team would be.

[White Pelican]

Nobody starts out to name an all-star basketball team and decides there will be 16 players on it. This looks like the result of an all night smoke-filled room decision.

[slufan13]

I expected 5 players and 1 coach. I guess they didn't really say all time "starting lineup", but all american teams are just considered 5 guys so I don't really buy that excuse either. Even if they didn't do 5, 10 would have been fine. 16 just seems like a weird number and way too many people. Same with the coaches.

I also think the fans should not have made up the entire vote. Let people like Rammer and Earl carry a little more power in developing the team.

[slufan13]

Also could be unconnected but I wonder if they extended the voting another 5 days from the original deadline in hopes to get more votes for the more deserving guys

[hsmith19]

I wonder if somebody they considered important or really wanted to honor came in at #16. Otherwise that seems like a weird number.

[brianstl]

If the voting was a total farce and they unilaterally picked the players they thought would please everyone, I understand leaving Harry Rogers off even less. Miller and Mimlitz making it but not Rogers is random enough that I have to wonder about the ballot-stuffing theory.

It also wouldn't explain why they didn't announce ahead of the voting how big the final team would be.

To me the weirdest guy on the team is Monroe Douglass and I don't think he ended any where near the top five in votes. Stranger than Mimlitz and Miller. The guy was the third best player on a team that never went to the tournament. Actually, by his senior season he was the fourth best player on the team. Monroe is still in town and is pretty well liked.

Miller was the second best player on a team some consider the best team in the country in 1948 and finished ranked 3rd. Mimlitz might have been the best player on a team that finished ranked 10th in the country.

[hsmith19]

Douglass didn't surprise me very much, not just because he is well liked personally and shows up to the games, but also because the fans from that era always rave about what a great player he was. They don't seem to look at him as the third best player on that team so much as they mention Bonner, Gray, and Douglas as being this great three-headed beast. A lot of the fans who were around at the time still consider the NIT finals team a big deal, which I suspect also had a lot to do with the grassroots movement for Grawer on here. I never saw him play, so I don't how accurate that perception really is, but looking at the stats I would definitely expect better from the way I've heard people talk.

And actually, Miller wasn't on the '48-'49 team that finished ranked 3rd. He was on the team the year before that won the NIT, before there was an AP ranking. And for all the crap our fan base gets for tilting bluehair, I really doubt there are that many out there who remember a guy like Miller being a supporting player to Easy Ed 67 years ago. My 92-year-old grandpa (a Mizzou alum and fan) is probably one of the few around who does remember him, and he did not vote for him. Miller was not even a starter on that team, so I'm not sure why you'd call him second best over Lehman and Schmidt. Looking at the numbers, I don't really understand his All-Conference selection, and I definitely consider him showing up on the All-Century team a weird result.

[JMM28]

They should just have everyone on the all century team. Except Horace and Obi.

[slufan13]

Maybe one of the 3 coaches will run off a couple of the less deserving All Century Team members for someone more talented?

[JMM28]

Maybe one of the 3 coaches will run off a couple of the less deserving All Century Team members for someone more talented?

They'd have to run off some of the dead ones. And it probably would have to be Majerus, since he invented that concept for all of college basketball.

[brianstl]

Douglass didn't surprise me very much, not just because he is well liked personally and shows up to the games, but also because the fans from that era always rave about what a great player he was. They don't seem to look at him as the third best player on that team so much as they mention Bonner, Gray, and Douglas as being this great three-headed beast. A lot of the fans who were around at the time still consider the NIT finals team a big deal, which I suspect also had a lot to do with the grassroots movement for Grawer on here. I never saw him play, so I don't how accurate that perception really is, but looking at the stats I would definitely expect better from the way I've heard people talk.

And actually, Miller wasn't on the '48-'49 team that finished ranked 3rd. He was on the team the year before that won the NIT, before there was an AP ranking. And for all the crap our fan base gets for tilting bluehair, I really doubt there are that many out there who remember a guy like Miller being a supporting player to Easy Ed 67 years ago. My 92-year-old grandpa (a Mizzou alum and fan) is probably one of the few around who does remember him, and he did not vote for him. Miller was not even a starter on that team, so I'm not sure why you'd call him second best over Lehman and Schmidt. Looking at the numbers, I don't really understand his All-Conference selection, and I definitely consider him showing up on the All-Century team a weird result.

Where are you getting that he wasn't a starter from? He was a starter and team captain.

[SluSignGuy]

Maybe one of the 3 coaches will run off a couple of the less deserving All Century Team members for someone more talented?

[brianstl]

He was, also, a unanimous all conference pick the year before. The guy played in a different era where it was his job to run the offense first and not score.

[slufanskip]

Maybe one of the 3 coaches will run off a couple of the less deserving All Century Team members for someone more talented?

I don't think they should run them off ... However, if they privately let them know they won't be getting much love as Billiken All Century team member and will help them find another All Century team they may be more suited for, I don't have a problem with it

[ACE]

I don't think they should run them off ... However, if they privately let them know they won't be getting much love as Billiken All Century team member and will help them find another All Century team they may be more suited for, I don't have a problem with it

Sounds like this all century team is run by a bunch of meanies. If RM doesn't run off the Sodie 3, perhaps one of them blossoms into an all-century player.

[hsmith19]

Where are you getting that he wasn't a starter from? He was a starter and team captain.

I am going off what my grandpa told me. He went to all of the SLU/Mizzou games in both cities immediately before and after the War (as well as a few SLU games against other teams both at West Pine and Kiel), and said Lehman and Schmidt were the starting guards on the NIT team. Entirely possible he could have that wrong, but his recollection is borne out by the fact that Macauley, Wilcutt, Ossola, Lehman, and Schmitt are listed as the top five (in order) on the stat sheet for that year and in the old newspaper box scores I've seen:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/saint-louis/1948.html

On those old stat sheets and box scores (when the newspapers bothered to print any stats at all), the center's always listed first, then the two starting forwards, then the two starting guards, then the subs. I know he was a captain, and he may have started earlier in his career, but I'd be curious where you're getting that he started on the NIT championship team. My guess is his first-team all-conference selection was a nod to him as captain and senior leader of the league's best team. Lehman and Schmidt were both underclassmen, but were more important to that team.

[hsmith19]

He was, also, a unanimous all conference pick the year before. The guy played in a different era where it was his job to run the offense first and not score.

Right, and that likely played a role in him getting the nod the next year as well. I am not convinced he was the second or even third or fourth best player on that team. Miller was around (and probably started) in '45-'46, when Macauley was a freshman and the Bills were still not very good. It was only the next year when they got really good, when Lehman, Schmidt and Ossola joined the team and Wilcutt (the second leading scorer) came back from the War.

And for what it's worth, Lehman was first-team all-conference once and second team once, Schmidt was second team twice, and Wilcutt and Ossola were each second team once. I did find a bio of Lehman that claimed he came off the bench during the NIT, but that does not jive with the stat sheet. I suspect everyone now just assumes he must have been a starter on that team because he was captain.

[brianstl]

I am going off what my grandpa told me. He went to all of the SLU/Mizzou games in both cities immediately before and after the War (as well as a few SLU games against other teams both at West Pine and Kiel), and said Lehman and Schmidt were the starting guards on the NIT team. Entirely possible he could have that wrong, but his recollection is borne out by the fact that Macauley, Wilcutt, Ossola, Lehman, and Schmitt are listed as the top five (in order) on the stat sheet for that year and in the old newspaper box scores I've seen:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/saint-louis/1948.html

On those old stat sheets and box scores (when the newspapers bothered to print any stats at all), the center's always listed first, then the two starting forwards, then the two starting guards, then the subs. I know he was a captain, and he may have started earlier in his career, but I'd be curious where you're getting that he started on the NIT championship team. My guess is his first-team all-conference selection was a nod to him as captain and senior leader of the league's best team. Lehman and Schmidt were both underclassmen, but were more important to that team. Ossola and Miller were the only two seniors on that team, but they were not the best players from everything I have heard.

It looks like those list went by points scored and not starting center, starting forwards, and then starting guards. Here is Kentucky's for the same season:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/images/kentucky_1948_00000000030.jpg

[hsmith19]

Like I said, it is possible he has it wrong. Even aside from the question of who started and who came off the bench, though, I think it's a major stretch to call him the second best player on that team and a even bigger stretch to call him one of the 16 best Billikens ever when almost everyone who actually saw him play is dead.

[brianstl]

Like I said, it is possible he has it wrong. Even aside from the question of who started and who came off the bench, though, I think it's a major stretch to call him the second best player on that team and a even bigger stretch to call him one of the 16 best Billikens ever when almost everyone who actually saw him play is dead.

I don't think it is a stretch when you look at how he was viewed by the people that followed the game at the time.That was the best Billiken team ever. He was the second most decorated player on that team. If teams that didn't accomplish as close to as much as that team get two or three players on the team.......... I don't think it is a stretch to put Miller on that team. I don't think he should be punished because they didn't keep track of assists back then.

I think it hurts that we look at these old time players through the lens of today's game instead of taking the word of the people that actually followed the game back then. It is probably that mindset that kept Ray Steiner off the team despite the fact that he was an All American.

[thetorch]

Miller was a fine player. He is a HOFer but lets be serious, he made it because he is alive. Steiner was considered the better player. If he was picked I'd have no beef.

He was never the 2nd best player on those teams. He was a passer and defender. His skills don't translate to the game now.

Regardless the question is was he better than Harry Rogers? A definitive no. Miller was voted in out of a popularity contest by the blue hairs. If I was Harry Rogers I'd be pissed.

Its hard for us on this board, although we do have a couple slu amateur historians on here to defend the Miller pick. I'd like to see someone closer to that era defend him. I sat in 104 last night and saw a couple old timers reading the board on their phone and also stand and cheer when Miller was picked. If you are on the board defend the choice.

[hsmith19]

Were the old timers who cheered actually old enough to have seen him play?

I have always heard very persuasive arguments that the team the next year (the one with the #3 final ranking) was actually better overall, even though they inexplicably crapped out in the first round of the NIT. The only guys they lost were Miller and DC Wilcutt, who had some kind of eligibility issue after his military service. That '49 team beat Kentucky (the defending and eventual repeat NCAA champion) twice, including once at the Sugar Bowl "Championship." If they had won the NIT THAT year, then there would have been no room to doubt that they were the national champions that year, NCAA tournament be damned. The team from the previous year will always have to share their "championship" with Kentucky, who they didn't play that season.

I assume Ossola/Schmidt/Lehman are all dead. Because they have a better argument for the All-Century Team than Miller, considering they were a part of the best and second best SLU teams ever (however you want to rank them), not just one.

[brianstl]

Rodgers should be pissed and Steiner should be if he is still around.

[brianstl]

Torch did you get the Douglass inclusion at all? I think you and I are right around the same age and his team was the one we watched in our most impressionable years. Monroe was a good player, but I just don't get it at all. Gray and Bonner were clearly better and you can make a strong argument that Newberry was more important to the team by Monroe's last season.