Rainer vs. Astoria - Update

Mal van Meer, noted historian/history buff, checks in with a take on the Rainer vs. Astoria debate and a possible reason why the two schools couldn't get together for a return game.

I'll let him explain:

In the early days a student was elected manager (which today is known as athletic director) - They were in charge of setting up games and filling out a full schedule. It is easy to see why two schools could not get together on a date or site. Can you see how two 16 year old students could get into a power struggle?

Point well taken Mal.

He also points out that the game between Rainier and Astoria was the fifth meeting of the two schools. Scores of previous meetings:

1916 Astoria 20, Rainier 21
1918 Astoria 32, Rainier 26
1918 Astoria 31, Rainier 27
1919 Astoria 42, Rainier 9

So Astoria ran their record to 4-1 vs Rainier with the win in 1920 but the games were generally close with the exception of 1919 when Astoria won by 33.

Finally, Mal van Meer has a fascinating website I encourage all of you to check out. Of particular interest to me are the links on the left hand side. One link has stats where he lists each schools single game leading scorer. This included hours and hours and hours of research by Mal and his good friend, Larry Moulton of Roseburg. It is interesting to look at. [Editors note: if you see a score that is incorrect or have an updated leader, shoot me an email at hoops1a@hotmail.com and I'll pass it along to Mal.

Another interesting link is the "Gone, but not forgotten" list. It contains a list of schools in Oregon that fielded basketball teams at one point in their history. Now, they are gone, but hopefully not forgotten.

Check it out, give Mal some webhits, he deserves them. Read more!

Rainer vs. Astoria - Rivals since 1920

In the early 20’s, the Oregon high school association had a fraction of the organizational structure it has today. Basketball was still a relatively new game, within the last 30 years, so the school association trying to put together leagues, playoffs and tournaments was often confusing and flat out incorrect.

For an example of this, look no further than the two small school entrants into the 1920 state tournament in Salem. Madras came from central Oregon, a league of just four teams but was well organized with a coherent qualification plan. The teams played home and home; the team with the most wins won the league and went to state. Extremely straightforward and easy to follow.

This brings us to the curious case of Rainier, Astoria and the Lower Columbia League featuring three teams, Astoria, Rainier and Clatskanie. One would think that it would be easy to do a home and home schedule with the three teams and the team with the most wins advances to Salem.

But this isn’t how the LCL unfolded.




With a student population of just 57, Rainier probably did not figure to be terribly strong in basketball in 1920. Compound that with the fact that they were in the same district as Astoria, it didn’t look good for Rainier to advance out of the Lower Columbia League/District 9.

While nobody would call the league a smooth running operation, the LCL of 1920 definitely provided intrigue and suspense for supporters of the league members.

Astoria was probably the best team in the league during that 1920 season. The Astorian was confident in the local team despite not really knowing what the other teams in the league really had to work with. In truth, the people of Astoria didn’t have a clue which teams were going to be strong and the Astoria Evening Budget, in an article printed in the Rainier Review, said Rainier “never had a very strong aggregation of players. The talent at that school this year is an unknown quantity and the locals have no means of telling what expect from them.” [1]

According to noted Oregon high school sports historian Mal Van Meer, Astoria had three junior high teams feeding the high school program. Safe to say, Ashland was the favorite of the Lower Columbia League. They were also the defending district champions.

Rainier opened the season with a home game against St. Helens. There is no mention of St. Helens being in the Lower Columbia League, even though it makes perfect sense for them to compete with Astoria, Clatskanie and Rainier. In an issue of the Salem Capital Journal from 1922, it says that district 9 consisted of teams from Clatsop, Columbia and Multnomah Counties. The teams included Astoria, Seaside, Westport, St. Helens, Clatskanie, Vernonia, Scappoose, Hill Military Academy (Portland), Columbia University (Portland), Park Rose, and Gresham. But in 1920, there was no mention of these teams. It was just Astoria, Clatskanie and Rainier.

It is extremely possible that the league was formalized in 1922 and in 1920 it only consisted of three teams. I am going off that assumption because neither the Rainier Review nor the Astoria Evening Budget mentions any other common opponents for the two schools nor did the either of the schools annuals.

Rainier handled the St. Helens five 43-10 in the opener and according to the Rainier Review, the win showed that “our team was a good one and stands an excellent show of winning the Lower Columbia River championship.” [2]

Indeed, things looked good for Rainier but upriver in Astoria, the basket-tossers in purple and gold were making waves of their own.

Astoria opened their season by completely swamping the poor boys from Clatskanie 88-6. Astoria’s defense suffocated Clatskanie, allowing just one field goal in the contest. The other four points came from the free throw line.[3]


Rainier responded with a win of their own over the Clatskanie Trojans 30-8 a little over a week later “before the largest and most enthusiastic crowd that ever gathered in the local Gym.” [4]

After losing to the Oregon Agricultural College freshman team 38-3 on January 29th, the Rainier vs. Astoria showdown was set for February 14 in Rainier. The February 12th issue of the Rainier Review said, “this promises to be the hot game of the Lower Columbia River championship…the winning team will be called upon to play in Portland.”[5] [Editors note: The state tournament was played in Salem, either the Review didn’t know or the exact location was not determined at that time.]

Later in the same issue, the paper talks a little more about the impending Rainier and Astoria clash:


“After a hot discussion and wearing out the telephone, the Astoria High School basketball team agreed to come to Rainier and play the first game of the two games scheduled between the schools, here on Saturday Feb. 14”[6]

They continue on about the “two aggregations fighting for the Lower Columbia Championship.” Finally, the paper implores the citizens to help Rainier capture the championship “by turning out to this game and get the championship we deserve.” [7]

This article made me question a few things:

1) Why where “hot discussions” and “wearing out of telephones” necessary to get a game scheduled?
2) Why wasn’t it as easy as the Central Oregon League to schedule games?
3) Who was reluctant to play the game?

The rivalry intensified after Astoria defeated Rainier on February 14th by the score of 46-24, proving they were the class of the league. However, the Review was not sold, claiming Astoria were not only “good ball tossers” but “shrewd enough to furnish both the referee and umpire” for the game.

It goes on, “time after time, fouls were called on Rainier, whether justly or unjustly, we are not prepared to say.” [8]

To me, this little blurb sheds a little light on the rivalry is a window as to why Astoria didn’t want to play Rainier. Back in the 1920’s, basketball was a non-contact sport. Fouling was a show of poor sportsmanship. Reading the papers of the era, teams were lauded for playing “clean games”. In fact, one of the greatest small school teams ever to lace up the sneakers, Bellfountain, was coached that it was rude to foul.

According to Astoria, Rainier didn’t subscribe to this theory of basketball. Perhaps it was Astoria, a team with a fast moving, crisp offense, who took exception to Rainier’s rough and tumble tactics and wanted no part of the downriver team.


“Astoria Beat Rainier High in Rough Game” proclaimed a headline from the Astoria Evening Budget on February 15. The paper continues, referring to one of Rainier’s “sluggers” being ejected after four personal fouls while other players were warned if the rough play continued “they would be ruled off the floor.” [9]

Despite the loss to Astoria, the Rainier paper declared that “a return game will be played in the near future when the matter of the Lower Columbia championship will be determined.” [10] On page 5 of the same issue, the paper even identifies a date for the return game as March 5th.

The Astoria Evening Budget does not mention a return game and instead claimed that by defeating Rainier, the Fishermen had clinched the league championship.

Best as I can tell, the return game never happened.

Rainier followed the loss to Astoria with another victory over Clatskanie. The paper then mentions a game with James John of Portland to be played the following Friday. No coverage of the game with James John is mentioned either.

Instead, readers who opened the paper on March 4, 1920, are greeted with this headline:

“Rainier Lads go to Salem”

Even though they lost to Astoria, Rainier was going to travel to Salem to try to win the championship…along with Astoria.

The paper explains,

“Astoria, it seems, has only played two teams on the lower river – Rainier and Clatskanie and refused to play the return game with Rainier, while Rainier has played Clatskanie and Astoria and offers of return games for both St. Helens and Astoria…There is no question as to the right of the Rainier boys to the lower river championship.” [11]

No question to the editor of the Rainier Review perhaps, but I have serious questions. I understand that Rainier has a complaint here with the refusal of Astoria to play the return game. Nobody specifies why this never happened. I have my guess as I mentioned above, but I don’t know for certain.

Interestingly to me, the Rainier Review did not give the boys a vote of confidence regarding their chances of success in Salem. After announcing the trip to Salem, the Review says that “it is too much to hope that they will be able to come out winners from the entire state…”[12]

The paper was right, and most likely, the lads on the Rainier team knew it as well. Still, as with Madras, the joy was not necessarily in success at the event, but merely attending the event in the first place. As with Madras out East, the trip to Salem was probably the first time many of the boys were that far from home. That they lost 52-16 to Franklin is irrelevant to them, that they got to play with Franklin and in Salem in the big hall was the fun. Sure, an upset victory over a Portland power and defending state champs would have made for a heroes welcome back in Rainier. But I’ll bet they got the hero treatment regardless of the outcome.

1. “Astoria is Guessing,” Rainier Review, January 15, 1920 Page 1
2. “Rainier Defeats St. Helens,” Rainier Review, January 22, 1920 Page 1
3. Astoria Five wins Battle Last Evening,” Astoria Evening Budget, January 17, 1920, Page Unknown
4. “Local Boys Win in Basketball,” Rainier Review, January 29, 1920 Page 1
5. “Rainier and Astoria will Clash,” Rainier Review, February 12, 1920 Page 1
6. “Astoria to Play Here,” Rainier Review, February 12, 1920 Page 5
7. Ibid
8. “Rainier Team is Defeated,” Rainier Review, February 19, 1920 Page 1
9. “Astoria Beats Rainier High in Rough Game,” Astoria Evening Budget, February 15, 1920 Page 1
10. “Rainier Team is Defeated,” Rainier Review, February 19, 1920 Page 1
11. “Rainier Lads go to Salem,” Rainier Review, March 4, 1920 Page 1
12. Ibid
Read more!