PDA

View Full Version : Nickname



ricks68
01-21-2008, 05:22 PM
I know we don't need a nickname for this year's team, and I don't recall any from the past, but I've been thinking of this one for a week of so now:

Krzyzewski's Krzyzerimps (Pronounced: Sha-shev-ski's Sha-she-rimps)

Now, I know we really aren't that small, but I've kinda been thinking a lot about "The Shot", since the summary of the game was on last week again.

That brought me back to the 1965-66 FF and "Rupp's Runts." (Who weren't comparitively that runty, by the way.) They started 6'5'' Thad Jaracz at center, 6'3" Larry Conley at f-c, Tommy Kron 6'5" f-g, Pat Riley was the other forward at 6'4", and Dampier was the shortest at 6 even.

From what I remember, and my memory is spotty, I think the true intent of the nickname was to try to psych-out their opponents more than anything else. Our center, Mike Lewis, was 6'7" and Jack Marin was 6'6". Bob Riedy was 6'6". Our backcourt was shorter in the semi-final when 5'8" Tony Barone subbed for 6'0" Verga. When you add 6'1" Vecendak to the mix, we actually started 1" shorter than they did.

I have actually been comparing this team to the 1976-77 Marquette championship team that supposedly didn't have a chance. Knowing that Al McGuire was retiring after the season, they wanted to finally get him his championship. They beat 3 NC teams in a row to win it all: Wake, Charlotte, and then UNC. They did it all on pure guts, as they just appeared overmatched most of the time.

While we just appear overmatched height-wise some of the time, we certainly have been exhibiting a lot of guts.

So, I just put the guts of our team together with the thought of a nickname, and was wondering what the board thinks about it.

My intent is not to start a debate over whether we should have a nickname, however, I just thought it would be fun to come up with some appropriate names.

ricks

blazindw
01-22-2008, 09:40 AM
I know we don't need a nickname for this year's team, and I don't recall any from the past, but I've been thinking of this one for a week of so now:

Krzyzewski's Krzyzerimps (Pronounced: Sha-shev-ski's Sha-she-rimps)

Now, I know we really aren't that small, but I've kinda been thinking a lot about "The Shot", since the summary of the game was on last week again.

That brought me back to the 1965-66 FF and "Rupp's Runts." (Who weren't comparitively that runty, by the way.) They started 6'5'' Thad Jaracz at center, 6'3" Larry Conley at f-c, Tommy Kron 6'5" f-g, Pat Riley was the other forward at 6'4", and Dampier was the shortest at 6 even.

From what I remember, and my memory is spotty, I think the true intent of the nickname was to try to psych-out their opponents more than anything else. Our center, Mike Lewis, was 6'7" and Jack Marin was 6'6". Bob Riedy was 6'6". Our backcourt was shorter in the semi-final when 5'8" Tony Barone subbed for 6'0" Verga. When you add 6'1" Vecendak to the mix, we actually started 1" shorter than they did.

I have actually been comparing this team to the 1976-77 Marquette championship team that supposedly didn't have a chance. Knowing that Al McGuire was retiring after the season, they wanted to finally get him his championship. They beat 3 NC teams in a row to win it all: Wake, Charlotte, and then UNC. They did it all on pure guts, as they just appeared overmatched most of the time.

While we just appear overmatched height-wise some of the time, we certainly have been exhibiting a lot of guts.

So, I just put the guts of our team together with the thought of a nickname, and was wondering what the board thinks about it.

My intent is not to start a debate over whether we should have a nickname, however, I just thought it would be fun to come up with some appropriate names.

ricks

It's cool, but perhaps if we tighten up the second part of it so it's easier to say and understand (at least, if you're a Dukie)...how about Krzyzewski's Krzyrimps (Sha-shev-ski's Sha-rimps)? Knocks out that middle sy-lla-ble and makes it not a tongue twister ;)

mgtr
01-22-2008, 09:45 AM
I like the modified version more.

mus074
01-22-2008, 12:28 PM
It feels too much like Rupp's Runts.

We don't really need a knickname. We are Duke.

WeepingThomasHill
01-22-2008, 09:15 PM
This is simply awful.

monkey
01-23-2008, 10:23 AM
This is simply awful.

I agree with the past two posters. No nickname is needed. I would want to ridicule a team with the nickname above and I'm a Duke fan. This is simply making it too easy for other teams' fans.

merry
01-23-2008, 10:44 AM
It's cool, but perhaps if we tighten up the second part of it so it's easier to say and understand (at least, if you're a Dukie)...how about Krzyzewski's Krzyrimps (Sha-shev-ski's Sha-rimps)? Knocks out that middle sy-lla-ble and makes it not a tongue twister ;)

The idea of a nickname isn't so bad, but this is just a little precious. Plus it reminds me too much of the "Krzyefs" or however they (chefs) spell it.

ricks68
01-24-2008, 01:59 AM
One of the reasons I've mostly lurked on this board for about a decade, is due to the fact that a number of posters just don't seem to take the time to read the posts before putting their 2 cents in.

1) Where in my original post did I state that we needed a nickname?

2) Didn't I also state that this thread was not intended to start a debate on whether we needed a nickname or not?

We don't need nor want no stinkin' nickname. All we want to do is to enjoy Duke BBall and this board, and chime in for the fun of it.

So, I bring up some nostalgia about Rupp's Runts (which most of you know very little about 'cause you probably weren't even born yet) and out pop the critics. Then I throw in a memorable Marquette team that our boys appear to be comparable to, and you still don't get it.

Coach K is not the only coach Duke has ever had, and won't be the last. We were a great BBall school before Coach K, and hopefully will be great after he is gone.

A little advice: Read Sumner, Brill, Greybeard, Featherston, and what other oldtimers that know their BBall have to say and learn from them. Duke has a very deep BBall tradition. You are cheating yourselves out of the full richness of Duke BBall when you don't delve beneath the superfical.

For example: It is more than just possible that had just Heyman, Mullins and Verga been allowed to play 4 years of varsity college ball, the 3 pt line had existed when they played, and the same potential number of games played existed back then, JJ would be no better than 4th on the all time Duke scoring list.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying, however, by thinking that I am implying that JJ was not spectacular. He was. But a number of other Duke players have also been spectacular.

So, learn about them. Enjoy what was and is, and what I believe will be.

This team is wonderful.

So, what's the problem with having some more fun with them by playing around with a funny nickname that will not be used, anyway?

Oh, and by the way, there are a few pictures in the '66 Chanticleer that exhibit the same "Crazy" kind of traditions and "cleverness" that a number of you may think is just a more recent product of the Coach K era. The "We're #1" painted on the bridge between East and West wasn't referring to the football team, and the picture of the long banner unfurled in the student section of the Indoor stadium containing the words "Wrinkle the press", was not referring to pants or dress shirts.

So, lighten up a little, will ya?

ricks

(Maybe this post will get more responses on this thread, now, and give me a reason to get my numbers up.)

onepresent
01-24-2008, 08:46 AM
Lady Devils?

dukegirlinsc
01-24-2008, 09:27 AM
It feels too much like Rupp's Runts.

We don't really need a knickname. We are Duke.

agreed to the fullest.

mus074
01-24-2008, 01:34 PM
One of the reasons I've mostly lurked on this board for about a decade, is due to the fact that a number of posters just don't seem to take the time to read the posts before putting their 2 cents in.

1) Where in my original post did I state that we needed a nickname?

2) Didn't I also state that this thread was not intended to start a debate on whether we needed a nickname or not?

We don't need nor want no stinkin' nickname. All we want to do is to enjoy Duke BBall and this board, and chime in for the fun of it.

So, I bring up some nostalgia about Rupp's Runts (which most of you know very little about 'cause you probably weren't even born yet) and out pop the critics. Then I throw in a memorable Marquette team that our boys appear to be comparable to, and you still don't get it.

Coach K is not the only coach Duke has ever had, and won't be the last. We were a great BBall school before Coach K, and hopefully will be great after he is gone.

A little advice: Read Sumner, Brill, Greybeard, Featherston, and what other oldtimers that know their BBall have to say and learn from them. Duke has a very deep BBall tradition. You are cheating yourselves out of the full richness of Duke BBall when you don't delve beneath the superfical.

For example: It is more than just possible that had just Heyman, Mullins and Verga been allowed to play 4 years of varsity college ball, the 3 pt line had existed when they played, and the same potential number of games played existed back then, JJ would be no better than 4th on the all time Duke scoring list.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying, however, by thinking that I am implying that JJ was not spectacular. He was. But a number of other Duke players have also been spectacular.

So, learn about them. Enjoy what was and is, and what I believe will be.

This team is wonderful.

So, what's the problem with having some more fun with them by playing around with a funny nickname that will not be used, anyway?

Oh, and by the way, there are a few pictures in the '66 Chanticleer that exhibit the same "Crazy" kind of traditions and "cleverness" that a number of you may think is just a more recent product of the Coach K era. The "We're #1" painted on the bridge between East and West wasn't referring to the football team, and the picture of the long banner unfurled in the student section of the Indoor stadium containing the words "Wrinkle the press", was not referring to pants or dress shirts.

So, lighten up a little, will ya?

ricks

(Maybe this post will get more responses on this thread, now, and give me a reason to get my numbers up.)

I am not saying you suggested we need a nickname or that we should debate whether we do. I am just saying this is a silly thread to begin in the first place.

Olympic Fan
01-24-2008, 02:31 PM
That brought me back to the 1965-66 FF and "Rupp's Runts." (Who weren't comparitively that runty, by the way.) They started 6'5'' Thad Jaracz at center, 6'3" Larry Conley at f-c, Tommy Kron 6'5" f-g, Pat Riley was the other forward at 6'4", and Dampier was the shortest at 6 even.

From what I remember, and my memory is spotty, I think the true intent of the nickname was to try to psych-out their opponents more than anything else. Our center, Mike Lewis, was 6'7" and Jack Marin was 6'6". Bob Riedy was 6'6". Our backcourt was shorter in the semi-final when 5'8" Tony Barone subbed for 6'0" Verga. When you add 6'1" Vecendak to the mix, we actually started 1" shorter than they did.

I have actually been comparing this team to the 1976-77 Marquette championship team that supposedly didn't have a chance. Knowing that Al McGuire was retiring after the season, they wanted to finally get him his championship. They beat 3 NC teams in a row to win it all: Wake, Charlotte, and then UNC. They did it all on pure guts, as they just appeared overmatched most of the time.

Just to correct (for the second time) a bit of misinformation here. Verga was not replaced by Tony Barone in the Kentucky game. His spot was taken by 6-1 Ron Wendelin. Barone played just a few seconds in the game (he's credited with 0 minutes in the official box score). Physically, there was a big physical difference between the mountainous 6-7 Lewis and the slender 6-5 Jaracz (similar to the physical difference between's Pitt's 6-7 DeJaun Blair and Duke's 6-6 David McClure -- not much difference in height, but a HUGE physical differnce). Also a very similar difference between the burly 6-6 Reidy and the slender 6-5 Kron. And Pat Riley was overmatched up front by Marin (and just to be correct, Conley was a guard, not a f-c).

Duke was bigger at four of the five spots (all except the one guard spot where the 6-3 Conley was taller than Vacendak or Wendelin or Verga). Rupp's Runts were smaller than most good teams ... not only shorter, but frailer.

As for the poor underdog Marquette team that supposedly didn't have a chance in the '77 title game -- they started the season ranked No. 2 in the nation and even though they hit a rough stretch after McGuire announced his retirement in February, they rebounded to finish No. 7 in the nation -- just two spots below the No. 5 UNC team they beat in the finals. Guts helped, but so did the presence of two All-Americans -- Butch Lee and Bo Ellis (not to mention future All-American Bernard Toone and senior guard Jim Boylan).

As for being overmatched -- No. 7 Marquette was favored in their first four NCAA games -- over unranked Cincinnati in the opening round, over unranked Kansas State in the regional semifinals, over No. 9 Wake Forest in the regional finals and over No. 17 UNC Charlotte in the national semifinals. No. 5 UNC, playing without starting center Tom LaGarde and with stars Phil Ford and Walter Davis hampered by injurues, was the only team Marquette played in the NCAA Tournament that season that was ranked higher or favored.

Please, don't perpetuate the myth that Marquette's 1977 title was some kind of great underdog story. It was a great drama because McGuire was a lame duck, but that Marquette team was one of the nation's powerhouse teams all season. It didn't come out of nowhere -- basically the same team reached the Midwest Regional finals the year before, losing a tight 65-56 game to the Indiana team that finished undefeated and won the national title with two routs in the Final Four.