Skip to content

Auburn’s Heisman winners to be immortalized, too

Bo Jackson

During Florida’s spring game this past weekend, statues honoring the Gators’ three Heisman Trophy winners were unveiled at halftime.  In the not-too-distant future, Auburn’s own Heisman trio will receive similar treatment.

In a letter to supporters Wednesday night, athletic director Jay Jacobs revealed the school’s plans to erect statues to honor the three Tigers football players who have won the Heisman — Pat Sullivan (1971), Bo Jackson (1985) and, of course, the reigning Heisman winner Cam Newton.

Plans had already been in the works for statues commemorating Sullivan and Jackson before Newton went on his Heisman run.  Newton’s statue is now in the production stage as well.

In the letter, Jacobs said the statues will be 1½ the size of the player and weigh 1,900 pounds apiece.

And, in a little twist, the school has also commissioned a bust of John Heisman, the man for him the trophy is named.  Heisman was a coach at Auburn from 1895-1899.

Permalink 24 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Auburn Tigers, Rumor Mill, Southeastern Conference, Top Posts
24 Responses to “Auburn’s Heisman winners to be immortalized, too”
  1. gorilladunk says: Apr 14, 2011 9:10 AM

    Glad to see the schools remember the players who accomplished so much. Didn’t Oklahoma start this idea a decade or so ago?

  2. southernpatriots says: Apr 14, 2011 11:10 AM

    John: Thank you for the “good” news from Auburn.

    Our long time friends whom we have recommended to CFT will like this and likely did not know this news. We did not realize that Heisman himself was a coach at Auburn. That is some good history to immortalize.

    Just a quick note to all Auburn fans and alums: We just were at Toomer’s Corner and the venerable oaks are budding forth with new spring life. That is a great sign. All concern and treatment is not over yet, but that is a great sign! All those with whom we spoke, wanted to thank Tide for Toomers, as we do as we supported in spirit and in finance this solidarity effort of support.

  3. soflatrojan says: Apr 14, 2011 11:58 AM

    They should name the field after Bo Jackson guy was beast!

  4. neyvit says: Apr 14, 2011 2:15 PM

    Am I really going to be have to one to say this?

    What happens when Newton’s Heisman gets revoked? Or when Auburn’s championship gets vacated? Isn’t that going to cause a bit of awkwardness? Maybe Auburn should wait this one out a bit.

  5. soflatrojan says: Apr 14, 2011 3:37 PM

    @Neyvit

    One word……………………Ebay!

  6. Deb says: Apr 14, 2011 6:55 PM

    @southernpatriots …

    Great news about the oaks at Toomer’s Corner!! Was heartbreaking for my friends who are Auburn grads. Hope this means the oaks will survive.

    @neyvit …

    You’re only saying what many are thinking.

    Auburn should hold off adding the Newton statue at least until after the upcoming trial involving 2700 hours of audio tapes of Auburn boosters and the conclusion of the NCAA’s investigation. It would be terrible to have the ceremony only to have it immediately followed by more scandal associated with Newton. The sports channels would have a field day using the celebratory footage in their scandal stories.

    Considering how long Sullivan and Jackson–one of the greatest athletes of all time–have waited for their statues, it won’t hurt Newton to wait a little longer for his.

  7. southernpatriots says: Apr 14, 2011 7:36 PM

    Deb and all: great wisdom. Patience here would be great wisdom to see what the investigations reveal and what will be any consequences. Bo was one of the greatest we have ever seen. We hope it won’t be much longer, but however long the investigation may be they should wait for it to conclude and then see. That is best for “yea” or “nay.” The Auburn alums and fans we have spoken with do wish to wait.

  8. edgy says: Apr 15, 2011 10:57 AM

    I think that Auburn may want to deal with that in the future because if they leave him out NOW, doesn’t that mean that THEY feel that there’s something inappropriate about him getting the Heisman and lend a little credence to the investigation?

    BTW, Deb, it appears that I’m persona-non-post-grata at PFT. I decided to comment about my plan that I sent to the Vikings and when I hit submit, the page came back but my post wasn’t there. I thought that even though it was only a short paragraph, I’d shorten it even more and I did and I hit submit and no message. So I typed “test” and hit submit and (poof), off into the mist, it went. So, I thought, maybe they’re back to the old way of holding back and approving so I waited for a couple of days and guess what – no messages. Hmmm….. BTW, if anyone wants to see a sensible and workable plan to fund this or ANY arena, go to edgy-sports.com and search for The Plan. I sent it to the governor, the mayor, one of the state senators and most importantly, the team. There is no real need to spend any money with what I’ve outlined and it would work because many of the fans have expressed a willingness to do what the fans of Green Bay did but league rules preclude that and this gets around them. :)

  9. gamustangdude says: Apr 15, 2011 11:43 AM

    @Deb and neyvit

    Even if found guilty, why agian would the trophy be taken away from him? I may not be as familar with other stories as some of you but I’ve never heard of the NCAA / or the Trust taking away a Heisman Trophy. Didn’t bush GIVE his back? and only then did they leave 2005 trophy winner blank? I could be wrong, and not really motivated enough to research my self. Just asking a simple question to anyone who may already know. Whether or not he was paid any amount, he was still the best College Football Player in 2010, as was Reggie in 2005.

  10. Deb says: Apr 15, 2011 12:18 PM

    @gamustangdude …

    The issue with the Heisman is that the mission statement includes the words “with integrity” … the player who achieves the most on the field “with integrity.” How do you give an award for a player acting with integrity when it’s been highly publicized that he hasn’t?

    The pressure on the Trust to recall Bush’s Heisman was tremendous. USC gave back the school’s version of the trophy, saying they couldn’t keep it under the circumstances. So as much as the cowards at the Trust had tried to deflect so they wouldn’t have to address the issue, it seemed they had no other choice. It probably was privately suggested to Bush that it was in his interest to save everyone the embarrassment of a recall and return the trophy on his own.

    Despite that mess, they turned around and gave the thing to Newton without ever dealing with the wording of their mission. If the Trust wants to remove the words “with integrity,” then I have no problem with Bush or Newton keeping their awards. And it will save a lot of bother in the future. But the Trust members don’t have the cojones to address these concerns. They’re more comfortable with blatant hypocrisy.

  11. Deb says: Apr 15, 2011 12:33 PM

    @edge …

    I see your point on the Newton statue. It’s a shame they’re rushing forward now after Sullivan and Jackson have waited so long.

    If you post something on PFT and it appears on your screen, then disappears later, the moderators deleted it. Different moderators have different standards. The strictest pulled one of my posts because I said “a-hole”–abbreviated like that. I thought that was the “nice” way to say it, but he pulled it :)

    If you post something that vanishes when you hit submit, it contains a blocked word–such as Florio, thug, or cock. So posts disappear if you say cockroach, cocktail, or talk about someone going off half-cocked. (I’ve lost posts on all three of those.)

    If test vanished when you hit submit, you’ve probably been banned. Usually they only ban people for being really vulgar or obnoxious. What did you do? :)

  12. gamustangdude says: Apr 15, 2011 12:46 PM

    I like the trust to try and prove an “integrity” violation. Which, in itself has a very loose meaning.

  13. pricecube says: Apr 15, 2011 1:05 PM

    @gamustangdude

    The fact that you think the word integrity has a “loose meaning” says a lot.

  14. edgy says: Apr 15, 2011 1:14 PM

    Deb, it NEVER appears on my screen. I post, the screen refreshes just like it always does and instead of seeing my post and THEN having it disappear, it never shows up.

    From what I can tell, it’s actually a lot less than 23. I thought I saw 23 but from what I’ve seen but can’t confirm completely, it’s 25 investigators: 22 part-time and 3 full-time.

    I know that some of these rules seem out of whack but you should stop and think about what happens as a consequence. For example, there’s an FBI investigation into a points shaving scandal at San Diego University. An article on ESPN addressing this situation, talks about what appears to be a separate probe that points out that one of the investigators talks about an unnamed player at an unnamed school who got caught up with debts to another student who was running a bookie operation AND instead of asking for his money, the guy wanted other considerations. People think that gambling on other sports is so innocent but it’s things like this that can get a person in trouble and why some of these rules look so archaic but actually have a real life reason for being there. It’s because agents got around restrictions by using runners that restrictions against runners came about and because they felt that it represented an unfair advantage for a guy to be named head coach in waiting that they put restrictions on guys that got that title but they did grandfather guys that got the designation before the rule change. The Tattoo-5 issue may have seemed separate from what happened with Green because Green sold his stuff to an agent but again, what’s to keep an agent from going around restrictions like this and against his runners by simply getting a person to front for him to funnel money to the players? You can talk all day about how unfair it is for the kids to be unable to sell their own property and how the schools are profiting while the kids don’t get any of the money but that’s a totally separate issue. I think people need to realize that most, if not all of the NCAA’s rules are in place because of what has happened in the past and not as part of some forward thinking individual trying to anticipate future violations. You can’t anticipate what others are going to do or else they would have eliminated all computer viruses and NCAA violations long ago. :)

  15. gamustangdude says: Apr 15, 2011 1:30 PM

    @pricecube
    Integrity: Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

    Integrity is determined by ones ethics and morals which are defined by ones culture. So if ethics are hard to define why can’t integrity be?

    Your definition of ethics / integrity is not the same as someone who lives on the other side of the world. Or haven’t you ever heard the phrase “honor killings” before, unmoral to us, not to those who haven’t embedded in their culture. Bottom line, someone’s integrity is determines by other things, so like I said before, it has a very loose meaning.

    Maybe you should look up the word integrity next time you want to comment. After all it is 4 syllables, and maybe a little over your head.

  16. gamustangdude says: Apr 15, 2011 1:40 PM

    *have it embedded not haven’t embedded

  17. pricecube says: Apr 15, 2011 1:44 PM

    @gamustagdude

    “Unmoral”? Trust me, nothing you type is over my head.

  18. gamustangdude says: Apr 15, 2011 1:52 PM

    @pricecube

    really?

    unmoral: Having no moral quality; amoral.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unmoral

    “Unmoral”? Trust me, nothing you type is over my head.
    ______

    Apparently it is.

  19. pricecube says: Apr 15, 2011 2:32 PM

    @gamustangdude

    Yes really. The word you were looking for is “immoral”. Honor killings are immoral to us. Unmoral means lying completely outside of the bounds of morality as in “nature is unmoral”.

  20. gamustangdude says: Apr 15, 2011 2:56 PM

    Roger, whatever helps you sleep at night

  21. gamustangdude says: Apr 15, 2011 3:22 PM

    Ok…I’ll admit I was wrong however, my point is valid. Integrity has a very loose meaning. The difference is defining what “integrity” is. Once it has been clearly defined then you can hold someone accountable. Everyone comes from different backgrounds and cultures. Let’s say I rob a bank with 3 other people and I’m the only who gets caught. Is it a violation of integrity for me to stay silent and not name the other 3? Would I have more integrity if I didn’t name anyone? Or is me simply robbing a bank a violation of integrity? Depends on who you asks. Integrity means more than simply being honest, that’s all I’m saying. I’ll take my stupid pills later.

  22. Deb says: Apr 15, 2011 3:44 PM

    @edgy …

    If your post is gone the second you refresh, then the system is rejecting the post. That means it contains a blocked word … or you’ve been blocked. If all you posted was “test,” then you’ve been blocked. PFT has banned a lot of words, but that’s not one of them. Yikes.

    I’m with you on sports gambling and can see your point on the merchandise issue. But more than two coaches visiting a school on a single day?

    @gamustangdude …

    I see your point on integrity, but think we can all agree that if you sign a contract stating that you will accept no gift or compensation of any kind as an NCAA athlete, then you accept a six-figure salary, you’ve compromised a reasonable integrity standard. An NCAA track athlete posted here that he wasn’t even allowed to accept a pair of athletic shoes as the reward for winning a race. Bush, Newton, and their families knew they weren’t supposed to be paid. If the Heisman Trust is going to pretend they’re rewarding both athletic excellence and a code of conduct, they can’t give that award to people they know are taking bribes.

  23. edgy says: Apr 15, 2011 7:05 PM

    Deb, considering that they’re investigating last year’s prowl, maybe they’re trying to cut down on the number of coaches that they have to investigate in the future. :)

  24. Deb says: Apr 15, 2011 9:52 PM

    @edgy ….

    Good one! :lol:

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!