Some thoughts:
1. There are more than three reliable posters saying that this has occurred (LWS, BMFPV, et al). Wait on Hubbs (or anyone else) if you'd like, but you can be comfortable in believing it now, just to get a jump on things.
2. Re-read the first line of the 'AA bylaw again. It makes no mention of which school the player is being recruited to attend, from which institution the contact was initiated, or whether it was toward the advancement of the same institution or not. Meaning, it doesn't appear to matter one iota that TT (AU) asked GJ/GW (TEN) to violate the dead period in order to contact a potential recruit for AU - it's squarely an insitutional violation on Tennessee (as GJ/GW are easily considered representative members of
an institution).
3. Now, while we don't know how this all went down....we seem to be assuming that TT simply requested (as a friend) that these guys do this. That may be true.....but what if they were also compensated or otherwise benefitted from doing so, in a more tangible way? As a completely hypothetical example: given cash. You can't hit TT for that as neither are recruits nor student-athletes for AU. But, if the two remain on scholarship at Tennessee (they are)....and they took cash....that is undoubtedly an extra benefit. Wouldn't that also be Tennessee's violation? Well, think about the many ways in which the 'AA typically elects to punish a player for receiving such benefit - remove their amateur status, suspend them from playing, requiring them to repay the debt, doing community service - which of those are available in this case? If a violation has occurred, someone has to foot the bill...and if not the players themselves, then who?
4. Former coach / recruiter / weed dealer / friend or not - isn't there some kind of tampering bylaw which should have prevented TT from contacting two players who were on scholarship at another member institution? Didn't UT catch some flack for something like this in the Brandon Warren episode (where FSU attempted to claim that he had talked to UT before being asked for a hardship waiver)?
5. I am ecstatic that we have an AD who loves Tennessee so dearly and who's competency compels his ready-availability to deal with things like this as they arise....and not off busily doing, "not-his-job" halfway around the world.
6. GJ/GW could come out and hold a press conference today, and admit that they did all of the things which they are now accused of doing. What are you going to do to them, or about it? If they care what you think, or what was best for Tennessee, they wouldn't have done it in the first place. You can't pully their scholly before its annual expiration. You aren't going to hurt their already non-existent draft status. They aren't going to be living / staying in this community for any length of time. Essentially, you're going to do nothing about it. And like it. (And, no, I am not advocating that anyone attempt to do anything about it, whatsoever, either).
7. If Gabe Wright was truly a AU lock the entire time - and was never seriously considering UT (as some reliable posters were certain of), even on the eve of NSD......why would TT feel compelled to pull out all of the stops, up to and including enlisting the support of current (meaning, on scholly) UT players, to land him?
8. Wasn't there something in the local media within the last few months, essentially, saying that TT routinely returns to Knoxville to visit friends or something? Anyway, I found this comment from another article (al.com 2009, Link:
http://blog.al.com/press-register-sports/2009/10/sec_extra_auburn_assistant_hea.html) to be ironically telling, when discussing his time at Tennessee: "You don't love people in slices," Taylor said. "You don't let proximity and moving away change things.". Oh, the title of that article? "
Auburn assistant head coach Trooper Taylor owes a lot to Tennessee." Clearly.
One last (quick) edit: Were I Auburn, considering the Cam Newton verdict, I would take the 'AA bylaws and use it as toilet paper in the AD's office, or simply chest-bump around the fire as it burns to ash on Toomers Corner - and I would simply dare the 'AA to do anything about it, because at this point, there is no reason to believe that they will or could, even if they wanted to do so. So, if you can operate outside of the bylaws, why not celebrate it?