Recruiting Notes

1. Frost and Auburn - Kris Frost committed to Auburn at the UA All-American Game. Auburn then came out and said that they didn't want his stinking commitment, and apparently pulled his scholly offer. Our local Auburn enthusiast, HGreen, took this to mean Auburn could be pulling that offer to Frost in order to reserve it for one of its big three recruits (which also happen to be recruited by Georgia): Isaiah Crowell, Ray Drew or John Jenkins. Now, it appears, Auburn has recanted, and will honor Kris Frost's commitment.



So, based on HGreen's logic, I assume this means Auburn won't be getting Isaiah Crowell, Ray Drew or John Jenkins?

2. Rome and Alabama - Chad Simmons at Scout.com has confirmed that Jay Rome is down to Alabama and Georgia. Rome, like nearly every other recruit Georgia is looking at not named Jenkins or Drew, is down to Alabama and Georgia. The fact that Alabama has made a late resurgence actually causes me to hesitate and, for the first time, consider a friend's prophecy of an Alabama Dream Team of Georgia prospects. Mitchell, Rome, and Crowell are all down to Alabama and Georgia (plus Auburn for Crowell). Dickson and Shannon Brown have already committed to Alabama. The good news is that Georgia did manage to safely secure Damian Swann, who was recruited hard by Alabama. But it doesn't change the fact that, in the back of my mind, this whole Alabama thing is starting to make me nervous. Here's to hoping that Rome chooses the Dawgs this week and starts a domino affect.



3. Jenkins/Drew - Chip Towers at AJC.com, did a story yesterday regarding Ray Drew and John Jenkins' recruiting trip to Miami this past weekend. It was a last minute decision for Drew to go ahead and make the trip. Apparently they bonded pretty well during the visit and both left there agreeing they'd like to play together. They both have Auburn, Miami and Georgia on their lists. Interestingly, Georgia is the only one that plays a 3-4 with a true NG position. Some conspiracy theorists think that Drew, who may be a silent commit to the Dawgs, was encouraged by the Dawgs staff to go on the trip with Jenkins and work on bringing him over to Georgia. All this sounds a little too far fetched and conspiracy theory-ish to me, but... it is interesting to think about.

On the flip side, there are also conspiracy theorists in the other direction. I read that Chip Towers' article mentioned that Drew and Jenkins wanted to play NG and END on the same defense. The article was amended later in the day to say that Drew spoke about playing in a 4-down defense along with Jenkins. Obviously, the former sentence would imply a 3-4 scheme, while the later would imply 4-3 (run at AU and MIA). Some suggested that Drew called Towers to have him change the article for purposes of misdirection. Wow. These recruiting conspiracy theorists don't miss ANYTHING. Amazing.

For what it's worth, Jenkins will be in Athens this weekend and, I believe, his whole family will be making the trip as well. I believe that Crowell (after visiting Bama last weekend along with Mitchell and Rome) will be visiting Athens this weekend as well.

4. Rome/Mitchell - Keep in mind that Rome and Mitchell will be announcing Thursday night. Interestingly enough, they will not be announcing at the same place or same time. Rome will be on ESPNU, while Mitchell will be at the local habachi grill (no ESPNZone in Valdosta).

5. Crowell/Harrow - As most of you may have heard, Georgia recently offered Crowell's best friend and teammate at Carver, Quintavious Harrow. He is a 5'11"/190 lb S/LB who is completely unrated and has no other offer from any other school. This offer smacks of an attempt to lure Crowell to UGA. The problem is, it may have backfired on the school, per Crowell's mom. From AJC's Chip Towers:

Isaiah Crowell’s mother said she’s thrilled about their family friend Quintavious Harrow receiving a scholarship offer from Georgia, but not if it comes with any attachments to her son.

“Well, for Quintavious it’s wonderful,” Deborah Crowell told me Monday. “But don’t want them to do it to get Isaiah there. I’m not selling my son’s soul to the devil. This is his decision. If they want to give Quintavious a scholarship, that’s fine. But that can’t have anything to do with Isaiah. He has too much pressure on him as it is and I’m going to lay that on the line with them. We’ll discuss that while we’re up there.”

It is worth noting that Alabama isn't innocent of using the Crowell-Harrow connection. You see, the Harrows were invited up to Alabama to visit along with the Crowells, even though Alabama hasn't offered Harrow yet. Thus, last week's offer by UGA to Harrow may have been a preemptive strike against Alabama, considering that Bama might offer Harrow while he was there. This way, UGA gets their foot in the door first. This stuff is fascinating. More:

Crowell, No. 1 on the AJC Fab 50 list, will be taking his official visit to Georgia this weekend along with his mother and the rest of his family. So will Harrow, better known as “Cootie” to family and friends. The 5-11, 190-pound linebacker/safety from Carver-Columbus — who is Crowell’s best friend — received a scholarship offer from the Bulldogs last week, his first from any school.

The Harrows and the Crowells, who have known each other since their kids were in kindergarten, just got back from a trip to Tuscaloosa and the University of Alabama this past weekend. They left very impressed with coach Nick Saban and the Crimson Tide.

It'll be interesting to see how Richt explains the Harrow offer to the Crowells. I'd like to be a fly on the wall.

Last minute college football notes...

1. AJ Green is, as expected, leaving for NFL. Can't blame a guy for taking a chance at being the #1 pick. Wouldn't it be weird to see the second UGA guy go #1 in the NFL draft in 3 year? With Andrew Luck not in draft and Steve Smith declining (is he maybe a free agent this year?), it could definitely happen. So, what did UGA do over those 3 years with two #1 draft picks? 23-15, with no SEC title, no BCS games, no SEC East title, and final rankings of 13, NR, and NR. Sort-of hard to believe.

2. The biggest question about leaving early surrounds Justin Houston and Brandon Boykin. I think classes were supposed to start today or tomorrow (probably neither because of the weather), but their registration/attendance could be a sign. I think they technically have until the end of the week to decide, but it will be big. Houston will especially be a big loss. The question will be which talented person replaces him at OLB? Richard Samuel (who may actually be an inside linebacker at this point), or maybe one of the two talented DE/LBs the Dawgs are recruiting: Ray Drew or Jeoffrey Pagan? I think Pagan may be a more natural DE given his size, but Drew could definitely be a perfect OLB. We shall see.

3. The game tonight: I know this is late and no one will see before the game is over, but I will go on record predicting an Auburn victory. I think they will win something like 42-31. I will be rooting the the Ducks given the antics of Auburn during the UGA game, but the silver lining to an Auburn win is that the SEC rules. This will be the first time in a long time I haven't pulled for an SEC team to win in the title game (if ever). But I think Cam will have a monster game and we will see a lot of smiling, dancing around, Trooper towel-waving, and references to Cammy Cam juice (rolls eyes). Should be an interesting game.

Big Ten Fail

So, the most pompous and unjustifiably arrogant conference in America decided to name their divisions "Leaders" and "Legends."  Has there be anyone, just ONE PERSON, who has come out and said that they like this idea?  ANYONE? 

There's also been universal criticism of the new logo, which - again - looks straight outta 1976.  I don't mind the retro logo as much as the division names.  But I am going to absolutely hate hearing Fowler and Herbie talk about the leaders of the... Leaders... division, etc.  Oy.

Muschamp is A TRAITOR!!!!!!!

Just kidding.  Just wanted a little drama in my headlines.  I don't necessarily think he is a traitor...yet.  We'll see how it all plays out.

I have to admit, I didn't see Muschamp anywhere on the Florida radar. I was thinking they'd go after an established head coach (Stoops, Peterson, Harbaugh, Petrino) or they would try to maintain the continuity of Urban Meyer (Mullen, Whittingham, Strong). At the very least, if they were going to go with someone young, I thought they'd take their chances with someone who was offensive-minded.

If you had told me they were going to focus on defense with their head coach, then I would have been thinking Strong or Gary Patterson first. Hell, I may have thought to put Kirby Smart ahead of Muschamp only because Muschamp has been turning down jobs left and right, he's the Texas coach-in-waiting, and Texas has had such a bad year. Smart would have naturally come to mind ahead of Muschamp, for me.

I'm not nearly as afraid of this hire as I would have been of Petrino, Harbaugh, or Peterson (or even Stoops - as he is such a mega-name coach and already employs a variant of the spread in his system) as any of those coaches could have probably taken the athletes and recruits at Florida and created a smooth transition to a very potent offense. Not to mention, those big names would have probably resurrected the recruiting class (not that Muschamp necessarily won't, but the other guys have a track record as a HC to show recruits).

Now things will get interesting. What type of offense will Florida run, do they have the personnel to fill it out and how long will it take to adjust to it? Many people are saying Muschamp will more than likely run a pro-style offense to mimmick Saban's success at Alabama. We shall see. I just think there are a lot of questions to be asked about this hire, and lots that we just don't know about what the team will look like in 2011. With some of the more established guys, I don't think they'd be as many questions.

So, I think it was a questionable hire, and there are risks... However, I think Muschamp will successful at UF. It'd be hard not to be successful at UF.

SEC Freshman of the Year: Lattimore vs. Murray

Please check out my discussion on who is most deserving for SEC Freshman of the Year honors over at ChuckOliver.net. In particular, I compare SC's Marcus Lattimore and UGA's Aaron Murray. Feel free to discuss it here!

Found this tweet...

...regarding Mettenberger's commitment to play QB at LSU.  He is apparently enrolling for next semester, so I believe he can participate in bowl practices, in addition to spring drills. 

On to the tweet... Really?  First of all, Metts doesn't run.  So, his game isn't multi-dimensional like Newton's.  Having said that, to have the impact at LSU that Newton has had at Auburn would mean he'd essentially have to make the numbers put up by Mallet and Murray this year look like season totals for high school JV quarterbacks.  I don't see that happening. 

Calling Mettenberger the next Newton is doing so after one spring game and a season at Butler Community College.  Sure, Newton impressed at Blinn before coming to Auburn.  But, again, Newton is multi-dimensional and a perfect prototype for a Malzahn offense.  I just think it is premature to call a non-running QB on a low-scoring team who has never played in a D-I game a player who will have the same impact as Cam Newton.

Again, the hate on Aaron Murray.  Already getting surpassed in love by the SEC media types for a guy who hasn't even taken a snap yet.  You'd think they'd learn their lesson from the John Brantley talk. 

Meanwhile, this does set up an interesting scenario in the SEC moving forward.  Mettenberger will be a red-shirt sophomore next season, just like Murray.  So, they will have three years in which they are compared to each other on opposing sides of the conference (assuming they stay that long).  Even more interesting, UGA begins playing LSU again in 2013.  That would mean Metts gets a shot at UGA in his senior year (assuming he stays that long). 

Some interesting stats I compiled...

...from our friends over at Rivals.com. Don't ask me how I did it. This is a ranking of the top states by Top 100 recruits. Essentially, it ranks each state by the number of Rivals Top 100 recruits it has produced over the past 5 years (classes of 2007 through 2011). Interesting results:

1. Florida - 84
2. Texas - 68
3. California - 58
4. Georgia - 34
5. Ohio - 22
5. Alabama - 22
5. S. Carolina - 22
8. Louisiana - 20
9. N. Carolina - 15
10. Pennsylvania - 14
10. Michigan - 14
12. Virginia - 13
13. Mississippi- 8
...
Tennessee - 5

Trends over the past 5 years: Trending up - Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Louisiana. Trending down - Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama. Steady as she goes - Texas, California, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, and Tennessee (with exactly one in each of the 5 years).

Okay, so Boise State lost...

...and as much as fans of the BCS and opponents to the mid-major movement are cheering after that game (which included many UGA fans), I have mixed feelings about it. As a fan of a BCS-conference team, I guess there's some contentment to come from seeing an upstart mid-major lose after playing a slate of unimpressive conference opponents and rising to #3 in the nation while arguing they get no respect. But here are my two problems:

1) Though I am not a fan of a large, wide-format playoff in FBS college football, I am a fan of the plus-one format of BCS bowls. In other words, I like the idea of seeing the top 4 teams play in major bowls at the end of the season and then seeing a championship game a week later from the two winners. I know it is problematic. One problem will be how to get fans to the semi-final game across the country knowing that they have to spend a ton of money and time to get there and knowing that they could be missing out on "the big game" in favor of (what will end up being) a more forgettable consolation game. In turn, the "consolation" bowls won't like this set-up as it reduces the significance of the game and may mean they don't get many fans out to the game. Second, to the extent there is now controversy about a 3rd or 4th team deserving to be in the national title game, but being left out unfairly, there will also be controversy about a 5th or 6th team who get left out of the "Final Four" unfairly. That is a given. But that is an argument for another day. The truth is that, more often than not, there is a controversy over who deserves to be in the final game, and whether or not the final combatants are truly the best teams in the country. And I think a plus-one format will give us a "truer" national champion without having to overhaul the BCS or bowl formats and without diminishing the importance of the regular season.

However, with Boise eliminated, there seem to only really be two, maybe three, teams that have an argument that they deserve to be in the national title game. Thus, it lends more credence to the argument that no playoff, in any shape or form, is necessary and that the system works. With two undefeated and impressive mid-majors loudly protesting their cause, a plus-one system gets more attention and actually looks like a perfect fit. But TCU (as a twin of Boise in almost every shape and form - except perhaps in the x's and o's) loses just as Boise loses. It hurts their credibility when a similarly-situated mid-major takes such a severe blow. And now, who would get the 4th spot? The 5th (now 4th) team is LSU (assuming they beat Arkansas, and if they don't - it throws an ever bigger wrench into things), but they won't even win their conference and they already lost to one of the other 3 teams in the regular season (Auburn). Is that right? Same with Stanford, who already lost to Oregon. Then you've got Wisconsin, who - again - may not even win their conference unless they get the right votes.

In the end, Boise's loss hurts the plus-one movement. So, in my opinion, that is one negative.

2) The other negative is unique to Georgia fans. Boise NOT going undefeated brings the big Chik-fil-A Kickoff Classic down a notch. Though Boise is truly a better team than they were when Georgia beat them in 2005, they will now, fairly or not, be called "pretenders" on the national stage. So, instead of Georgia facing the mid-major juggernaut that, despite going undefeated, was unfairly trampled on by "the man" at the end of the 2010 season, they will be facing the "pretender" that was exposed as being simply another, cute, upstart lower-tier team that clearly has no place among the big dogs. Fair or not, hyperbole or not, that will be the general feeling in the offseason. In other words, no matter what, I don't think a Georgia win will be considered an upset. I don't even think a win over a #9 Boise State (just guessing at their preseason ranking) would be as impressive to most pundits as a win over a #22 Mississippi State or a #18 Florida. If Boise had gone undefeated and started the year in the Top 5 again, I think it does. At the least, it would be considered far more impressive.

It is still a big game to start the season for Georgia. But it won't have the same feel and anticipation as it would if Boise had been undefeated this season. If Nevada can beat them, what's the big deal, right? So, that's a little bit of a bummer. But I will still be fighting for tickets and will love getting a chance to go to that game!

Iron Bowl thoughts...

Having sat and watched the entire UGA-Auburn game, I should have learned my lesson about Auburn. No lead is comfortable in the first half against that offense. A 21 or 17 point deficit for Auburn in the first half - against anyone - is more like a tie. And after Auburn came out in the second half down 24-7 with the prospect of getting the ball first, I was very nervous.

You see, I was pulling for Alabama to win the game because I am an emotional, vindictive UGA fan who was still fuming from the perceived Auburn "antics" at the end of the UGA/Auburn game. And for the first time ever, I was more dedicated to seeing Auburn lose than I was to seeing an SEC team in the national title game. So, though I made the mistake of getting comfortable and excited after seeing Alabama completely destroy Auburn for the first 1.8 quarters of play in Tuscaloosa, I pulled a 180 and was convinced early in the third quarter that this second-half star of a football team in Auburn would find a way to win. Alabama seemed to take the same form as UGA in the second half of the game (granted, UGA took this "form" sooner in the game): Playing not to lose, cruising with a seemingly comfortable lead, not capitalizing on mistakes, and trying to force a possession/field goal battle in what would certainly turn into a touchdown-for-touchdown battle.

And can you really blame UGA or Alabama? Convential coaching wisdom says that you don't risk points when they present themselves in certain situations. But after seeing how Auburn was playing - and how they had played all season - in the second half, I knew when Alabama kicked that FG at 1:25 in the 3rd that Auburn would win the game.

One thing I can credit the Auburn coaches for, besides taking advantage of the Cam Newton "purchase," is having a very well conditioned team. Just like in the Georgia game, Auburn was beating Alabama on both sides of the line easily in the second half, after getting beat early in the game. Auburn kept a solid pace and wore Alabama down. Alabama was able to get into Auburn's offensive backfield easily early in the game, tackling Newton and Dyer for loss play after play. That changed in the second half, as Newton & Co. were seemingly able to lean forward behind that line for at least 5 yards each play. On the flip side, McElroy was able to stand back and pick apart the Auburn secondary behind solid line play in the first half. Meanwhile, in the second half, Auburn's defensive line was able to mash the Bama OL and McElroy. And for the second time in two games, they knocked their opponent's top-flight QB out of the game.

It was deja vu. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Auburn games against UGA and Bama were exactly the same. Alabama is clearly better than Georgia and put up way more of a fight. And they achieved and kept a bigger lead and stayed in the game until the end, unlike UGA. But the pattern was the same. Auburn played flawless in the second half and every little mistake by Alabama turned out to be huge. The team that plays Auburn has to remember that Auburn will play perfectly and score a touchdown at every opportunity in the second half. It is a given. Their defense will be stronger, and the entire team will play mistake-free in the second half. To the extent a team scores or goes up against Auburn in the first half, they have to keep doing it and at the same pace in the second half. No first-half lead is insurmountable when it is pitted against the Auburn offense. This is something South Carolina and Oregon will have to remember.

I predict Auburn will easily beat South Carolina. The Oregon game will be touted as a prime match-up between similar teams: explosive offenses who tend to start slow and finish strong. But if I were Oregon, I'd want to change that first half culture that exists on my team, because Auburn is a second-half juggernaut like no one has seen before. Should be interesting...

Sounds like McGarity is pissed...

...over the fact that the SEC decided against any punishment of Fairley. The Georgia AD had this to say when asked about the SEC's inaction:

“I probably better not comment on that... I need to stay away from that. I don’t want to get into any type of trouble or conflict with the conference office.”

That is to say, if I do say what I am thinking and feeling about this whole situation, the SEC won't like it and I will get in trouble. I like the spirit.

Many neutral parties, like Mr. SEC, are laughing at the inference many Georgia bloggers/fans are putting out there about whether the SEC is withholding any punishment of Fairley because it would diminish the chance of Auburn beating Alabama, thereby reducing the chance that an SEC team goes to the national title game. And, I must admit, it does sound like a "homer" position to take.

But this isn't the first time the inference has been put out there. For instance, I remember many "fans" taking a similar position last season when it appeared that the "big dogs" in the conference were getting preferential treatment from SEC officials during games (I can think of the Florida-Mississippi State game off the top of my head). Further, I heard Slive speak at a club meeting last year and left there thinking, of all things, "this guy would stop at nothing to keep an SEC team from getting to the title game." This mainly came from his reaction to questions about a playoff ("why would I support one when an SEC team has gone to the title game three years in a row without one?" - paraphrased) and his frankness regarding television deals and bowl appearances. I felt good about that conclusion at the time, but now it keeps creeping back into my mind as I see the Newton and Fairley situations play out.

At that meeting, when I heard Slive speak about the BCS and the ESPN deals, the other conclusion I made was "this guy is all about the bottomline... dolla, dolla billz".... ("Billz" actually had a "z" at the end - as I was thinking it... because I'm cool and in touch with pop culture). Which, again, I assume is his job and what his priority should be. Slive is a lawyer, and he knows how to artfully answer questions in the media, how to refrain from commenting on about anything, and how to word his answers to carefully keep himself from getting trapped later. That's probably in the best interest of the conference. But, make no mistake about it, Mike Slive is slick.

Therefore, having said all that and knowing what Slive's priorities are, I frankly cannot just assume that "the best interest of the conference," which - for his purposes - is the financial and power positions of the conference, was not at the forefront of his thought process as he and his staff considered the Fairley hits - because there was more than one, folks.

After all, if Slive and the SEC "recommended" or "suggested" that UGA suspend Ben Jones earlier this season for a chop block, I cannot imagine that the same recommendation was NOT made involving Nick Fairley, unless there were other motives involved. And, to be fair, maybe Slive DID make that recommendation to Auburn - that they suspend Fairley like Georgia did Jones. But if he did, and Auburn chose to do nothing about it (or at least chose not to suspend the player but handle it some other way, like "don't do that again, big guy"), then what does that say about Auburn? Moreover, what does it say about Slive? Either Slive will let coaches and athletic directors defy him in the face of his recommendations, or he simply allows such defiance if it is "in the best interests of the conference," right? I don't know which is worse...

Maybe it isn't a conspiracy after all. Maybe the SEC just doesn't think Fairley's type of play is reprehensible. But given the actions we've seen regarding this type of play recently from the NFL, which would arguably be in a better position to allow rough play in light of the fact that the players are getting PAID to endure such hits (enter Cam Newton joke here), isn't there a duty for a COLLEGE conference to protect defenseless "student athletes" from the egregious assaults from other players that could cause serious injury? After all, due to Fairley's play, Murray is laid up healing from blindside, defenseless shots and may not get to play in his next game. And yet Ben Jones's contact with a larger, defensive player is what the SEC has chosen to "crack down" on?

Conspiracy theory or no, it all stinks. And the SEC and Slive are the ones who could have prevented it from stinking. So I don't think McGarity and Georgia fans are overreacting at all to the non-action by the SEC. And I don't think they are out-of-place in trying to put a reason behind the SEC's decision, regardless of how outlandish it may seem to some.

Cam Newton Saga (UPDATED)

I don't really have an opinion on this story.  There's just too much out there from too many different angles, and something new is dropped every day.  But this is my ill-informed makeshift summary of the highlights so far.  Please comment on errors and make any suggestions for things I have missed.  I'm not trying to make an argument, just trying to get the allegations listed. 

- While at Florida, Newton was arrested for receiving a stolen laptop.  He flushed it down the toilet threw it out of his dorm window when the cops were coming to search his room.  He avoided a conviction by agreeing to a pre-trial diversion program. 

- Also while at Florida, Newton was allegedly caught cheating three times.  On one occasion, he took another student's paper, erased the student's name, wrote his own name on the document, and turned it in.  Also, Newton apparently bought a paper online and attempted to turn it in.  Information regarding student's grades are protected by federal law.  Thus, these allegations are coming under heavy scrutiny.  However, no one in the Newton family has denied the allegations.

- Also while at Florida, Newton got 12 traffic citations in an 18-month period, which ranged from driving without a license to running red lights (lots of these, actually) to speeding to driving with a suspended license.  They were all relatively minor offenses. 

- After the laptop arrest, the cheating issues, and Tim Tebow's announcement that he would return for his senior year, the Newton family thought it would be in Cam's best interest to transfer from Florida.

- John Bond, a former MSU QB, claims that Kenny Rogers (chuckle, chuckle), another former MSU player and now some sort of high school recruiting agent, contacted him during Newton's recruitment and told him it would take $180,000 to land Newton, and that other schools had offered up to $200,000.

- A day later, John Bond admits that there were two go-betweens or buffers between him and Rogers for the whole $200,000 conversation.  Thus, he did not hear that straight from Rogers. 

- In September 2009, Cecil Newton was told by the City that his church would be demolished if it was not brought up to code.  Cam Newton committed to Auburn in December 2009.  Cecil Newton's church was renovated and brought up to code in Spring 2010. 

- The NCAA asked for financial statements and documents from the Newton's (including Cecil Newton's church) a month ago, before this news broke.

- Cam Newton preferred going to Mississippi State, but his father preferred Auburn. Cam left the final decision to his father, who declared to the family last December that his son would attend Auburn.

- Yesterday, both the Auburn AD and head coach Gene Chizik adamantly denied any wrongdoing and emotionally stood in support of Newton and his eligibility. 

- Yesterday, Bob Stoops of Oklahoma publicly stated that there was nothing unusual in their recruitment of Newton.  And that he nor his coaches noticed anything shady going on during their recruitment of him.

- Yesterday, after being accused in some outlets of leaking the negative information pertaining to Newton intentionally, Urban Meyer issued a statement denying leaking any information related to Cam Newton.

- Yesterday, various Auburn-affiliated outlets appear to accuse Dan Mullen and Mississippi State of "having an axe to grind" with Newton and Auburn. 

- Most recently, Joe Schad is reporting that two Mississippi State recruiters (I assume them to be coaches) have confirmed that, on one occasion, Cecil Newton told a recruiter that it would take "more than a scholarship" to land Newton at Mississippi State.  Moreover, the other recruiter stated that Cam Newton  told him that his father had chosen Auburn for him because "the money was too much."  Apparently, the conversations were turned over the SEC in January of this year, yet the NCAA (assuming they were informed) has still not acted on the alleged phone conversations. 

What have I missed?  Anything?

UPDATE (Thurs. AM):

Okay, so here's a few new tidbits to add:

- Gene Chizik adamantly confirmed in a teleconference that Cam Newton would be playing this weekend against Georgia.

- Mississippi State issued a statement that they reported details of Newton's recruitment to the SEC in January 2010.

- Oddly, another statement was later issued by Mississippi State that after first reporting the issues to the SEC in January, the SEC asked for more specific information regarding the recruitment.  MSU did not get back with the SEC until July, citing they were busy with other things.  The SEC has confirmed that MSU did not mention the recently publicized phone calls with the Newtons in either the January or July reports, and that the SEC did not know about them until they became public.  It appears that the NCAA has been involved to the extent the SEC has (i.e., the SEC reported everything to the NCAA as they discovered it and the NCAA has been also investigating concurrently with the SEC).  But, wow.

UPDATE (Thurs. PM)

- Wow.  Kenny Rogers, the guy who allegedly informed John Bond over at MSU that Newton would cost $180,000, has now come out and publicly said that Cecil Newton specifically told him that Cam's commitment was "not going to be free this time" and that he wanted $100,000 to $180,000.  This per an interview on FM103.3 in Dallas.  Uh-oh.

UPDATE (Fri. AM)

- Though this is old news, I did not have it listed.  But the FBI has gotten involved with the investigation of Newton.  This is a new one for me.  Never heard of the FBI getting involved in NCAA stuff. Not saying they haven't, I just haven't heard about it.

- Old news again, but another MSU alum spoke up about being told Newton would cost MSU $180,000.  This was Bill Bell.

UPDATE (Fri. 2 PM)

- Auburn's official stance on Cam Newton's eligibility has changed from "he is not ineligible" (earlier in the week) to "no comment."  (NOTE: It should have probably been "no comment" all along, instead of vehemently defending him publicly.)

UPDATE (Fri. 3:30 PM)

- The "tweet" heard 'round the twittersphere earlier today, that AU sources have confirmed that Chizik would announce Cam Newton would sit vs. UGA, has been outed as BS.  No truth to it.

- And soon thereafter ... Per AuburnUndercover.com: Cam Newton is expected to start at quarterback for Auburn on Saturday against Georgia.  (NOTE:  My guess is that "expected" means... "at this point there is nothing new to report, but things could change...").

fwiw

This was just posted on Twitter.  Can't go to SECFootballGuy's profile for some reason.  And I can't find anything else confirming it.  So, it's probably BS.  But...fwiw...

Auburn fans being Auburn fans...

This reminds me of how the fans treated the athletic director as he was stepping off the private jet on his way back from a suspected meeting with Chizik.



(HT: Matt Hinton, Dr. Saturday)

It goes without saying that the Auburn fans' aggression towards Mark Schlabach stems from Schlabach's breaking the recent story about Cam Newton. Apparently, they all believe he made it up and has an agenda against Auburn because he went to Georgia or something. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.