“Coach Clawson had told me that if I left, he may not have a scholarship for me — and I told him that I would pay for school if I came back,” Samuel admitted.
Samuel decided in April that he wanted to return to Bowling Green but he also decided he didn’t want to pay for school, either.
“I decided I didn’t want to pay for school out of pocket, because I would be taking food out of my wife and my son’s mouths,” Samuel said. “But I had told coach Clawson that I would.
“I was never mad at BG or at coach Clawson — I understand. I am disappointed in me. If I had answered differently when coach Clawson talked to me about the scholarship, he would have held a scholarship for me.”
Unfortunately for Anthon, usually when you give up your spot you don't get it back. Clawson had no choice but to give his scholarship to another player given the uncertainty of the situation. It's a learning experience for him for sure and I wish him all the best at FIU, I'll be following his progress there.
I think this 100 percent BS! I think if he really wanted to come back clawson would have found a scholarship for him. I think AS is just trying to make himself look good here by saying " well I would have come back but". He was never going to come back and is just talking right now to make himself feel better. Anyway he's gone so what's done is done
kdog27 wrote:No if Samuel wanted to be here he would be here.
Agreed, don't read too much into those comments. If Samuel wanted to be playing for BG this year he would be. I wish him the best but I feel like we have enough capable RB's on the roster to fill in. It'll be interesting to see how the situation shakes out.
mscarn wrote:Yeah...the program has to be larger than one person. Our RB depth proves it is larger than one person. It sets a precedent you don't want to set.
Pitt went through their own running back/family reasons transfer/maybe could've-come-back-but-no-room saga this past off-season as well:
Thats cliche. The kid didn't commit a crime or have bad grades etc. He was a coonfused 20 year old trying to be a good dad.
And besides, special treatment based on merit is done all the time. Better students get academic scholarships, better jobs, better pay etc. I agree that you can't have some absurd discrepancy in treatment but this isn't it.
mscarn wrote:Yeah...the program has to be larger than one person. Our RB depth proves it is larger than one person. It sets a precedent you don't want to set.
Pitt went through their own running back/family reasons transfer/maybe could've-come-back-but-no-room saga this past off-season as well:
Thats cliche. The kid didn't commit a crime or have bad grades etc. He was a coonfused 20 year old trying to be a good dad.
And besides, special treatment based on merit is done all the time. Better students get academic scholarships, better jobs, better pay etc. I agree that you can't have some absurd discrepancy in treatment but this isn't it.
The best cliches have a grain of truth to them (or maybe that's another cliche). I'm still OK with how Clawson handled it but cannot argue with the logic of your arguments. There would have been plenty of justification for letting him back on.
Flipper wrote:Clawson is supposed to run off a kid who wants to be here to suit a guy who's already walked away once?
Assuming we are at the limit of scholarships. Then yes. The kid left for a very good reason.
You don't think it would seem hypocritical to do that when you've spent the previous months and years preaching commitment and discipline? You don't think the team would tune him out if it became clear that there was one set of rules for the starters and another for everyone else?
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
I'm the biggest Anthon Samuel fan I know. But the situation played out, no hard feelings, we move on. Clawson's actions/response was right. Samuel's actions were right and his mistake (clearly stating he'd pay his own way) is now his regret.
Besides, Fred Coppet is going to have us all forgetting about Samuel anyway.
