Skip to main content

148 replies

Mamas don't let your pitchers grow up to go to the Stanford Camp

CADadCADad5,000+ posts
Let me start by telling you that for position players the Stanford camp is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The camp starts with registration beginning at 10:00 am Wednesday morning. The kids check their paperwork and they get weighed, get their height measured (I don't know how many people I heard saying that there had to be something wrong with the measurements because their son was taller than they measured - mine was 6'2" and was measured 6'2" so I don't think there was anything wrong.) They get their hat and their jersey and then they get their picture taken. Then they head off for Sparq testing. You know, the stuff where the good athletes who have had specific training in how to do those particular exercises get the good scores. Then they feed the kids burgers and dogs. Then the kids who got there on time can go hit for while in the afternoon. Next comes the camp introduction and they get assigned to their dorms, etc. After that there are a couple motivational speakers in the evening. So far so good.

By the time they've reached camp all of the kids have been assigned to a team and have a college coach with only a couple exceptions where the coach is no longer a college coach. The camp begins in earnest on Thursday. About 3 hours are spent practicing, which consists of rotating between conditioning, fielding, and hitting. At some other point in the day the team will play a 9 inning game starting each batter with a 1-1 count. If a hitter walks a pinch runner is sent out to run and the hitter gets a 1-1 count again. I don't like the 1-1 count but I do like putting a runner on so that there's a penalty to the pitcher for walking someone. The games are played at about 6 different locations. 1 location is sunken diamond and every team plays 1 game at sunken diamond. There are a lot of college coaches there for each game at sunken diamond although there are more coaches at the late afternoon and the night games as the coaches who were running the practices can attend those games. The teams also play 2 games at other sites. Most of the sites are within a 5 to 10 minute drive of sunken diamond. However, they also play games at College of San Mateo which is about a 30 minute drive in traffic. Not surprisingly the coaches don't go there so the only coaches who are there are the two team coaches and two coaches who are there to evaluate the pitchers. I'm told that a few coaches go the other sites that are close by but I can't vouch for that because my son was at College of San Mateo on both Thursday and Friday. It really doesn't matter for position players because all of them get to show their wares in front of about 30 or 40 coaches at sunken diamond. You can't beat it. Unfortunately, only about 1/3 of the pitchers get to pitch at sunken diamond, so only about 1/3 of them get seen by a lot of coaches. Now the word was that who got to pitch at sunken diamond was random. Not so. My son heard one of the team coaches telling another coach that they were told by the "Stanford people" who would pitch at sunken diamond and it was pretty obvious that all the "name" pitchers and the kids with connections got to pitch at sunken diamond. It is possible that the kids are drawn at random and then the "Stanford people" pass that on to the coaches but I don't think that's the case.

To some degree my son was lucky. He pitched at College of San Mateo, but one of the coaches made a point of coming to see him throw for his first couple innings. He gunned him the first inning when CASon was only throwing 82-83. The next inning he threw consistently 84 but he wasn't gunning him. He dropped to 82 in his 3rd inning. I didn't ask what he threw his 4th inning but was told that his last pitch was at 86. Either his legs were a bit sore from conditioning in the morning and the previous afternoon, he didn't like the start at 1-1 format or he just didn't quite have his normal velocity as he seemed to be throwing about 1 mph less than at the PG showcase 3 weeks previously. Dave Nakama from Stanford was also there. The other team had some pretty good hitters, so my guess is that he was there to see some of them. There were no set rules and although CASon got to play his secondary position and hit also, there was at least one coach who didn't let his pitchers play in the field other than pitching and didn't let them hit at all.

So the moral of the story is that the Stanford camp is a great experience and a terrific value for a position player and for the pitchers who get to pitch at sunken diamond. BTW, there were some secondary position pitchers who got to pitch at sunken diamond meaning that less than 1/3 of the pitchers got to pitch there. However, I'm not sure how good of a deal it is for a pitcher who doesn't get to throw at sunken diamond. IMO, the whole purpose of the camp is to get the opportunity to play in front of a lot of coaches so they can see you play in person. That doesn't happen for the more than 2/3 of the pitchers who don't get to pitch at sunken diamond. They do fill out a detailed evaluation and that's available to all the coaches who are at the camp but there's no way to tell how many of them look in detail at those evaluations and if it is any different than going to a showcase. In my son's case, there were a dozen college coaches watching when he pitched at his last PG showcase while there were only 4 plus the coach who came specifically to watch him and Dave Nakama who I don't think was there to look at pitchers at College of San Mateo. On the other hand the coaches who did see him at CSM were probably a better fit for him than the ones at the PG showcase who were mostly mid to upper tier D1 coaches. He was also lucky because the coaches who were evaluating the pitchers at CSM told me they thought he could add a few mph very quickly. That interested CASon quite a deal and on Friday night when they gave all the players a chance to talk to the coaches he went and asked one of those two coaches what he could work on and the coach was very helpful.

Once the camp is done they take about 5 or 6 weeks to send out the evaluations so that they can get them all done and send them out at the same time.
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

justbaseballjustbaseball10,000+ posts
I'm not going to go down the path of trying to defend the camp as a whole. Our experience was great and its reputation is very good.

But I will address a couple of points:

1. Our son pitched at one of the off-sites and was evaluated just the same...and recruited (and signed) by Stanford just the same.

2. The following statement is incorrect...this I know for sure...talked to him just the other night (great guy!) and he did plenty of evaluating of our son (pitcher) as well during the recruting/evaluation period.

quote:
Dave Nakama who I don't think was there to look at pitchers at College of San Mateo.
Last edited by justbaseball
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
justbaseball,
Thanks, good info. I've only seen him working with hitters and didn't realize he was involved in evaluating pitchers. Mine isn't Stanford material without a whole lot of projection so I don't think he was there looking at him at least. Like I said earlier, the other team had some good hitters so my guess is that he was looking at them. However, the position players would all be able to be seen at sunken diamond so it is possible he was there looking at a pitcher. Regardless, there is a definite advantage for the pitcher who pitches at sunken diamond as opposed to an off-site, especially for the ones who aren't quite up to being signed by Stanford and are looking for wider exposure. My guess is that anyone who comes in throwing 90+ has a pretty good time at the camp and gets all the attention he needs. However your example lends credence to the selection of who pitches at sunken diamond being random.
Last edited by CADad
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
iheartbb,
Good point. Mine has been lucky at the couple showcases he's been at because he's been on teams with very talented players who drew the coaches/scouts. I think there was some disatisfaction at one of the showcases as some players were on teams that didn't see that many coaches/scouts at their games. Whenever a showcase or camp is big enough that there are multiple locations there's almost always going to be an inequity in who get's seen by who, and it is going to tend to affect pitchers more than position players.
Last edited by CADad
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
Rob,
My son knows at some point he's just going to be a pitcher but in the meantime he wants to play every inning and get every at bat he can so he would have been very unhappy if he had been on that team. I think he enjoyed playing for his team's coach, who also had some suggestions for him relative to his mechanics.
L lafmom5,000+ posts
When my son was back in HS, our showcase was limited and we certainly didn't attend anything as high profile as the Stanford Camp. It seems though that almost all showcases shortchange someone. I'm sure that time, facilities, etc. just make it often impossible. Son was a duel kid at showcases and I can remember one where position players got to run the 60 and take THREE swings while the pitchers got quite the evaluation and opportunity. He was doing both - thankfully! It's just difficult to fit everybody in for many of them I'm sure.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by iheartbb:
CABB- (or anyone else)
If you don't mind, could you please explain why your son knows at some point that he will "just be a pitcher". What does that mean, and why do guys "just become pitchers" when does that happen and why.

Thanks


A lot depends on the individual and some don't even become "just pitchers" until late in or after HS.
A lot depends on arm strength, ability to get players out (throw strikes), pitcher mentality, need and just an overall desire to become a pitcher. Most pitchers can play other positions and good hitters, while position players can't pitch. One of my sons BF in HS threw gas, but that's all he could do, he couldn't master any other pitch but a FB. He pitched when he was younger and hated it.

More opportunities are available for pitchers.
It was evident at a very early age mine would just be a pitcher. Tall, pitchers frame, high velocity, slow runner, for him it appeared to be his natural position. A very good hitter and outfielder, he got a whole lot more attention as a "pitcher only".

I would think it wood be naturally understood that pitchers get less playing time in showcases, tournaments, camps etc. However just a few good innings often can get more results than more at bats for a position player.
There is another good discussion going on the board about camps. The Stanford Camp is most likely the top camp in the country to attend, down here it's been the UM camp, which IMO was a waste of my players time as a junior and our money, though pitchers camp was less than infielder's and outfielders camp. If he needed instruction, then it may have benefited him, he spent one whole day, working out and conditioning and my understanding is that is scrutinized as well. That tells a lot about a player. That's why coaches and scouts come to wathc a players warm up. The next day he threw a BP in front of HC, no games. The HC had told him he had seen him pitch before that day, so what was the purpose? Lot more results from a PG tourney and two showcases.

Everyone should do their homework regarding every camp, showcase, etc. and decide whether it may or may not be beneficial to their particular player. If it's trying to find a spot on their roster, I am sure you all know Stanford is very selective. If it's exposure to other coaches, and one didn't get that, I understand the argument. Obviously according to JBB's post, you don't have to pitch at Sunken Diamond to get noticed.

Perhaps just a good high profile travel team might bring better results.


JMO.
Last edited by TPM
BF baseball fan 0910+ posts
My '09 son attended the Stanford Camp as a pitcher and it was a great experience. He pitched at Sunken Diamond and came home with a video of the game from the webcam ($50). Since neither of his parents attended it was great for us to be able to see his innings on the mound via video.

My son was lucky and was able to play a position 4 or 5 innings in each of the games where he was not pitching. This was unexpected and we looked at it is as icing on the cake. He did not hit in the game where he pitched but had 2 at-bats in each of the games where he did not pitch.

Overall, my son thought the experience was outstanding, the only complaint I heard from him was about the long walk from the dorms to the field. As I parent I just smiled since walking is good for him. Smile

He said the practice sessions included time with a position coach, hitting in the cages, and time with strength & conditioning coaches. Although 2 out of 3 were lecture format (pitching and S&C) he still found them very helpful and interesting. I was concerned that these were going to be characterized as "boring" but he did not feel that way, he thought they were informative and helpful.

I agree with CAdad about the remote fields. It sounds like other than the coaches assigned to the field or the coaches assigned to coach the two teams, there were not many coaches in attendance at the remote fields. It did sound like their were 2 coaches at each field assigned to evaluate the players, so that is good...there will be feedback on all the players in the reports that go to all the coaches. With that said, I don't know if my son's experience would have been the same if he had pitched at a remote field, pitching at the main field was very cool, complete with his mug shot and name posted on the big screen scoreboard.

My son really enjoyed the cook-out (not really a cookout since they served pizza Smile) on the last night. He had an opportunity to speak with coaches from several schools that he is interested in, it was a good night to network.

Overall his experience was very positive and he would do it again in a heartbeat.
Last edited by baseball fan 09
no11no11100+ posts
If I recall correctly, in the initial package/information, Stanford made it clear to pitchers that not all will pitch in SD. I know for a fact that they were watching all players at all fields - we saw them and heard them talking at all fields. And we did see colleges at places other than SD (agreed, not as many). In addition to having colleges watch the players on the field, they also roam the workout sessions when they can, watch hitting, drills, etc. All colleges will get all of the reports on all kids, so that is good exposure, too. And lastly, the chance to talk to so many colleges in one place at the "meet and greet" session is unparalleled, IMHO. Often, the player cannot talk to the coach because they are on the field playing as the coach watches.
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
The parents of position players were pretty universally happy. The parents of pitchers who threw off site were generally not happy. One kid who threw against us on day 1 at CSM when nobody was there pitched quite well despite not being an overly hard thrower and got some attention based on feedback from the evaluators, but the parent was still unhappy with his not getting the exposure at sunken diamond.
Last edited by CADad
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
The players have to initiate the contact if the coaches aren't working for the camp. There were several college coaches from schools that weren't working at the camp in the stands at sunken diamond. One of them said that there was no limit on how much they could talk to a player as long as the player initiated the conversation. That was a bit different story than what we got from a coach who was attending the PG showcase a few weeks ago who said they couldn't say anything more than a short greeting. That all changes tomorrow for the rising seniors in any case.
Last edited by CADad
B BobbleheadDoll5,000+ posts
Not sure what people expect from these camps. They including MLB camps are boring for pitchers. Some are more boring than others. At best you get to losen up, throw some bull poen and msybe a couple of innings.
If you expect instruction that is unlikely unless the camp is a slow one. You are there to show what you have and be evaluated. If it is a hot day it is very tough for a pitcher to stay sharp. It can also ne tough if you don't know any other pitchers or players. I have been to several but my son has only been to 1 and he had already signed. He only went because his team put it on. He was allowed to play a position and bat so he had a good time.
Most camps are run on the same format and can be very boring.

Could the difference in what the coaches said have to do with the time of year?
Last edited by BobbleheadDoll
bkekcsbkekcs500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by CADad:
The parents of position players were pretty universally happy. The parents of pitchers who threw off site were generally not happy. One kid who threw against us on day 1 at CSM when nobody was there pitched quite well despite not being an overly hard thrower and got some attention based on feedback from the evaluators, but the parent was still unhappy with his not getting the exposure at sunken diamond.


Is it typical that parents observe some of the goings on at these camps?
infielddadinfielddad10,000+ posts
CaDad,
While pitching at CSM is not the same as at Sunken Diamond, the real issue, at least when our son went, was the exposure to college coaches.
One thing your son will receive is the evaluation. He can provide that evaluation to any college coach and it will be respected as a good evaluation of his college potential. The evaluation is a recruiting tool your son can use effectively and it will be helpful to him in identifying the level at which he can compete.
But, one other aspect of that camp is how much coaches talk. On Saturday I was talking with a local high school coach who had been at Palo Alto High on Friday. He was talking with one coach about a player from his high school program who was at the camp. He told me that within 15 minutes of speaking with just one coach, he had upwards of 15 other coaches approach him about that player.
The coaches talk and communicate about players. There are DIII coaches who know they don't have any chance at some kids but they will talk them up to other coaches. There are DI coaches who do the same for kids who might not fit their program but are very solid DIII types.
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
infielddad,
Agreed that exposure is the key. Exposure in person is the preferred approach. Exposure in front of 30 to 35 coaches plus an evalution is superior to exposure to 4 coaches plus an evaluation. I believe the kid who pitched well at CSM on day 1 was referred to the Emory coach. Now if he's got a way to be seen by the Emory coach at some point and he ends up going there it was all the exposure he'll ever need, but the parent still wasn't thrilled at the lack of exposure. Also, I don't believe the coaches who aren't working at the camp get much information other than name, grades and SAT scores.
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
no11,
There was nothing in the literature sent out saying that not everyone would get to pitch at sunken diamond. That was something Stotz told everyone the first night. Common sense would make one realize that would be the case going in, but I think we still all go into the camp thinking our kid is going to get a chance to pitch in front of a lot of coaches.

Yes, I saw a few coaches roaming the workouts. That was certainly a positive for position players. The pitchers didn't do any pitching related workouts for obvious reasons.

Once again, the camp is great for position players. If you are a pitcher you have to go in with the realization that you have less than a 50/50 chance to pitch in front of a lot of coaches. You will certainly get evaluated by a couple coaches when you pitch and your team coach and the other team's coach will see you pitch. If you are at one of the more local sites which most pitchers are at there's some chance a few coaches might wander over. If you happen to pitch at CSM there's not much chance of that happening. In the words of the coach who did come over to see CASon throw "That was quite a trek."

I don't want people to get the wrong impression. Knowing that he'd get exactly the exposure he got and knowing how he'd perform, good not great, I'd send him just the same. We got our money's worth.
Last edited by CADad
fanofgamefanofgame5,000+ posts
My son went to the camp last year as a position player. He didnt play on sunken diamond until the last day and it was late, majority of coaches had already left.Personally for us it was not one of my sons favorite camp. He didnt have the grades or SATS to get into the more prestigious schools anyway. The evaluation was good .the coach that evaluated my son said over and over "your offense surprised me since in my opinion you were overmatched,but again you continually surprised me with your ability to hit the pitching even though in MY OPINION you were overmatched.He kept saying my son needed to get stronger, he had the fielding tools, hitting tools, on and on but needed to get stronger. so his opinion was passed on Im sure even though my son hit very well in the games.No errors in any games , 5-12 in the games with 7 rbis but overmatched in his opinion. He said in the eval that with added strenth my son would have a lot of fun hitting at the next level.So we took the eval seriously though and my son worked with a trainer all fall and lifted with his hs coach three days a week all season.And my son had a great year, hit with power,avg etc,was an all area selection and was offered a D1 scholarship. So the eval. is a tool. The part I didnt agree with was his constant IN my opinion, OK thats your opinion, but 5-12 against good pitching is not being overmatced. thats why I say all the time some coaches look at the players size. But thats ok because it just made my son more determined and he grew from that eval. But other than that unless you have great grades, great SATS, and are a very good player most those schools there are not going to give you a lot of looks.
But take the eval. and really look at it. It did say my son would have the ability to play at a 4 year school, it did say what tools he had and what he needed to work on, i think all in all it was a fair eval. some kids received very low marks there and I knew of some parents that were upset,but I think my sons marks were pretty fair overall. And as I said we took it and took each weakness pointed out and honed in and worked on all of it.and hes a better player a year later, no comparison to last summer.So for those that get their evals. dont get offended if they dont give your player all rosy marks, thats not what they do they say it like it is so if you cant handle that dont go to the Stanford camp.
Midlo DadMidlo Dad10,000+ posts
I think the first question Stanford asked my son was, "Is that SAT score for just the two traditional parts of the test, or for all three parts?"

(It was for just the traditional 2. Smile )

My point being, I think you may find that who they really look at most closely first, are those they think they can get through admissions. Stanford has a reputation for being a place where the coaches get no grease with the admissions department.
ClevelandDadClevelandDadHSBBWeb Administrator
quote:
But in the end it still takes one coach to love your son and thats it.

That is the whole secret.

fanofgame - Always appreciate your honesty and how you speak from the heart. Some people even on the hsbbweb use "in my opinion" as a shield to protect against something harmful they might say. In your son's case, I think the coach's "opinion" was valuable as it caused your son to change his whole workout (and probably diet) regime because of it. That type of criticism is like gold if it it falls into the hands of the right person. It sounds to me as though your son was the right person to appreciate it.
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
Midlo,
Coach Stotz spoke to the kids and parents about recruiting one evening. He used the example of a kid with a 3.7 GPA and an 1850 on the SATs and said that would put the kid in the bottom 2% academically at Stanford. He suggested that maybe a school like USF which he said has a really good coaching staff would be a better fit for that player. My son heard that and turned and smiled because those are pretty much his grades and SATs and said "Dad, I don't think I'm going to be going here."
Last edited by CADad
B Bordeaux500+ posts
quote:
He used the example of a kid with a 3.7 GPA and an 1850 on the SATs and said that would put the kid in the bottom 2% academically at Stanford. He suggested that maybe a school like USF which he said has a really good coaching staff would be a better fit for that player. My son heard that and turned and smiled because those are pretty much his grades and SATs and said "Dad, I don't thing I'm going to be going here."


Nice sense of humor Smile. According to the common data set for Stanford for last year's incoming class, the bottom 25th percentile new SAT score is 2000 (75th percentile is 2310), and I think something like over 93 percent of the class have GPAs above 3.75 on a 4.0 scale. They are generally most concerned about GPA from what they have said. This year's class was even more competitive so I imagine those numbers are just going to go up for a few more years until the demographic bubble pops.
Of course a lot of the recruited athletes are going to be in that bottom 25% and I have no idea what the lowest scores and grades are, but it is tough, no doubt about it......
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
My guess is that if you've got a 95 mph fastball they'll do everything they can to get you accepted. That may not happen as the admissions process is not beholden to the baseball program. However, based on what they've said in their literature if you do get in you'll probably do just fine if you're willing to work hard enough.
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.
Ah, but Stanford's or any other extreme academic schools threshold thing can work the OTHER way as well...

Older has a 4.3 GPA at a quality HS, AP Classes, decent test scores, activities, and his baseball press gets him an invite and heavy spring recruiting from The Cardinal...

Gets to Stanford Camp, does well...Stanford ceases contact...We call...

"We can't get him in...."

Your kidding me right?....AT A 4.3 GPA?

You might convine me he lacks athletic talent, but your going to have a hard time convincing me that he lacks brains...


Eek 44
.
Last edited by observer44
justbaseballjustbaseball10,000+ posts
There are some misconceptions being being created in this thread re/ Stanford admissions. I don't know the "secret formula," perhaps no one on the outside does?? I even believe it changes from year to year...but the following book gives great insight (including a lengthy chapter on the role of athletics in the admissions process) on the admissions process at one point in time...authored by a former Dean of Admissions at Stanford.

Its an excellent read for anyone considering applying to a competitive admissions process.

Questions and Admissions by Jean Fetter

In addition I once had an enjoyable conversation on this topic with one of their admissions officers a couple of years ago. I think its fairly safe to say that there is no hard line at the levels discussed in this thread.
Last edited by justbaseball
F 3FingeredGlove1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bordeaux:
According to the common data set for Stanford for last year's incoming class, the bottom 25th percentile new SAT score is 2000 (75th percentile is 2310)...


I think that this statement is misleading. The common data set lists percentiles for the three sections of the SAT individually. The 75th percentile scores were 760 for Critical Reading, 790 for Math, and 760 for Writing, and those do add up to 2310. But the student who scored 760 on Writing likely scored lower than 790 on Math, and vice versa. Applying the percentiles to the sum would only be valid if the scores on each section were completely correlated for every student.

So probably the 75th percentile for the sum of all three sections of the test was lower than 2310. Conversely, the 25th percentile was likely higher than 2000.

However you slice it, Stanford students are pretty darn smart!
observer44observer441,000+ posts
.
quote:
Originally posted by justbaseball:
There are some misconceptions being being created in this thread re/ Stanford admissions. I don't know the "secret formula," perhaps no one on the outside does?? I even believe it changes from year to year...

...In addition I once had an enjoyable conversation on this topic with one of their admissions officers a couple of years ago. I think its fairly safe to say that there is no hard line at the levels discussed in this thread.


I would agree...Obviously more complex than just GPA and test scores....and given the value of a Stanford degree and the great experience, kids and parents nationally are wracking their brains trying to figure it out...

I'll pass on this story for what it is worth...Early in the recruiting process one of the Stanford coaches told me that admissions informed him that one of the characteristics that they were looking for beyond the "slam dunks" was....extremely high test scores, and a lower corresponding GPA. Why? Because that meant that students had "academic upside". They figued kids with high GPA AND high test scores were more likely operating at capacity....less upside...Kids with high GPA's and lower test scores were over acheiving and were already operating beyond capacity and would likley get buried.

Interesting take.

Cool 44
.
Last edited by observer44
justbaseballjustbaseball10,000+ posts
O44 - I think that story illustrates an interesting aspect of the admissions process at competitive admissions universities.

That aspect is that there are no solid lines on yes and no. An admissions decision is based on the sum of the total attributes of the applicant. Grades, SATs, ACTs, athletics, alum children, faculty children, geographic diversity (easier to get into Stanford from Idaho than across the street from Palo Alto HS), teacher recommendations (yes they call your principal sometimes to get their take), essays, interests, activities, science projects, etc..., etc..

Bottom line advice that I have to offer...if you think your son is somewhere close to being in the ballgame (i.e. possibly admittable), then let the coaches drive the process. Don't eliminate yourself based on a speech you heard or a story someone told you or an 'expert' posting online. The coaches know if they have a shot or not...if they're proceeding and you want to attend that school, run with it!
Last edited by justbaseball
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
That's why they say a kid should apply to a couple of "reach" schools, some good fits, and a couple "safe" schools. You never know. However, trying to include both baseball and academics makes it hard to figure out which is which at times.

A friend was telling me at lunch how he had planned to go to CCNY, because his parents really couldn't afford to send him anywhere. A friend told him about Cooper Union and he asked his HS counselor. The counselor didn't think he had much chance but asked "Can your parents afford $15 for the application. Then why not?" He ended up getting into Cooper Union and got a top notch free education.

I really don't think Coach Stotz was telling the kids not to attempt getting into Stanford. I think he was saying that it was probably going to be a lot more work for a kid with the "lower" scores to keep up if they did get in and they better factor that into their decision making process.
Last edited by CADad
Next

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×