55mom,
Actually there are a few DIII baseball programs in NC.
I see TR posted right before, sorry.
For me the choice has to do with the student/athlete-- my son went Division I because he felt he could play at that level---after a frosh redhsirt year he was a starter--he felt if he found i he couldn't make it at Division I he could return home and be a stud at Division II program where he still had scholarship offers waiting---but as he left for school he said to me " do not expect me to be back"
Every player is different--thru our program we see a lot of kids and a lot of decisions of varied natures--many select a school where they can play a second sport---many select a school because it is near home--we had one boy who rejected a Division II powerhouse because there was not a Pizza Parlor within walking distance---many select a school because of the academics and will let the baseball be whatever it will be
I could go one but the bottom line for me is that the student/athlete will make a decision for himself and his needs, not yours or mine. It his life and his 4 years---the decision is the initial step into manhood and independence
Every player is different--thru our program we see a lot of kids and a lot of decisions of varied natures--many select a school where they can play a second sport---many select a school because it is near home--we had one boy who rejected a Division II powerhouse because there was not a Pizza Parlor within walking distance---many select a school because of the academics and will let the baseball be whatever it will be
I could go one but the bottom line for me is that the student/athlete will make a decision for himself and his needs, not yours or mine. It his life and his 4 years---the decision is the initial step into manhood and independence
.
This makes far too much sense....
What about ME...and my need to control his life, to make his decisions for him...To keep him from any pain or mistakes...from dealing with reality...from taking repsonsibility for his decisions...from learning to cope?...Whose dream, whose life is this anyway?
Manhood and independence? Bosch!
44
.
quote:I could go one but the bottom line for me is that the student/athlete will make a decision for himself and his needs, not yours or mine. It his life and his 4 years---the decision is the initial step into manhood and independence
This makes far too much sense....
What about ME...and my need to control his life, to make his decisions for him...To keep him from any pain or mistakes...from dealing with reality...from taking repsonsibility for his decisions...from learning to cope?...Whose dream, whose life is this anyway?
Manhood and independence? Bosch!
44.
observer44
I can only tell you how I feel---my two youngest were just in their teens when they jumped on a train to NYC for the Rangers Final Stanley Cup game--I had no porblem with it at all and they had a great time---
I believe that if you feel the child is mature enuff then you let him loose---and if you there is no freedom they may never mature
I can only tell you how I feel---my two youngest were just in their teens when they jumped on a train to NYC for the Rangers Final Stanley Cup game--I had no porblem with it at all and they had a great time---
I believe that if you feel the child is mature enuff then you let him loose---and if you there is no freedom they may never mature
I responded to the poll early and answered as if it was me making the decision, my choice was to play early at a smaller school. Basically my son made the opposite decision but he had an option that was not included in the poll and that was an understanding from the coach that he would be given the opportunity to contribute as a freshman. Based on that option he chose to go D1. His other serious option was to attend a very good D3 with a pretty good chance of being an every day starter from day one.
Both schools were very good academically and he liked them both on his visits but his decision was made when he considered the competition he felt he would face at the D1 vs. the D3. During his visit to the D3 we got to watch a 3 game series and when he spoke to the coach he candidly asked him how the team they were playing that weekend compared to the most of the competition they faced. The coach was also quite honest in his response saying that this had been an average team, some were a lot better but many were not as good.
My son told me he felt confident enough in his ability that he wanted to take his chances at the D1 level in order to face better competiton more consistently. It took until the middle of his freshman season but the risk he took paid off and he became a regular starter so I guess he knew what he was doing.
Both schools were very good academically and he liked them both on his visits but his decision was made when he considered the competition he felt he would face at the D1 vs. the D3. During his visit to the D3 we got to watch a 3 game series and when he spoke to the coach he candidly asked him how the team they were playing that weekend compared to the most of the competition they faced. The coach was also quite honest in his response saying that this had been an average team, some were a lot better but many were not as good.
My son told me he felt confident enough in his ability that he wanted to take his chances at the D1 level in order to face better competiton more consistently. It took until the middle of his freshman season but the risk he took paid off and he became a regular starter so I guess he knew what he was doing.
jmepop
Sometimes we do not give the kid the credit he deserves for knowing what he wants
Sometimes we do not give the kid the credit he deserves for knowing what he wants
I understand that this thread is largely about the D1 experience in regards to baseball.
Baseball, should be part of the equation, not all of the equation, lots of other things to consider when choosing where you will go to school and play baseball.
Threads regarding size and lack of speed and velocity may have an impact on where you will go to school and play baseball. But for many college coaches it's a bit more than that. That's why some end up where they want to go and others don't. They also base their decisions on whether the student can face the challenges of the program and keep up in the classroom. Larger D1 programs have many activities going on that can be distractive to a new player. Although the demands of the workout and classroom and playing schedule may be the same wherever you go, the demands of playing on a team that strives for a national championship each year is incredible. You are expected to perform to your highest ability each time you step out on the field, that's why most freshman sit at the larger programs and not often thrown into the fire first season, regardless of ability. Sometimes you do have to sit more than you want to play for developmental reasons I do agree. That becomes frustrating if the player doesn't understand his reasons for sitting, it's not always about lack of ability compared to others. Daniel Moskos is a good example, only 16 innings his first year, all in relief or as a closer. He was very frustrated as he wanted to be a starter, but he needed to work on some things to make him a starter at the D1 level, which took 3 years. Most likely at a smaller program he would have been a weekend guy, which is usually where most college pitchers start out wanting to be. Anyway, as pick #4, it certainly didn't hurt him in the end and ended up with a 4.0 in the classroom. After he excepted his role, he blossomed on the field and in the classroom.
That is why I don't always suggest that a D1 is for everyone. These pressures are felt in the classroom as well as on the field. I know of a lot of players that left a D1 program to go to larger D1 programs, great baseball players, but unable to handle all that is handed to them on the plate not just lack of playing time. This pressure translated into poor classroom performance and poor game performance.
IMO, choices should be made based on your players maturity level, playing ability based upon evaluations you have received through outside sources, whether he can or can't take failure on the field ( you fail alot and have to deal with that), keep up in the classroom (at some programs 3.0 or better is not an option) good time management, and his ability to accept what he can and cannot change, if he desires more playing time to improve his game or just being part of a winning team.
Coolhand,
Thanks for the response. It appears that you have lost time in playing the game of baseball that ultimately you may or may not be able to make up once you get to where you want to go. In making your choice, and baseball is a strong consideration, make sure it is one that will give you an opportunity to play at that level, if not you will not see the playing time that you are expecting.
Good luck.
Baseball, should be part of the equation, not all of the equation, lots of other things to consider when choosing where you will go to school and play baseball.
Threads regarding size and lack of speed and velocity may have an impact on where you will go to school and play baseball. But for many college coaches it's a bit more than that. That's why some end up where they want to go and others don't. They also base their decisions on whether the student can face the challenges of the program and keep up in the classroom. Larger D1 programs have many activities going on that can be distractive to a new player. Although the demands of the workout and classroom and playing schedule may be the same wherever you go, the demands of playing on a team that strives for a national championship each year is incredible. You are expected to perform to your highest ability each time you step out on the field, that's why most freshman sit at the larger programs and not often thrown into the fire first season, regardless of ability. Sometimes you do have to sit more than you want to play for developmental reasons I do agree. That becomes frustrating if the player doesn't understand his reasons for sitting, it's not always about lack of ability compared to others. Daniel Moskos is a good example, only 16 innings his first year, all in relief or as a closer. He was very frustrated as he wanted to be a starter, but he needed to work on some things to make him a starter at the D1 level, which took 3 years. Most likely at a smaller program he would have been a weekend guy, which is usually where most college pitchers start out wanting to be. Anyway, as pick #4, it certainly didn't hurt him in the end and ended up with a 4.0 in the classroom. After he excepted his role, he blossomed on the field and in the classroom.
That is why I don't always suggest that a D1 is for everyone. These pressures are felt in the classroom as well as on the field. I know of a lot of players that left a D1 program to go to larger D1 programs, great baseball players, but unable to handle all that is handed to them on the plate not just lack of playing time. This pressure translated into poor classroom performance and poor game performance.
IMO, choices should be made based on your players maturity level, playing ability based upon evaluations you have received through outside sources, whether he can or can't take failure on the field ( you fail alot and have to deal with that), keep up in the classroom (at some programs 3.0 or better is not an option) good time management, and his ability to accept what he can and cannot change, if he desires more playing time to improve his game or just being part of a winning team.
Coolhand,
Thanks for the response. It appears that you have lost time in playing the game of baseball that ultimately you may or may not be able to make up once you get to where you want to go. In making your choice, and baseball is a strong consideration, make sure it is one that will give you an opportunity to play at that level, if not you will not see the playing time that you are expecting.
Good luck.
How about a small college with a big Division I commitment?
TR
Similar to what I believe you have said in many posts about your son, the choice was his, I was just a sounding board. I am glad we let him make the decision for himself.
quote:Sometimes we do not give the kid the credit he deserves for knowing what he wants
Similar to what I believe you have said in many posts about your son, the choice was his, I was just a sounding board. I am glad we let him make the decision for himself.
jmepop
So I Am I---my post was for other parents---cut the cord--let them go
So I Am I---my post was for other parents---cut the cord--let them go
In reviewing every post in the thread from the beginning, when you exclude baseball, it seems clear that there are many differing reasons/considerations involved in selecting a college.
Some emphasize academics, some are more concerned with size, environment and atmosphere are factors, academic support, strength and conditioning, facilities, nutrition, amongst many others, are important considerations. It is clear that one size does not fit all.
I think PGStaff started this thread however with baseball as the criteria and emphasized the importance of improving by playing vs sitting, a concept which this poster fully supports.
However, the aspect of "making you a better player" cannot be overemphasized. I think it somewhat correlates with the thread I started on "Coaches college.. can he coach?"
Having been an avid watcher/follower of DI college baseball for the last 10 or so years, especially in the Bay Area, it has become apparent that there are players in multiple programs who play every day, and seemingly do not get better.
In fact, if you compare their productivity over 3-4 years, they decline each year. In some isolated situations, it is due to injury. Injury may be a factor in others but it does not get reported.
It is impossible to tell whether that is due to the coaching, the player, injury, something else, or all of the above.
When you see multiple players who came in as highly rated recruits, over the course of years, who do not seem to improve with certain coaching staffs, it tends to support my suspicion/strongly held views, that there are college coaching staffs at major DI programs who cannot make their players better.
So, when we focus solely on baseball, my only addition to the comments/observations of PGstaff and others on the importance of playing and the level at which is selected, is that playing everyday is only important when it is for a program/coaching staff which can combine their talents with playing everyday to unlock the potential that makes very talented players get even better.
I think there may be as many coaching staffs in major DI programs that succeed in that goal as fail.
The same is true in smaller programs.
The problem, as a player or parent, is being able to know which is which.
Some emphasize academics, some are more concerned with size, environment and atmosphere are factors, academic support, strength and conditioning, facilities, nutrition, amongst many others, are important considerations. It is clear that one size does not fit all.
I think PGStaff started this thread however with baseball as the criteria and emphasized the importance of improving by playing vs sitting, a concept which this poster fully supports.
However, the aspect of "making you a better player" cannot be overemphasized. I think it somewhat correlates with the thread I started on "Coaches college.. can he coach?"
Having been an avid watcher/follower of DI college baseball for the last 10 or so years, especially in the Bay Area, it has become apparent that there are players in multiple programs who play every day, and seemingly do not get better.
In fact, if you compare their productivity over 3-4 years, they decline each year. In some isolated situations, it is due to injury. Injury may be a factor in others but it does not get reported.
It is impossible to tell whether that is due to the coaching, the player, injury, something else, or all of the above.
When you see multiple players who came in as highly rated recruits, over the course of years, who do not seem to improve with certain coaching staffs, it tends to support my suspicion/strongly held views, that there are college coaching staffs at major DI programs who cannot make their players better.
So, when we focus solely on baseball, my only addition to the comments/observations of PGstaff and others on the importance of playing and the level at which is selected, is that playing everyday is only important when it is for a program/coaching staff which can combine their talents with playing everyday to unlock the potential that makes very talented players get even better.
I think there may be as many coaching staffs in major DI programs that succeed in that goal as fail.
The same is true in smaller programs.
The problem, as a player or parent, is being able to know which is which.
Mine could have played D-1, he was offered at a couple places. One very good offer far from home, and one not so good offer here in state. He went and visited the program where he signed and fell in love with the team, the atmosphere as well as the coaching staff. They made him an offer that would have been hard to refuse. I am sure that if he had continued his quest instead of verbaling a week before the 1st day of early signing, other offers would have developed from in state D-1's.
He made his decision not because he would be able to play every day as a freshman. He made his decision based on how much the coaches wanted him, and how they said they would use him. He wanted to go where he was highly valued. Once he found that program he was happy to commit.
He made his decision not because he would be able to play every day as a freshman. He made his decision based on how much the coaches wanted him, and how they said they would use him. He wanted to go where he was highly valued. Once he found that program he was happy to commit.
After high school, none of HaverSon's teammates could understand why he didn't take a DI offer.
Five years later he's very happy he got to start every game.
Had anything other than the minor leagues seemed more than remotely possible, I might feel differently, but I'm certainly happy he didn't choose the D1 option simply to impress his pals.
Five years later he's very happy he got to start every game.
Had anything other than the minor leagues seemed more than remotely possible, I might feel differently, but I'm certainly happy he didn't choose the D1 option simply to impress his pals.
One thing that has not been mentioned is what does the team you are looking at need for the coming year. IF they are knee deep in outfielders and that is your position then the competition is going to be pretty tough. If you are a middle infielder and can play both second and short and even move over to third if you are swinging a hot bat as well as go to the outfield , as many shortstops actually end up doing *arm strength and athleticism* and they have just a few middle infielders your chances are a little better to see some time.If they value you highly and are really persuing you then you have a good idea that they may play you. If however it is a " large profile team " and the interest is just mild then you may want to look elsewhere. The bottom line is to go where you are really wanted be it D1,Juco,D2,D3,NAIA.
The thing that I tell kids is don't give up on your dream but be realistic about what your talent level really is. If you do not know for sure what it is then get an evaluation or ask your high school and travel team coaches.
Finding the correct coach no matter what level is the most important. How many times do you hear " so and so didn't get to play or did not do well at school X but was able to transfer and play right away at school Y and was the star player at school Y then you can bet that you probably did not fit the coaches playing style and personality to develop properly at that school.This is not to say the coach or the player was at fault most often they just did not end up being on the same page.
The thing that I tell kids is don't give up on your dream but be realistic about what your talent level really is. If you do not know for sure what it is then get an evaluation or ask your high school and travel team coaches.
Finding the correct coach no matter what level is the most important. How many times do you hear " so and so didn't get to play or did not do well at school X but was able to transfer and play right away at school Y and was the star player at school Y then you can bet that you probably did not fit the coaches playing style and personality to develop properly at that school.This is not to say the coach or the player was at fault most often they just did not end up being on the same page.
Great point, Play hard. In my son's situation he played so many different positions in HS, Legion, and his showcase team that he was hard to project. When the school he ended up at called, it was not for infield or catcher, it was for outfield, where he had never really played regularly. He was fortunate enough to start (not fortunate...he worked his butt off) last year in the OF b/c the team had the NEED. This fall...the need was the infield, where he split his time at 2B and 3B before settling in at the hot corner.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Of course there are many variables and no certainties, but what would you choose?
PG
- Dont know percentages but if a kid doesn't play his 1st 2 years what are the chances he'll play in year 3 or 4??
- I also think that if its kids voting they are saying yeah I would sit but in their heart saying they may want to sit me but I'll show them how good I am and they won't be able to sit me.
Dawgfan,
There are some who hardly ever play for two years and then become starters as a junior. I’m not sure what the percentages are, but those percentages would be very low if there were no summer baseball.
I just think people need to understand the following.
The very top prospects signing each year are recruited to help immediately as a freshman in most cases. Each year there is a new recruiting class that in most cases will be larger than the senior class.
One must ask themselves, how many colleges really rely on their freshman recruiting class to set and watch for two years. Normally when a junior gets drafted or a senior is done, there are recruits coming in to fill those positions. Sometimes they are juniors themselves transferring in from JCs or other colleges. They are not coming in to set on the bench in most cases.
People sometimes have the misconception that freshman hardly ever play at the DI level. Well there are many outstanding freshman who do play. Maybe they don’t all start, but they play and contribute as freshman! However, there are many top freshman who don’t play much, but then play a bigger role as sophomores.
Now if we take that into the sophomore year and a player still has not played and has spent two years on the bench… He is dealing with two recruiting classes, any transfers and the juniors/seniors who are still on the roster.
Usually if a sophomore is in the plans to play a significant role as a junior, the coaching staff is going to find him a role as a sophomore. This just makes sense if you’re the coach. You will find a way to get that sophomore some playing time, to get experience.
Now if a recruiter tells a player, he has no money left but thinks you might have a chance to play by your junior year… This is a BAD sign IMO!
I look at it this way from a coaching standpoint… The only thing worse than an inexperienced freshman is an inexperienced junior or worse yet an inexperienced senior. By the time the junior gains a lot of experience he’s about done. I would much rather build the team with the younger guys unless the junior somehow improved beyond what I thought he would.
Think about it… Forget about the seniors play ahead of younger players that happens a lot in high school. College coaches want what gives them the best chance to win (now and in the future)
You have similar players at a position, one is young one is a junior who hasn’t played yet. For the sake of argument, let’s say they have equal impact on winning this year. Which of the two has the higher ceiling? Which of the two stands to gain the most with more playing experience? Which of the two will be the most help next year and the next year. Which of the two is most important to the future of your program.
If a recruiter tells you that you’re not going to play as a freshman and they have no money available. This is not what I would consider very promising. But I sure do love the kids who prove everyone wrong, it does happen.
Just some stuff to think about. It’s not 100% or even close, but it is not a GOOD thing setting on the bench for two years. I would look at rosters, results and recruiting classes. All colleges are not the same. The results/stats will show who is getting the playing time. If a college has lots of fresh/sophs on the roster and most all the playing time is going to upperclassmen, look at a couple things because this could be a different situation. Check and see how much those juniors and seniors played as fresh/sophs. If they didn’t play until junior year, this could be the exception to the rule. My guess is you won’t find many!
Can’t tell you how often I’ve heard excited parents and players tell me… “They said I’d have a chance to play as a junior” I always cringe when I hear that because I want to say… “They are being honest and telling you they really don’t think very much of you and you are NOT really in their plans”.
Sorry, I have a habit of getting carried away at times.
There are some who hardly ever play for two years and then become starters as a junior. I’m not sure what the percentages are, but those percentages would be very low if there were no summer baseball.
I just think people need to understand the following.
The very top prospects signing each year are recruited to help immediately as a freshman in most cases. Each year there is a new recruiting class that in most cases will be larger than the senior class.
One must ask themselves, how many colleges really rely on their freshman recruiting class to set and watch for two years. Normally when a junior gets drafted or a senior is done, there are recruits coming in to fill those positions. Sometimes they are juniors themselves transferring in from JCs or other colleges. They are not coming in to set on the bench in most cases.
People sometimes have the misconception that freshman hardly ever play at the DI level. Well there are many outstanding freshman who do play. Maybe they don’t all start, but they play and contribute as freshman! However, there are many top freshman who don’t play much, but then play a bigger role as sophomores.
Now if we take that into the sophomore year and a player still has not played and has spent two years on the bench… He is dealing with two recruiting classes, any transfers and the juniors/seniors who are still on the roster.
Usually if a sophomore is in the plans to play a significant role as a junior, the coaching staff is going to find him a role as a sophomore. This just makes sense if you’re the coach. You will find a way to get that sophomore some playing time, to get experience.
Now if a recruiter tells a player, he has no money left but thinks you might have a chance to play by your junior year… This is a BAD sign IMO!
I look at it this way from a coaching standpoint… The only thing worse than an inexperienced freshman is an inexperienced junior or worse yet an inexperienced senior. By the time the junior gains a lot of experience he’s about done. I would much rather build the team with the younger guys unless the junior somehow improved beyond what I thought he would.
Think about it… Forget about the seniors play ahead of younger players that happens a lot in high school. College coaches want what gives them the best chance to win (now and in the future)
You have similar players at a position, one is young one is a junior who hasn’t played yet. For the sake of argument, let’s say they have equal impact on winning this year. Which of the two has the higher ceiling? Which of the two stands to gain the most with more playing experience? Which of the two will be the most help next year and the next year. Which of the two is most important to the future of your program.
If a recruiter tells you that you’re not going to play as a freshman and they have no money available. This is not what I would consider very promising. But I sure do love the kids who prove everyone wrong, it does happen.
Just some stuff to think about. It’s not 100% or even close, but it is not a GOOD thing setting on the bench for two years. I would look at rosters, results and recruiting classes. All colleges are not the same. The results/stats will show who is getting the playing time. If a college has lots of fresh/sophs on the roster and most all the playing time is going to upperclassmen, look at a couple things because this could be a different situation. Check and see how much those juniors and seniors played as fresh/sophs. If they didn’t play until junior year, this could be the exception to the rule. My guess is you won’t find many!
Can’t tell you how often I’ve heard excited parents and players tell me… “They said I’d have a chance to play as a junior” I always cringe when I hear that because I want to say… “They are being honest and telling you they really don’t think very much of you and you are NOT really in their plans”.
Sorry, I have a habit of getting carried away at times.
Again good post.
You are correct in the statement regarding coaches finding roles for their incoming freshman players to develop. As a pitcher, that might include relief innings, as a position player that might mean substitute, pitch hit, filling in for injured player, etc.
For some players though, that is not enough. The relief pitcher wants the start, the substitue player wants to be in the starting line up everyday.
Because you do not ever get that role you want, does not mean you have found the wrong program. So in recruiting, this requires a lot of work on your part. Important to look at pitching stats, this gives an idea of how pitchers are used.
For example, taking two schools of interest for son, one school used their starters until the 5th -6th inning, then freshman pitchers were used in either in short relief (1 inning or 2)or as closers. Freshman got starts on the weekdays, depending on ability and need, and some of these games were against better teams than on weekends. If you didn't start and were an older effective pitcher, your job was for long relief. All pitchers had roles, each more significant each year getting more time on the mound. Five games a week requires careful planning and effective use of who you have recruited.
In the other program,IMO, pitchers were not used effectively, if a pitcher was successful he went the distance, not just once a week but sometimes two and there were a whole bunch of pitchers who did nothing. Pitching stats very lopsided, with starters having to large of a workload, IMO.
Both considerd very large programs, which would you choose as a pitcher?
I am not sure what are ideal conditions for position players. But if you see a roster with 6-7 catchers and some not being used in other positions, you got issues ahead of you. If you wish to sit the bench waiting for a catching position to open up, and that's the position you want to play, you better look elsewhere.
You are correct in the statement regarding coaches finding roles for their incoming freshman players to develop. As a pitcher, that might include relief innings, as a position player that might mean substitute, pitch hit, filling in for injured player, etc.
For some players though, that is not enough. The relief pitcher wants the start, the substitue player wants to be in the starting line up everyday.
Because you do not ever get that role you want, does not mean you have found the wrong program. So in recruiting, this requires a lot of work on your part. Important to look at pitching stats, this gives an idea of how pitchers are used.
For example, taking two schools of interest for son, one school used their starters until the 5th -6th inning, then freshman pitchers were used in either in short relief (1 inning or 2)or as closers. Freshman got starts on the weekdays, depending on ability and need, and some of these games were against better teams than on weekends. If you didn't start and were an older effective pitcher, your job was for long relief. All pitchers had roles, each more significant each year getting more time on the mound. Five games a week requires careful planning and effective use of who you have recruited.
In the other program,IMO, pitchers were not used effectively, if a pitcher was successful he went the distance, not just once a week but sometimes two and there were a whole bunch of pitchers who did nothing. Pitching stats very lopsided, with starters having to large of a workload, IMO.
Both considerd very large programs, which would you choose as a pitcher?
I am not sure what are ideal conditions for position players. But if you see a roster with 6-7 catchers and some not being used in other positions, you got issues ahead of you. If you wish to sit the bench waiting for a catching position to open up, and that's the position you want to play, you better look elsewhere.
This is one of the better threads I have read on this site--and nobody started arguing. I would add this consideration. If you think you want a carerr in baseball or sports, you may want to go to DI route because, in effect, you are working on your resume. If you are not a pro prospect, the logical (maybe not the emotional) decision is to go to the best school, whatever you decide that is.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Dawgfan,
There are some who hardly ever play for two years and then become starters as a junior. I’m not sure what the percentages are, but those percentages would be very low if there were no summer baseball.
I just think people need to understand the following.
My guess is you won’t find many!
Can’t tell you how often I’ve heard excited parents and players tell me… “They said I’d have a chance to play as a junior” I always cringe when I hear that because I want to say… “They are being honest and telling you they really don’t think very much of you and you are NOT really in their plans”.
PG...You went right where I had hoped you would and said it much better then I could.