"GPA is heavily influenced by study hall time, but there's no amount that is 100% guaranteed. 5 minutes of study hall is not a large amount. Many times that may be enough, but some players will need more. When you see something low like a 2.1, it's best to add study hall time to increase that player's odds of making the grade."
Nothing at all wrong with that statement ... How is that at all condescending, or even the slight bit negative? If a player has 2.1 for the a given midterm, you need to have, at the very Minimum, 10 minutes of study hall time. This is especially true if his HS GPA is less than 2.5. This is just the facts, nothing negative about that advise.
This is their 2nd response:
"There is a random factor involved in GPA. Study hall is a modifier of that random factor, so the more you have the better your odds. But, there is no guarantee. Otherwise there would be no strategy involved.
This feature of the game has always worked similarly. In fact a somewhat recent change was made to increase the impact of study hall on the GPA outcome.
5 minutes is not a large amount for a freshman. I believe most coaches allocate closer to 10 minutes."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement either. That is exactly what I would tell anyone who asked me for help as a mentor.
What, EXACTLY, did they say that is condescending or negative?