Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
(01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
Not officially as far as I can find.
However I am pretty sure the Athletic is just counting votes, right now it makes it by a few. It really is going to come down to details. I assume there will be a minimum number of conference games and likely some sort of cohesive requirement for every team to play every team in a certain number of years.
The response to Boise tells us all we need to know. The AAC is going to sit tight no matter what, excepting BYU or an Academy wanting in. No divisions just means that any borderline type team is no longer in the running. So we have gone from ten or less possible programs that could be in to three obvious ones and maybe a dark horse.
(01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
Can you paste the whole article for context? I know they removed the requirement for 2020, and that you don't have to have divisions if you can play a full round-robin in normal years. Haven't heard anything about not having to meeting any of those requirements outside of this year.
Posting entire articles from subscriber based media is not allowed on this board.
The Athletic is a great site and is worth the subscription.
(01-04-2021 12:17 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ]Posting entire articles from subscriber based media is not allowed on this board.
The Athletic is a great site and is worth the subscription.
Pony beat me to pointing out why I couldn't post the entire article (and he's completely right - it really is a fantastic source for a relatively small price).
That said, the sentence I included was really the only thing he said. I asked in the comments section if he could point me to where he got the information that this was permanent. I'll provide any answers I get.
If true, I tend to agree with Foreverandever - expansion definitely comes off the fast track.
USFFan
(01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
Its not new. It used to be the only way you could have a conference championship game was to have at least 12 members and divide into no more than 2 divisions where a round robin was played within each division.
You no longer are REQUIRED to have at least 12 members in order to qualify for a conference championship game. You no longer need to play divisions to have a CCG. You can now play a CCG pitting the top two finishers in a conference IF the conference plays a full round robin within the entire conference. The change dates back to 2016 or so.
So, a 10 team league would need a nine game conference schedule to play every other member of the conference. A 14 team conference cannot use this method because the it would require a 13 game conference schedule. The difference between the rule and what we did this year is we did not play a full round robin. We were allowed to do that because we have a 2 year waiver. As I understand it, we are seeking to modify the current CCG rules to eliminate the round robin portion of the CCG rule to allow divisionless CCG's with less than a full round robin of the league.
One other change from the old rule to the new. The old rule specified that the 2 divisions should be even. The new rule requires that the divisions should be as equal "as possible"--thus accounting for the possibility that a conference could have an odd number of members.
It’s one of those rules that applies to the G5 but not the P5.
Big12 no problem have a championship game
AAC, please apply for a waiver on a yearly basis until you get back to 12 members.
(01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
If true, saw this format for Patriot League (MBB)
CENTRAL
Lafayette Leopards
Lehigh Mountain Hawks
Bucknell Bison
NORTH
Boston Univ. Terriers
Holy Cross Crusaders
Army Black Knights
Colgate Raiders
SOUTH
American Eagles
Loyola (MD) Greyhounds
Navy Midshipmen
... made me think of this for AAC All sports, including football... ACC will probably love it as well with their "wet dream" of getting ND for all sports including football.
East:
Cincinnati
ECU
UCF
USF
Temple
Central:
Houston
Memphis
SMU
Tulsa
Tulane
West:
BSU
BYU
CSU/UNLV/Nevada/Fresno/(AF/Gonzaga)
Navy/WSU
SDSU
This would be a pretty good all around conference with an effort to minimize travel expenses
Divisions used for scheduling purpose.
(01-04-2021 12:35 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]It’s one of those rules that applies to the G5 but not the P5.
Big12 no problem have a championship game
AAC, please apply for a waiver on a yearly basis until you get back to 12 members.
They changed the rule so a full round robin can also have the championship game.
The SBC used that change (included eliminating a minimum number of teams for game) to basically make it all irrelevant anyway. They split a ten team into two divisions of five, so four division games and four crossover games, meaning they only miss one team every year.
I have had the idea occur but not sure it would be legal to have three or four divisions, play them and then use a tie breaker system to decide which two appear in the championship. The exact language of the rule may matter. Anyway I am pretty sure all of this is why the division rule/round robin rule will be changed it's mostly useless anyway. Just make it an eight game minimum and you have to play every team once every four years or something similar to prevent them from scheduling OSU into the play offs like they tried to this year and it should be fine.
AAC can pick two or four constants match ups for each team and rotate the others through. It will give the schedule a ton of continuity and every team will play each other a minum twice every four years and six times out of every eight years.
Two team schedule
Team:
Memphis
Cincinatti Rival 1 ~~Home
UCF Rival 2 ~~Away
Tulane Rotate 3~~Home
ECU Rotate 4~~Away
HoustonRotate 5~~Home
NavyRotate 6~~Away
USFRotate 7~~Home
TulsaRotate 8~~Away
Rotate 9
Temple and 10
SMU in after home and home for teams 3 and 4.
Four team schedule
Team
Memphis
CincinnatiRival 1~~Home
UCFRival 2~~Away
TulaneRival 3~~Home
HoustonRival 4~~Away
NavyRotate 5~~Home
ECURotate 6~~Away
USFRotate 7~~Home
TulsaRotate 8~~Away
Rotate 9
Templeand 10
SMU in after home and home for teams 5 and 6.
(01-04-2021 12:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
If true, saw this format for Patriot League (MBB)
CENTRAL
Lafayette Leopards
Lehigh Mountain Hawks
Bucknell Bison
NORTH
Boston Univ. Terriers
Holy Cross Crusaders
Army Black Knights
Colgate Raiders
SOUTH
American Eagles
Loyola (MD) Greyhounds
Navy Midshipmen
Patriot Men's and Women' Basketball are going with these "mini-conferences" and sixteen conference games total. It is ... interesting.
First, it isn't like "divisions" where there is a division winner. Season will end with a tournment of eight (normal years 7-10 are in a play-in round). To apply to football and a two-team CCG -- even if the rules changed to allow divisionless, or our current waivered situation to be a permanent situation -- would require a lot more thought to figure out reasonably equitable scheduling and then selection of two. Applying to all sports to minimize travel? Yeah, that could be one outgrowth of the COVID year in a number of sports, but football, MBB, and to a lesser extent WBB I don't see this being any kind of wave of the future.
Back to Patriot Hoops...all games are back-to-back home-and-away, mostly on Sat-Sun. Bucknell came to Annapolis Saturday and Navy bussed up to Lewisburg Sunday. Depth and S&C are going to be extremely important.
Within the mini-conference we have four games/two weekends with Loyola and American. Then Navy ALSO has four games/two weekends vs Army. Then two games/one weekend each with Bucknell and Lafayette. I don't think anyone is complaining about missing the trip to Hamilton, NY. But the win or go home, three-round conference tournament would be first and last look at Colgate, Holy Cross, BU, or Lehigh.
And that's before COVID complicates schedules. This weekend's trip up and down I97 and the Baltimore Beltway for Loyola games is postponed.
(01-04-2021 02:33 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 12:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
If true, saw this format for Patriot League (MBB)
CENTRAL
Lafayette Leopards
Lehigh Mountain Hawks
Bucknell Bison
NORTH
Boston Univ. Terriers
Holy Cross Crusaders
Army Black Knights
Colgate Raiders
SOUTH
American Eagles
Loyola (MD) Greyhounds
Navy Midshipmen
Patriot Men's and Women' Basketball are going with these "mini-conferences" and sixteen conference games total. It is ... interesting.
First, it isn't like "divisions" where there is a division winner. Season will end with a tournment of eight (normal years 7-10 are in a play-in round). To apply to football and a two-team CCG -- even if the rules changed to allow divisionless, or our current waivered situation to be a permanent situation -- would require a lot more thought to figure out reasonably equitable scheduling and then selection of two. Applying to all sports to minimize travel? Yeah, that could be one outgrowth of the COVID year in a number of sports, but football, MBB, and to a lesser extent WBB I don't see this being any kind of wave of the future.
Back to Patriot Hoops...all games are back-to-back home-and-away, mostly on Sat-Sun. Bucknell came to Annapolis Saturday and Navy bussed up to Lewisburg Sunday. Depth and S&C are going to be extremely important.
Within the mini-conference we have four games/two weekends with Loyola and American. Then Navy ALSO has four games/two weekends vs Army. Then two games/one weekend each with Bucknell and Lafayette. I don't think anyone is complaining about missing the trip to Hamilton, NY. But the win or go home, three-round conference tournament would be first and last look at Colgate, Holy Cross, BU, or Lehigh.
And that's before COVID complicates schedules. This weekend's trip up and down I97 and the Baltimore Beltway for Loyola games is postponed.
Scheduling might be a nightmare... but for the AAC those groupings wouldn't be Divisions or PODS, just grouping for scheduling/travel.
BTW, I like the Home and Home scheduling during this PANDEMIC.
(01-04-2021 12:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
If true, saw this format for Patriot League (MBB)
CENTRAL
Lafayette Leopards
Lehigh Mountain Hawks
Bucknell Bison
NORTH
Boston Univ. Terriers
Holy Cross Crusaders
Army Black Knights
Colgate Raiders
SOUTH
American Eagles
Loyola (MD) Greyhounds
Navy Midshipmen
... made me think of this for AAC All sports, including football... ACC will probably love it as well with their "wet dream" of getting ND for all sports including football.
East:
Cincinnati
ECU
UCF
USF
Temple
Central:
Houston
Memphis
SMU
Tulsa
Tulane
West:
BSU
BYU
CSU/UNLV/Nevada/Fresno/(AF/Gonzaga)
Navy/WSU
SDSU
This would be a pretty good all around conference with an effort to minimize travel expenses
Divisions used for scheduling purpose.
It doesn't really minimize WSU's travel. They need to be in the Central; every team in the Central Time Zone.
(01-04-2021 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
Its not new. It used to be the only way you could have a conference championship game was to have at least 12 members and divide into no more than 2 divisions where a round robin was played within each division.
You no longer are REQUIRED to have at least 12 members in order to qualify for a conference championship game. You no longer need to play divisions to have a CCG. You can now play a CCG pitting the top two finishers in a conference IF the conference plays a full round robin within the entire conference. The change dates back to 2016 or so.
So, a 10 team league would need a nine game conference schedule to play every other member of the conference. A 14 team conference cannot use this method because the it would require a 13 game conference schedule. The difference between the rule and what we did this year is we did not play a full round robin. We were allowed to do that because we have a 2 year waiver. As I understand it, we are seeking to modify the current CCG rules to eliminate the round robin portion of the CCG rule to allow divisionless CCG's with less than a full round robin of the league.
One other change from the old rule to the new. The old rule specified that the 2 divisions should be even. The new rule requires that the divisions should be as equal "as possible"--thus accounting for the possibility that a conference could have an odd number of members.
Right. Been that way since 2016. This implies no NEW changes allowing a 14-team Big10 (or 11 team AAC for that matter) to have a CCG without divisions, or a full round robin, or a waiver.
In other words, unless the temporary 2020 rules became permanent, there is no more or less urgency to add a football team than there was 6 months ago.
(01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
Permanent rivals makes a lot of sense for the AAC.
(01-04-2021 03:57 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
Its not new. It used to be the only way you could have a conference championship game was to have at least 12 members and divide into no more than 2 divisions where a round robin was played within each division.
You no longer are REQUIRED to have at least 12 members in order to qualify for a conference championship game. You no longer need to play divisions to have a CCG. You can now play a CCG pitting the top two finishers in a conference IF the conference plays a full round robin within the entire conference. The change dates back to 2016 or so.
So, a 10 team league would need a nine game conference schedule to play every other member of the conference. A 14 team conference cannot use this method because the it would require a 13 game conference schedule. The difference between the rule and what we did this year is we did not play a full round robin. We were allowed to do that because we have a 2 year waiver. As I understand it, we are seeking to modify the current CCG rules to eliminate the round robin portion of the CCG rule to allow divisionless CCG's with less than a full round robin of the league.
One other change from the old rule to the new. The old rule specified that the 2 divisions should be even. The new rule requires that the divisions should be as equal "as possible"--thus accounting for the possibility that a conference could have an odd number of members.
Right. Been that way since 2016. This implies no NEW changes allowing a 14-team Big10 (or 11 team AAC for that matter) to have a CCG without divisions, or a full round robin, or a waiver.
In other words, unless the temporary 2020 rules became permanent, there is no more or less urgency to add a football team than there was 6 months ago.
The inference from the article was that the B1G should explore this option going forward, so since the author wrote what he did, I assumed (I know, never ass/u/me anything) he meant that there was a rule in place to do away with divisions without the round robin (since that wouldn't be possible in the B1G anyway). Hence my question.
USFFan
(01-04-2021 05:17 PM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 03:57 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
Its not new. It used to be the only way you could have a conference championship game was to have at least 12 members and divide into no more than 2 divisions where a round robin was played within each division.
You no longer are REQUIRED to have at least 12 members in order to qualify for a conference championship game. You no longer need to play divisions to have a CCG. You can now play a CCG pitting the top two finishers in a conference IF the conference plays a full round robin within the entire conference. The change dates back to 2016 or so.
So, a 10 team league would need a nine game conference schedule to play every other member of the conference. A 14 team conference cannot use this method because the it would require a 13 game conference schedule. The difference between the rule and what we did this year is we did not play a full round robin. We were allowed to do that because we have a 2 year waiver. As I understand it, we are seeking to modify the current CCG rules to eliminate the round robin portion of the CCG rule to allow divisionless CCG's with less than a full round robin of the league.
One other change from the old rule to the new. The old rule specified that the 2 divisions should be even. The new rule requires that the divisions should be as equal "as possible"--thus accounting for the possibility that a conference could have an odd number of members.
Right. Been that way since 2016. This implies no NEW changes allowing a 14-team Big10 (or 11 team AAC for that matter) to have a CCG without divisions, or a full round robin, or a waiver.
In other words, unless the temporary 2020 rules became permanent, there is no more or less urgency to add a football team than there was 6 months ago.
The inference from the article was that the B1G should explore this option going forward, so since the author wrote what he did, I assumed (I know, never ass/u/me anything) he meant that there was a rule in place to do away with divisions without the round robin (since that wouldn't be possible in the B1G anyway). Hence my question.
USFFan
Didnt read the article, but I do remember a couple of years ago former Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany mentioned the Big-10 was interested in looking into a divisionless set up (this was back before he left the commissioner position). Thats one of the reasons I think there will be a rule change making what we are doing with our 2 year waiver (divisionless CCG with no full conference round robin) something any conference can do.
(01-04-2021 12:05 PM)Foreverandever Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
The response to Boise tells us all we need to know. The AAC is going to sit tight no matter what, excepting BYU or an Academy wanting in.
The response to Boise was to invite Boise FB to join the AAC.
They didn't sit tight" in Boise's case. They offered them a membership.
(01-04-2021 12:35 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]It’s one of those rules that applies to the G5 but not the P5.
Big12 no problem have a championship game
AAC, please apply for a waiver on a yearly basis until you get back to 12 members.
Not really accurate. The rule states you can have less than 12 and play a CCG IF you play a round robin in the conference.
The Big 12 does that. The AAC does not.
(01-05-2021 01:01 AM)jedclampett Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 12:05 PM)Foreverandever Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
The response to Boise tells us all we need to know. The AAC is going to sit tight no matter what, excepting BYU or an Academy wanting in.
The response to Boise was to invite Boise FB to join the AAC.
They didn't sit tight" in Boise's case. They offered them a membership.
Not true, that's what you read into the situation.
(01-05-2021 03:23 AM)Foreverandever Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2021 01:01 AM)jedclampett Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 12:05 PM)Foreverandever Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021 11:57 AM)usffan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I know, it's the topic that never goes away (and singlehandedly fuels a certain Beverly Hillbilly who used to be addicted to posting polls). But I saw this article in The Athletic:
https://theathletic.com/2295613/2021/01/...ed_article
And it says the following:
Quote:Yet with the NCAA removing divisional requirements for conference championship games, perhaps the league should re-evaluate its entire structure.
I guess I missed this bit of news. Divisional requirements are now formally no longer required? If that's the case, is there really a driver for AAC expansion?
USFFan
The response to Boise tells us all we need to know. The AAC is going to sit tight no matter what, excepting BYU or an Academy wanting in.
The response to Boise was to invite Boise FB to join the AAC.
They didn't sit tight" in Boise's case. They offered them a membership.
Not true, that's what you read into the situation.
So you're suggesting that the AAC didn't offer Boise FB an invitation to join the AAC?
I wonder if anyone around here will agree with you.