DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

AmadorBear said:

---

Ron Rivera is football royalty.

All American in college
Plays for 85' Chicago Bears team under tutelage of Buddy Ryan/Ditka and wins SB
Asst Coach for many years.
Head Coach in the league and makes it to the Super Bowl with Carolina
De Facto CEO/HC of the crumbling Washington Commanders franchise when owner got booted
On the NFL competition committee.

He has simply seen and done it all at every level.

I have 100% full confidence in his decision making for the future of our Cal program.

---

not opposed to RR, but keep in mind top players often do not make great coaches

the reality (which most ignore) is that picking the next great/awesome coach is more or less a crapshoot, sometimes you win, usually you lose

if JW is dumped at some point (end of contract) do not be surprised if at some point, some are wishing for the good old days of JW

---

Wishing for the good old days of Wilcox? Let's compare with closest (in terms of performance) predecessor:

Justin Wilcox - 9 years, .471 Winning Percentage, .361 Conference Winning Percentage
Ray Willsey - 8 years - .488 Winning Percentage, .409 Conference Winning Percentage

I was a Cal student at the time, and nobody wished for the "good old days" of Ray after he was replaced by Mike White.

---

Similarly, none of us who wanted Holmoe fired and were against his extension were pinning for Gilby. We knew we could do better than both.

The reality to keep in mind is that our schedule will be tougher next year than Wilcox was gifted these past two years. Ideally we would have made the change ahead of the 2024 or 2025 season to give the new coach the bump (hopefully more than this) and recruiting momentum. Now, if we keep Wilcox another year I think he bottoms out next year, like Holmoe and Fox finally did (only after we extended them). I'm not sure that is better for the program even if we "save" a few $million (whatever a new coach would cost). On the other hand, it can be bad when a coach is fired because the next year looks worse and you hand the new coach a bad situation, undermining fan support for the new coach (part of what happened in 2013).

We will see what Ron does.

---

If Wilcox stays, I look forward to hearing about how easy are 2026 schedule is next summer and fall. It is predictable.

---

Next year is looking tougher than this year and last year, but not as tough as when we were in the Pac-12, and our record will likely be worse, all things being equal. A lot will depend on who UCLA hires and how good they are next year. BYU and UNLV on the road will be tough. Clemsen at home. Virginia, Syracuse, NC State and SMU on the road. If Wilcox stays or is replaced and Cal gets 8 or more wins it will be because Cal will have fielded a better team than Wilcox has for his first 9 years.

---

We have a good team this year with a freshman QB. If he stays, we will be even better. Please note that half the teams we have played this season have somehow been scheduled to have their bye week right before playing us. That isn't fair scheduling and gives us a disadvantage relative to our strength of schedule. It isn't something sagarin weighs because it isn't supposed to happen.

---

Interesting, not half, but 4 teams does seem greater than average. Who do you think we could have beat that we lost to because they had a bye?

We are the #110 offense in yards per play. #135 in rushing. The way we get better next year is if we can surround Sagapolutele with good skill players instead of chasing them away like these coaches did this year.

We are the #101 team in rushing yards per play defense. If we don't improve then teams will only exploit it more consistently. Louisville should have, Stanford probably can't but SMU can. We will need a better DL next year to improve on that, since we already have great LBs.

A lot will depend on what happens in the offseason.

---

Stanfurd will have had a bye when playing us next week. Considering that each team gets two byes, FIVE is indeed greater than TWO. I am glad you can admit that FOUR seems greater than TWO, but it should be obvious to even the most dense bashers.

To summarize,

5 > 2

and

4 > 2.

It is hard to question that or put doubt into that even if you don't want to admit that it makes our schedule this season harder than your arguments want it to be.

And, guess what?

Having our opponent have a bye before playing us, makes it harder to play them!

So, yes, we would have likely done better in all four games and those ratings you repeat endlessly would be improved! Logically, this helps us do better in all 4 games, one of which we lost in a close fashion. Thanks!

---

A bye week isn't necessarily an advantage, all 4 of the CFP top seeded teams that had a bye ended up losing. Also, you need not look further than Wilcox's own record to see that byes don't auto translate to wins. Notable losses include 2022 Colorado, 2023 USC, and 2024 Miami

---

A bye week is almost always an advantage.

Advantages of a bye week

Rest and recovery: Players get an extra week to rest and recover from injuries, which is especially beneficial in physically demanding sports like the NFL.

Extra preparation: Coaches can use the extra time to scout opponents, review game film, and create a more detailed game plan.

Strategic adjustment: It gives the team time to "soul-search" and make adjustments to their offensive or defensive schemes if needed.

Potential downsides or limitations

"Cooling down" a hot team: Some argue that a long break can disrupt a team's momentum and rhythm, particularly if they were on a winning streak.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

AmadorBear said:

---

Ron Rivera is football royalty.

All American in college
Plays for 85' Chicago Bears team under tutelage of Buddy Ryan/Ditka and wins SB
Asst Coach for many years.
Head Coach in the league and makes it to the Super Bowl with Carolina
De Facto CEO/HC of the crumbling Washington Commanders franchise when owner got booted
On the NFL competition committee.

He has simply seen and done it all at every level.

I have 100% full confidence in his decision making for the future of our Cal program.

---

not opposed to RR, but keep in mind top players often do not make great coaches

the reality (which most ignore) is that picking the next great/awesome coach is more or less a crapshoot, sometimes you win, usually you lose

if JW is dumped at some point (end of contract) do not be surprised if at some point, some are wishing for the good old days of JW

---

Wishing for the good old days of Wilcox? Let's compare with closest (in terms of performance) predecessor:

Justin Wilcox - 9 years, .471 Winning Percentage, .361 Conference Winning Percentage
Ray Willsey - 8 years - .488 Winning Percentage, .409 Conference Winning Percentage

I was a Cal student at the time, and nobody wished for the "good old days" of Ray after he was replaced by Mike White.

---

Similarly, none of us who wanted Holmoe fired and were against his extension were pinning for Gilby. We knew we could do better than both.

The reality to keep in mind is that our schedule will be tougher next year than Wilcox was gifted these past two years. Ideally we would have made the change ahead of the 2024 or 2025 season to give the new coach the bump (hopefully more than this) and recruiting momentum. Now, if we keep Wilcox another year I think he bottoms out next year, like Holmoe and Fox finally did (only after we extended them). I'm not sure that is better for the program even if we "save" a few $million (whatever a new coach would cost). On the other hand, it can be bad when a coach is fired because the next year looks worse and you hand the new coach a bad situation, undermining fan support for the new coach (part of what happened in 2013).

We will see what Ron does.

---

If Wilcox stays, I look forward to hearing about how easy are 2026 schedule is next summer and fall. It is predictable.

---

Next year is looking tougher than this year and last year, but not as tough as when we were in the Pac-12, and our record will likely be worse, all things being equal. A lot will depend on who UCLA hires and how good they are next year. BYU and UNLV on the road will be tough. Clemsen at home. Virginia, Syracuse, NC State and SMU on the road. If Wilcox stays or is replaced and Cal gets 8 or more wins it will be because Cal will have fielded a better team than Wilcox has for his first 9 years.

---

We have a good team this year with a freshman QB. If he stays, we will be even better. Please note that half the teams we have played this season have somehow been scheduled to have their bye week right before playing us. That isn't fair scheduling and gives us a disadvantage relative to our strength of schedule. It isn't something sagarin weighs because it isn't supposed to happen.

---

Interesting, not half, but 4 teams does seem greater than average. Who do you think we could have beat that we lost to because they had a bye?

We are the #110 offense in yards per play. #135 in rushing. The way we get better next year is if we can surround Sagapolutele with good skill players instead of chasing them away like these coaches did this year.

We are the #101 team in rushing yards per play defense. If we don't improve then teams will only exploit it more consistently. Louisville should have, Stanford probably can't but SMU can. We will need a better DL next year to improve on that, since we already have great LBs.

A lot will depend on what happens in the offseason.

---

Stanfurd will have had a bye when playing us next week. Considering that each team gets two byes, FIVE is indeed greater than TWO. I am glad you can admit that FOUR seems greater than TWO, but it should be obvious to even the most dense bashers.

To summarize,

5 > 2

and

4 > 2.

It is hard to question that or put doubt into that even if you don't want to admit that it makes our schedule this season harder than your arguments want it to be.

And, guess what?

Having our opponent have a bye before playing us, makes it harder to play them!

So, yes, we would have likely done better in all four games and those ratings you repeat endlessly would be improved! Logically, this helps us do better in all 4 games, one of which we lost in a close fashion. Thanks!

---

A bye week isn't necessarily an advantage, all 4 of the CFP top seeded teams that had a bye ended up losing. Also, you need not look further than Wilcox's own record to see that byes don't auto translate to wins. Notable losses include 2022 Colorado, 2023 USC, and 2024 Miami

---

Also, it took me all of 30 seconds to look up our loss against Colorado in 2022. Both teams had a bye before the game, negating one team's advantage. As for Miami, we were up 21-10 in the first half and 25 points late in the third against a ranked team starting the future #1 overall pick at QB. Unfortunately, we melted in the fourth and lost by one point against them. The bye helped us, and we came out on fire.

Why didn't you just take 30 seconds to do the same before presenting your idiotic argument?

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

AmadorBear said:

---

Ron Rivera is football royalty.

All American in college
Plays for 85' Chicago Bears team under tutelage of Buddy Ryan/Ditka and wins SB
Asst Coach for many years.
Head Coach in the league and makes it to the Super Bowl with Carolina
De Facto CEO/HC of the crumbling Washington Commanders franchise when owner got booted
On the NFL competition committee.

He has simply seen and done it all at every level.

I have 100% full confidence in his decision making for the future of our Cal program.

---

not opposed to RR, but keep in mind top players often do not make great coaches

the reality (which most ignore) is that picking the next great/awesome coach is more or less a crapshoot, sometimes you win, usually you lose

if JW is dumped at some point (end of contract) do not be surprised if at some point, some are wishing for the good old days of JW

---

Wishing for the good old days of Wilcox? Let's compare with closest (in terms of performance) predecessor:

Justin Wilcox - 9 years, .471 Winning Percentage, .361 Conference Winning Percentage
Ray Willsey - 8 years - .488 Winning Percentage, .409 Conference Winning Percentage

I was a Cal student at the time, and nobody wished for the "good old days" of Ray after he was replaced by Mike White.

---

Similarly, none of us who wanted Holmoe fired and were against his extension were pinning for Gilby. We knew we could do better than both.

The reality to keep in mind is that our schedule will be tougher next year than Wilcox was gifted these past two years. Ideally we would have made the change ahead of the 2024 or 2025 season to give the new coach the bump (hopefully more than this) and recruiting momentum. Now, if we keep Wilcox another year I think he bottoms out next year, like Holmoe and Fox finally did (only after we extended them). I'm not sure that is better for the program even if we "save" a few $million (whatever a new coach would cost). On the other hand, it can be bad when a coach is fired because the next year looks worse and you hand the new coach a bad situation, undermining fan support for the new coach (part of what happened in 2013).

We will see what Ron does.

---

If Wilcox stays, I look forward to hearing about how easy are 2026 schedule is next summer and fall. It is predictable.

---

Next year is looking tougher than this year and last year, but not as tough as when we were in the Pac-12, and our record will likely be worse, all things being equal. A lot will depend on who UCLA hires and how good they are next year. BYU and UNLV on the road will be tough. Clemsen at home. Virginia, Syracuse, NC State and SMU on the road. If Wilcox stays or is replaced and Cal gets 8 or more wins it will be because Cal will have fielded a better team than Wilcox has for his first 9 years.

---

We have a good team this year with a freshman QB. If he stays, we will be even better. Please note that half the teams we have played this season have somehow been scheduled to have their bye week right before playing us. That isn't fair scheduling and gives us a disadvantage relative to our strength of schedule. It isn't something sagarin weighs because it isn't supposed to happen.

---

A good team doesn't appear completely helpless against a G5 team. A good team doesn't get beat ad nauseum by the same play run by a bad team. We are a decent team with an outstanding freshman QB.

chazzed said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

AmadorBear said:

---

Ron Rivera is football royalty.

All American in college
Plays for 85' Chicago Bears team under tutelage of Buddy Ryan/Ditka and wins SB
Asst Coach for many years.
Head Coach in the league and makes it to the Super Bowl with Carolina
De Facto CEO/HC of the crumbling Washington Commanders franchise when owner got booted
On the NFL competition committee.

He has simply seen and done it all at every level.

I have 100% full confidence in his decision making for the future of our Cal program.

---

not opposed to RR, but keep in mind top players often do not make great coaches

the reality (which most ignore) is that picking the next great/awesome coach is more or less a crapshoot, sometimes you win, usually you lose

if JW is dumped at some point (end of contract) do not be surprised if at some point, some are wishing for the good old days of JW

---

Wishing for the good old days of Wilcox? Let's compare with closest (in terms of performance) predecessor:

Justin Wilcox - 9 years, .471 Winning Percentage, .361 Conference Winning Percentage
Ray Willsey - 8 years - .488 Winning Percentage, .409 Conference Winning Percentage

I was a Cal student at the time, and nobody wished for the "good old days" of Ray after he was replaced by Mike White.

---

Similarly, none of us who wanted Holmoe fired and were against his extension were pinning for Gilby. We knew we could do better than both.

The reality to keep in mind is that our schedule will be tougher next year than Wilcox was gifted these past two years. Ideally we would have made the change ahead of the 2024 or 2025 season to give the new coach the bump (hopefully more than this) and recruiting momentum. Now, if we keep Wilcox another year I think he bottoms out next year, like Holmoe and Fox finally did (only after we extended them). I'm not sure that is better for the program even if we "save" a few $million (whatever a new coach would cost). On the other hand, it can be bad when a coach is fired because the next year looks worse and you hand the new coach a bad situation, undermining fan support for the new coach (part of what happened in 2013).

We will see what Ron does.

---

If Wilcox stays, I look forward to hearing about how easy are 2026 schedule is next summer and fall. It is predictable.

---

Next year is looking tougher than this year and last year, but not as tough as when we were in the Pac-12, and our record will likely be worse, all things being equal. A lot will depend on who UCLA hires and how good they are next year. BYU and UNLV on the road will be tough. Clemsen at home. Virginia, Syracuse, NC State and SMU on the road. If Wilcox stays or is replaced and Cal gets 8 or more wins it will be because Cal will have fielded a better team than Wilcox has for his first 9 years.

---

We have a good team this year with a freshman QB. If he stays, we will be even better. Please note that half the teams we have played this season have somehow been scheduled to have their bye week right before playing us. That isn't fair scheduling and gives us a disadvantage relative to our strength of schedule. It isn't something sagarin weighs because it isn't supposed to happen.

---

A good team doesn't appear completely helpless against a G5 team. A good team doesn't get beat ad nauseum by the same play run by a bad team. We are a decent team with an outstanding freshman QB.

---

Edited good to decent to try to further avoid my point flying over people's heads. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Of course, we have a couple of outstanding defenders too (Uluave and Masses). We also have a receiver/returner with tons of heart who had an insane game against Louisville (De Jesus). I didn't mean to short change those guys.

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

AmadorBear said:

---

Ron Rivera is football royalty.

All American in college
Plays for 85' Chicago Bears team under tutelage of Buddy Ryan/Ditka and wins SB
Asst Coach for many years.
Head Coach in the league and makes it to the Super Bowl with Carolina
De Facto CEO/HC of the crumbling Washington Commanders franchise when owner got booted
On the NFL competition committee.

He has simply seen and done it all at every level.

I have 100% full confidence in his decision making for the future of our Cal program.

---

not opposed to RR, but keep in mind top players often do not make great coaches

the reality (which most ignore) is that picking the next great/awesome coach is more or less a crapshoot, sometimes you win, usually you lose

if JW is dumped at some point (end of contract) do not be surprised if at some point, some are wishing for the good old days of JW

---

Wishing for the good old days of Wilcox? Let's compare with closest (in terms of performance) predecessor:

Justin Wilcox - 9 years, .471 Winning Percentage, .361 Conference Winning Percentage
Ray Willsey - 8 years - .488 Winning Percentage, .409 Conference Winning Percentage

I was a Cal student at the time, and nobody wished for the "good old days" of Ray after he was replaced by Mike White.

---

Similarly, none of us who wanted Holmoe fired and were against his extension were pinning for Gilby. We knew we could do better than both.

The reality to keep in mind is that our schedule will be tougher next year than Wilcox was gifted these past two years. Ideally we would have made the change ahead of the 2024 or 2025 season to give the new coach the bump (hopefully more than this) and recruiting momentum. Now, if we keep Wilcox another year I think he bottoms out next year, like Holmoe and Fox finally did (only after we extended them). I'm not sure that is better for the program even if we "save" a few $million (whatever a new coach would cost). On the other hand, it can be bad when a coach is fired because the next year looks worse and you hand the new coach a bad situation, undermining fan support for the new coach (part of what happened in 2013).

We will see what Ron does.

---

If Wilcox stays, I look forward to hearing about how easy are 2026 schedule is next summer and fall. It is predictable.

---

Next year is looking tougher than this year and last year, but not as tough as when we were in the Pac-12, and our record will likely be worse, all things being equal. A lot will depend on who UCLA hires and how good they are next year. BYU and UNLV on the road will be tough. Clemsen at home. Virginia, Syracuse, NC State and SMU on the road. If Wilcox stays or is replaced and Cal gets 8 or more wins it will be because Cal will have fielded a better team than Wilcox has for his first 9 years.

---

We have a good team this year with a freshman QB. If he stays, we will be even better. Please note that half the teams we have played this season have somehow been scheduled to have their bye week right before playing us. That isn't fair scheduling and gives us a disadvantage relative to our strength of schedule. It isn't something sagarin weighs because it isn't supposed to happen.

---

Interesting, not half, but 4 teams does seem greater than average. Who do you think we could have beat that we lost to because they had a bye?

We are the #110 offense in yards per play. #135 in rushing. The way we get better next year is if we can surround Sagapolutele with good skill players instead of chasing them away like these coaches did this year.

We are the #101 team in rushing yards per play defense. If we don't improve then teams will only exploit it more consistently. Louisville should have, Stanford probably can't but SMU can. We will need a better DL next year to improve on that, since we already have great LBs.

A lot will depend on what happens in the offseason.

---

Stanfurd will have had a bye when playing us next week. Considering that each team gets two byes, FIVE is indeed greater than TWO. I am glad you can admit that FOUR seems greater than TWO, but it should be obvious to even the most dense bashers.

To summarize,

5 > 2

and

4 > 2.

It is hard to question that or put doubt into that even if you don't want to admit that it makes our schedule this season harder than your arguments want it to be.

And, guess what?

Having our opponent have a bye before playing us, makes it harder to play them!

So, yes, we would have likely done better in all four games and those ratings you repeat endlessly would be improved! Logically, this helps us do better in all 4 games, one of which we lost in a close fashion. Thanks!

---

A bye week isn't necessarily an advantage, all 4 of the CFP top seeded teams that had a bye ended up losing. Also, you need not look further than Wilcox's own record to see that byes don't auto translate to wins. Notable losses include 2022 Colorado, 2023 USC, and 2024 Miami

---

Also, it took me all of 30 seconds to look up our loss against Colorado in 2022. Both teams had a bye before the game, negating one team's advantage. As for Miami, we were up 21-10 in the first half and 25 points late in the third against a ranked team starting the future #1 overall pick at QB. Unfortunately, we melted in the fourth and lost by one point against them. The bye helped us, and we came out on fire.

Why didn't you just take 30 seconds to do the same before presenting your idiotic argument?

---

Nice of you to resort to insults when you realize your argument is weak. Are you trying to say you are proud we choked against Miami? Are you saying that South Carolina fans should be proud that they let victory slip away when they were up 27 points against A&M yesterday?

I didn't even bother including our bye this year, but since you insist on your argument - we beat UNC after a bye at home by 1 point. By your logic, the combined benefit of having a bye and being at home means that we would've gotten demolished by one of the worst teams in FBS on a neutral field.

It's absolutely not an irrefutable fact that having a bye is an advantage. Not having a game in two weeks means the team is rusty and needs to spend the first half getting back to a rhythm. You have said nothing about last year's CFP top 4 teams that had a bye but all lost.

I noticed this about you over the years, you have some compulsive acute reaction towards losing arguments. To the point where you find every way to be 'technically' correct just to protect your fragile ego. Life is too short to get worked up on every little argument, bud. Just take the L and move on.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

AmadorBear said:

---

Ron Rivera is football royalty.

All American in college
Plays for 85' Chicago Bears team under tutelage of Buddy Ryan/Ditka and wins SB
Asst Coach for many years.
Head Coach in the league and makes it to the Super Bowl with Carolina
De Facto CEO/HC of the crumbling Washington Commanders franchise when owner got booted
On the NFL competition committee.

He has simply seen and done it all at every level.

I have 100% full confidence in his decision making for the future of our Cal program.

---

not opposed to RR, but keep in mind top players often do not make great coaches

the reality (which most ignore) is that picking the next great/awesome coach is more or less a crapshoot, sometimes you win, usually you lose

if JW is dumped at some point (end of contract) do not be surprised if at some point, some are wishing for the good old days of JW

---

Wishing for the good old days of Wilcox? Let's compare with closest (in terms of performance) predecessor:

Justin Wilcox - 9 years, .471 Winning Percentage, .361 Conference Winning Percentage
Ray Willsey - 8 years - .488 Winning Percentage, .409 Conference Winning Percentage

I was a Cal student at the time, and nobody wished for the "good old days" of Ray after he was replaced by Mike White.

---

Similarly, none of us who wanted Holmoe fired and were against his extension were pinning for Gilby. We knew we could do better than both.

The reality to keep in mind is that our schedule will be tougher next year than Wilcox was gifted these past two years. Ideally we would have made the change ahead of the 2024 or 2025 season to give the new coach the bump (hopefully more than this) and recruiting momentum. Now, if we keep Wilcox another year I think he bottoms out next year, like Holmoe and Fox finally did (only after we extended them). I'm not sure that is better for the program even if we "save" a few $million (whatever a new coach would cost). On the other hand, it can be bad when a coach is fired because the next year looks worse and you hand the new coach a bad situation, undermining fan support for the new coach (part of what happened in 2013).

We will see what Ron does.

---

If Wilcox stays, I look forward to hearing about how easy are 2026 schedule is next summer and fall. It is predictable.

---

Next year is looking tougher than this year and last year, but not as tough as when we were in the Pac-12, and our record will likely be worse, all things being equal. A lot will depend on who UCLA hires and how good they are next year. BYU and UNLV on the road will be tough. Clemsen at home. Virginia, Syracuse, NC State and SMU on the road. If Wilcox stays or is replaced and Cal gets 8 or more wins it will be because Cal will have fielded a better team than Wilcox has for his first 9 years.

---

We have a good team this year with a freshman QB. If he stays, we will be even better. Please note that half the teams we have played this season have somehow been scheduled to have their bye week right before playing us. That isn't fair scheduling and gives us a disadvantage relative to our strength of schedule. It isn't something sagarin weighs because it isn't supposed to happen.

---

Interesting, not half, but 4 teams does seem greater than average. Who do you think we could have beat that we lost to because they had a bye?

We are the #110 offense in yards per play. #135 in rushing. The way we get better next year is if we can surround Sagapolutele with good skill players instead of chasing them away like these coaches did this year.

We are the #101 team in rushing yards per play defense. If we don't improve then teams will only exploit it more consistently. Louisville should have, Stanford probably can't but SMU can. We will need a better DL next year to improve on that, since we already have great LBs.

A lot will depend on what happens in the offseason.

---

Stanfurd will have had a bye when playing us next week. Considering that each team gets two byes, FIVE is indeed greater than TWO. I am glad you can admit that FOUR seems greater than TWO, but it should be obvious to even the most dense bashers.

To summarize,

5 > 2

and

4 > 2.

It is hard to question that or put doubt into that even if you don't want to admit that it makes our schedule this season harder than your arguments want it to be.

And, guess what?

Having our opponent have a bye before playing us, makes it harder to play them!

So, yes, we would have likely done better in all four games and those ratings you repeat endlessly would be improved! Logically, this helps us do better in all 4 games, one of which we lost in a close fashion. Thanks!

---

A bye week isn't necessarily an advantage, all 4 of the CFP top seeded teams that had a bye ended up losing. Also, you need not look further than Wilcox's own record to see that byes don't auto translate to wins. Notable losses include 2022 Colorado, 2023 USC, and 2024 Miami

---

Also, it took me all of 30 seconds to look up our loss against Colorado in 2022. Both teams had a bye before the game, negating one team's advantage. As for Miami, we were up 21-10 in the first half and 25 points late in the third against a ranked team starting the future #1 overall pick at QB. Unfortunately, we melted in the fourth and lost by one point against them. The bye helped us, and we came out on fire.

Why didn't you just take 30 seconds to do the same before presenting your idiotic argument?

---

Nice of you to resort to insults when you realize your argument is weak. Are you trying to say you are proud we choked against Miami? Are you saying that South Carolina fans should be proud that they let victory slip away when they were up 27 points against A&M yesterday?

I didn't even bother including our bye this year, but since you insist on your argument - we beat UNC after a bye at home by 1 point. By your logic, the combined benefit of having a bye and being at home means that we would've gotten demolished by one of the worst teams in FBS on a neutral field.

It's absolutely not an irrefutable fact that having a bye is an advantage. Not having a game in two weeks means the team is rusty and needs to spend the first half getting back to a rhythm. You have said nothing about last year's CFP top 4 teams that had a bye but all lost.

I noticed this about you over the years, you have some compulsive acute reaction towards losing arguments. To the point where you find every way to be 'technically' correct just to protect your fragile ego. Life is too short to get worked up on every little argument, bud. Just take the L and move on.

---

All your points are so easily refuted, you should be embarrassed.

"Nice of you to resort to insults when you realize your argument is weak."

-Your argument was insulted because it was incredibly weak as I noted above. You used the Colorado game as an example to prove your incorrect point, but didn't even realize Colorado had a bye. Way to go! You do the same in the reply to me here (see below) as if you are trying to demonstrate you simply just hate Wilcox too much to be objective and learn something.

"Are you trying to say you are proud we choked against Miami?"

-No, did I say I am proud we lost? No. We were a big underdog going against a top ranked team. Our bye week preparation helped put us out to a 25 point lead in the third quarter. That's all I said. Stop making things up to attempt to have a point.

"I didn't even bother including our bye this year, but since you insist on your argument - we beat UNC after a bye at home by 1 point. By your logic, the combined benefit of having a bye and being at home means that we would've gotten demolished by one of the worst teams in FBS on a neutral field."

-Wow, you really don't actually do an research, ever. UNC also had a bye week to prepare. Once again, your point is useless.

"It's absolutely not an irrefutable fact that having a bye is an advantage. Not having a game in two weeks means the team is rusty and needs to spend the first half getting back to a rhythm. You have said nothing about last year's CFP top 4 teams that had a bye but all lost."

-Every team but Georgia, who had to play their backup QB, that had a bye was a worse team than the team ranked ahead of them. Also, the time between games was 9-10 days, not 6-7 like in a normal weak.

"I noticed this about you over the years, you have some compulsive acute reaction towards losing arguments. To the point where you find every way to be 'technically' correct just to protect your fragile ego. Life is too short to get worked up on every little argument, bud. Just take the L and move on."

-Above paragraph was funny. Thanks for laugh.

After reading through these incredible arguments, I have reached the most logical and accurate conclusion:

You are both completely wrong! Bye! (No pun intended)

Over the years, one can always count on oski003 sticking his neck out to defend the loser coach and constantly moving the goalposts he himself set.

BearChemist said:

---

Over the years, one can always count on oski003 sticking his neck out to defend the loser coach and constantly moving the goalposts he himself set.

---

Can you elaborate on me moving the goalposts? Personally, I am okay with replacing Wilcox if he doesn't win 9, and I would be 100% on board with replacing him if he doesn't win 7 or wins 7 but loses to stanfurd.

Having one team coming off a bye week to face a team with less than 8 days rest is an unfair advantage to the team coming off a bye week. Period.

oski003 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Over the years, one can always count on oski003 sticking his neck out to defend the loser coach and constantly moving the goalposts he himself set.

---

Can you elaborate on me moving the goalposts? Personally, I am okay with replacing Wilcox if he doesn't win 9, and I would be 100% on board with replacing him if he doesn't win 7 or wins 7 but loses to stanfurd.

Having one team coming off a bye week to face a team with less than 8 days rest is an unfair advantage to the team coming off a bye week. Period.

---

If you are OK with replacing Wilcox if he doesn't win 9 there is no need to try to argue that he has faced a tough schedule. The opponent's byes this season is an interesting factoid, but it was always almost certain that Rivera would not fire Wilcox if he won 9 (which is very unlikely to happen).

Let's just root for the team in the next two games and see how this plays out.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Over the years, one can always count on oski003 sticking his neck out to defend the loser coach and constantly moving the goalposts he himself set.

---

Can you elaborate on me moving the goalposts? Personally, I am okay with replacing Wilcox if he doesn't win 9, and I would be 100% on board with replacing him if he doesn't win 7 or wins 7 but loses to stanfurd.

Having one team coming off a bye week to face a team with less than 8 days rest is an unfair advantage to the team coming off a bye week. Period.

---

If you are OK with replacing Wilcox if he doesn't win 9 there is no need to try to argue that he has faced a tough schedule. The opponent's byes this season is an interesting factoid, but it was always almost certain that Rivera would not fire Wilcox if he won 9 (which is very unlikely to happen).

Let's just root for the team in the next two games and see how this plays out.

---

I am also okay with letting him stay with 8 wins, which includes a win at stanfurd. What I am not okay with is lying and exaggerating to disparage Wilcox, such as claiming that bye weeks don't help teams.

Yes, let's root for the team in the next two games and see how this plays out. That is much better than 500 posts criticizing our coach and downplaying our upset victory at Louisville.

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Over the years, one can always count on oski003 sticking his neck out to defend the loser coach and constantly moving the goalposts he himself set.

---

Can you elaborate on me moving the goalposts? Personally, I am okay with replacing Wilcox if he doesn't win 9, and I would be 100% on board with replacing him if he doesn't win 7 or wins 7 but loses to stanfurd.

Having one team coming off a bye week to face a team with less than 8 days rest is an unfair advantage to the team coming off a bye week. Period.

---

If you are OK with replacing Wilcox if he doesn't win 9 there is no need to try to argue that he has faced a tough schedule. The opponent's byes this season is an interesting factoid, but it was always almost certain that Rivera would not fire Wilcox if he won 9 (which is very unlikely to happen).

Let's just root for the team in the next two games and see how this plays out.

---

I am also okay with letting him stay with 8 wins, which includes a win at stanfurd. What I am not okay with is lying and exaggerating to disparage Wilcox, such as claiming that bye weeks don't help teams.

Yes, let's root for the team in the next two games and see how this plays out. That is much better than 500 posts criticizing our coach and downplaying our upset victory at Louisville.

---

I never criticized our upset win at Louisville. It played out almost exactly as I laid out needed to happen in the thread I started to discuss that possibility.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Over the years, one can always count on oski003 sticking his neck out to defend the loser coach and constantly moving the goalposts he himself set.

---

Can you elaborate on me moving the goalposts? Personally, I am okay with replacing Wilcox if he doesn't win 9, and I would be 100% on board with replacing him if he doesn't win 7 or wins 7 but loses to stanfurd.

Having one team coming off a bye week to face a team with less than 8 days rest is an unfair advantage to the team coming off a bye week. Period.

---

If you are OK with replacing Wilcox if he doesn't win 9 there is no need to try to argue that he has faced a tough schedule. The opponent's byes this season is an interesting factoid, but it was always almost certain that Rivera would not fire Wilcox if he won 9 (which is very unlikely to happen).

Let's just root for the team in the next two games and see how this plays out.

---

I am also okay with letting him stay with 8 wins, which includes a win at stanfurd. What I am not okay with is lying and exaggerating to disparage Wilcox, such as claiming that bye weeks don't help teams.

Yes, let's root for the team in the next two games and see how this plays out. That is much better than 500 posts criticizing our coach and downplaying our upset victory at Louisville.

---

I never criticized our upset win at Louisville. It played out almost exactly as I laid out needed to happen in the thread I started to discuss that possibility.

---

Well, alrighty then.

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

Big C said:

---

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

---

It really depends. It definitely helps with healing minor injuries, having guys play that might not have otherwise. It should also help the coaches scout and devise a game plan for the next game, given the extra time, but we rarely see our coaches or opponents do that on an obvious way. It might take away the edge from teams on a winning streak. It might cause teams that lost the last game to brood a bit longer. On the other hand, it gives a team time to enjoy an emotional win and avoid a letdown the next week.

The statistical anomaly 003 points out does seem more than random, but the good news it is not ACC teams traveling west being given a bye before travel. Only UNC had a previous week bye and that was before a Friday night game in Berkeley. Because if that were the case, we should expect to see more than 2 teams having byes before playing us be an annual occurrence. That does not appear to be the case.

I don't know if Ron Rivera is any kind of savior, but most of my optimism comes from the fact that he is now in charge and not Jim Knowlton. I'm not sure he could possibly be worse.

sycasey said:

---

I don't know if Ron Rivera is any kind of savior, but most of my optimism comes from the fact that he is now in charge and not Jim Knowlton. I'm not sure he could possibly be worse.

---

With Knowlton in charge, my optimism, on a scale of 1 to 10 was zero. It is now north of that, but south of where it was after Ron was finally "given the keys" and Knowlton "retired."

As to the OP, why trust in Ron? Trust or don't trust, it will be Ron's decision. His past decisions won't matter. He also apparently doesn't want fan input. We will just have to wait and see, trust him or not.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

---

It really depends. It definitely helps with healing minor injuries, having guys play that might not have otherwise. It should also help the coaches scout and devise a game plan for the next game, given the extra time, but we rarely see our coaches or opponents do that on an obvious way. It might take away the edge from teams on a winning streak. It might cause teams that lost the last game to brood a bit longer. On the other hand, it gives a team time to enjoy an emotional win and avoid a letdown the next week.

The statistical anomaly 003 points out does seem more than random, but the good news it is not ACC teams traveling west being given a bye before travel. Only UNC had a previous week bye and that was before a Friday night game in Berkeley. Because if that were the case, we should expect to see more than 2 teams having byes before playing us be an annual occurrence. That does not appear to be the case.

---

Yes, two things are correct:

1) It is almost always advantageous to have a Bye week before playing a team when the other team doesn't have a bye; and

2) Cal is facing 5 teams with Bye weeks before facing us this season, a crazy number, while we have two bye weeks before playing our opponents, which is standard for each team.

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

---

It really depends. It definitely helps with healing minor injuries, having guys play that might not have otherwise. It should also help the coaches scout and devise a game plan for the next game, given the extra time, but we rarely see our coaches or opponents do that on an obvious way. It might take away the edge from teams on a winning streak. It might cause teams that lost the last game to brood a bit longer. On the other hand, it gives a team time to enjoy an emotional win and avoid a letdown the next week.

The statistical anomaly 003 points out does seem more than random, but the good news it is not ACC teams traveling west being given a bye before travel. Only UNC had a previous week bye and that was before a Friday night game in Berkeley. Because if that were the case, we should expect to see more than 2 teams having byes before playing us be an annual occurrence. That does not appear to be the case.

---

Yes, two things are correct:

1) It is almost always advantageous to have a Bye week before playing a team when the other team doesn't have a bye; and

2) Cal is facing 5 teams with Bye weeks before facing us this season, a crazy number, while we have two bye weeks before playing our opponents, which is standard for each team.

---

Yes, it is definitely a number that seems greater than chance. My hypothesis was that maybe it was because the ACC wanted to give a break to the East Coast teams traveling to California to ease that burden for them (and was part of the price of admission for us). However, of those teams, only UNC had a bye before playing us and that may have been because it was for a Friday night game. So the good news is it is not systemic bias. It appears to be a fluke and most likely will not be seen again.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

---

It really depends. It definitely helps with healing minor injuries, having guys play that might not have otherwise. It should also help the coaches scout and devise a game plan for the next game, given the extra time, but we rarely see our coaches or opponents do that on an obvious way. It might take away the edge from teams on a winning streak. It might cause teams that lost the last game to brood a bit longer. On the other hand, it gives a team time to enjoy an emotional win and avoid a letdown the next week.

The statistical anomaly 003 points out does seem more than random, but the good news it is not ACC teams traveling west being given a bye before travel. Only UNC had a previous week bye and that was before a Friday night game in Berkeley. Because if that were the case, we should expect to see more than 2 teams having byes before playing us be an annual occurrence. That does not appear to be the case.

---

Yes, two things are correct:

1) It is almost always advantageous to have a Bye week before playing a team when the other team doesn't have a bye; and

2) Cal is facing 5 teams with Bye weeks before facing us this season, a crazy number, while we have two bye weeks before playing our opponents, which is standard for each team.

---

Yes, it is definitely a number that seems greater than chance. My hypothesis was that maybe it was because the ACC wanted to give a break to the East Coast teams traveling to California to ease that burden for them (and was part of the price of admission for us). However, of those teams, only UNC had a bye before playing us and that may have been because it was for a Friday night game. So the good news is it is not systemic bias. It appears to be a fluke and most likely will not be seen again.

---

Interesting use of unnecessary complex language and a red herring.

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

---

It really depends. It definitely helps with healing minor injuries, having guys play that might not have otherwise. It should also help the coaches scout and devise a game plan for the next game, given the extra time, but we rarely see our coaches or opponents do that on an obvious way. It might take away the edge from teams on a winning streak. It might cause teams that lost the last game to brood a bit longer. On the other hand, it gives a team time to enjoy an emotional win and avoid a letdown the next week.

The statistical anomaly 003 points out does seem more than random, but the good news it is not ACC teams traveling west being given a bye before travel. Only UNC had a previous week bye and that was before a Friday night game in Berkeley. Because if that were the case, we should expect to see more than 2 teams having byes before playing us be an annual occurrence. That does not appear to be the case.

---

Yes, two things are correct:

1) It is almost always advantageous to have a Bye week before playing a team when the other team doesn't have a bye; and

2) Cal is facing 5 teams with Bye weeks before facing us this season, a crazy number, while we have two bye weeks before playing our opponents, which is standard for each team.

---

Yes, it is definitely a number that seems greater than chance. My hypothesis was that maybe it was because the ACC wanted to give a break to the East Coast teams traveling to California to ease that burden for them (and was part of the price of admission for us). However, of those teams, only UNC had a bye before playing us and that may have been because it was for a Friday night game. So the good news is it is not systemic bias. It appears to be a fluke and most likely will not be seen again.

---

Interesting use of unnecessary complex language and a red herring.

---

You brought up an interesting statistical anomaly: that we have 5 games against teams that had byes the previous week, versus the two we might expect. We both agreed that is a disadvantage for Cal, all things being equal. We might disagree on the magnitude, but we agree it is a disadvantage.

For me it raised a question: was this by design, is it the ACC that is giving ACC East Coast teams a bye before flying to the West Coast? Which would actually make sense since we barely got voted in due to the concern existing members had with long distance travel. If that were the case we could expect it to continue in subsequent years. That should be something that would concern you since you see it as big disadvantage. The good news is that is not the cause of 4 of the 5. It appears it really was chance, unless you think the B1G and MWC schedulers are conspiring against Cal. It isn't a red herring because I wasn't arguing with you. It is a continued discussion of an interesting point that you brought to my attention that peaked my interest as an economist and statistician.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

---

It really depends. It definitely helps with healing minor injuries, having guys play that might not have otherwise. It should also help the coaches scout and devise a game plan for the next game, given the extra time, but we rarely see our coaches or opponents do that on an obvious way. It might take away the edge from teams on a winning streak. It might cause teams that lost the last game to brood a bit longer. On the other hand, it gives a team time to enjoy an emotional win and avoid a letdown the next week.

The statistical anomaly 003 points out does seem more than random, but the good news it is not ACC teams traveling west being given a bye before travel. Only UNC had a previous week bye and that was before a Friday night game in Berkeley. Because if that were the case, we should expect to see more than 2 teams having byes before playing us be an annual occurrence. That does not appear to be the case.

---

Yes, two things are correct:

1) It is almost always advantageous to have a Bye week before playing a team when the other team doesn't have a bye; and

2) Cal is facing 5 teams with Bye weeks before facing us this season, a crazy number, while we have two bye weeks before playing our opponents, which is standard for each team.

---

Yes, it is definitely a number that seems greater than chance. My hypothesis was that maybe it was because the ACC wanted to give a break to the East Coast teams traveling to California to ease that burden for them (and was part of the price of admission for us). However, of those teams, only UNC had a bye before playing us and that may have been because it was for a Friday night game. So the good news is it is not systemic bias. It appears to be a fluke and most likely will not be seen again.

---

Interesting use of unnecessary complex language and a red herring.

---

You brought up an interesting statistical anomaly: that we have 5 games against teams that had byes the previous week, versus the two we might expect. We both agreed that is a disadvantage for Cal, all things being equal. We might disagree on the magnitude, but we agree it is a disadvantage.

For me it raised a question: was this by design, is it the ACC that is giving ACC East Coast teams a bye before flying to the West Coast? Which would actually make sense since we barely got voted in due to the concern existing members had with long distance travel. If that were the case we could expect it to continue in subsequent years. That should be something that would concern you since you see it as big disadvantage. The good news is that is not the cause of 4 of the 5. It appears it really was chance, unless you think the B1G and MWC schedulers are conspiring against Cal. It isn't a red herring because I wasn't arguing with you. It is a continued discussion of an interesting point that you brought to my attention that peaked my interest as an economist and statistician.

---

I am glad you agree that

1) Facing 5 opponents with bye weeks is a statistical anomaly; and

2) it disadvantages Cal.

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

---

It really depends. It definitely helps with healing minor injuries, having guys play that might not have otherwise. It should also help the coaches scout and devise a game plan for the next game, given the extra time, but we rarely see our coaches or opponents do that on an obvious way. It might take away the edge from teams on a winning streak. It might cause teams that lost the last game to brood a bit longer. On the other hand, it gives a team time to enjoy an emotional win and avoid a letdown the next week.

The statistical anomaly 003 points out does seem more than random, but the good news it is not ACC teams traveling west being given a bye before travel. Only UNC had a previous week bye and that was before a Friday night game in Berkeley. Because if that were the case, we should expect to see more than 2 teams having byes before playing us be an annual occurrence. That does not appear to be the case.

---

Yes, two things are correct:

1) It is almost always advantageous to have a Bye week before playing a team when the other team doesn't have a bye; and

2) Cal is facing 5 teams with Bye weeks before facing us this season, a crazy number, while we have two bye weeks before playing our opponents, which is standard for each team.

---

Yes, it is definitely a number that seems greater than chance. My hypothesis was that maybe it was because the ACC wanted to give a break to the East Coast teams traveling to California to ease that burden for them (and was part of the price of admission for us). However, of those teams, only UNC had a bye before playing us and that may have been because it was for a Friday night game. So the good news is it is not systemic bias. It appears to be a fluke and most likely will not be seen again.

---

Interesting use of unnecessary complex language and a red herring.

---

You brought up an interesting statistical anomaly: that we have 5 games against teams that had byes the previous week, versus the two we might expect. We both agreed that is a disadvantage for Cal, all things being equal. We might disagree on the magnitude, but we agree it is a disadvantage.

For me it raised a question: was this by design, is it the ACC that is giving ACC East Coast teams a bye before flying to the West Coast? Which would actually make sense since we barely got voted in due to the concern existing members had with long distance travel. If that were the case we could expect it to continue in subsequent years. That should be something that would concern you since you see it as big disadvantage. The good news is that is not the cause of 4 of the 5. It appears it really was chance, unless you think the B1G and MWC schedulers are conspiring against Cal. It isn't a red herring because I wasn't arguing with you. It is a continued discussion of an interesting point that you brought to my attention that peaked my interest as an economist and statistician.

---

I am glad you agree that

1) Facing 5 opponents with bye weeks is a statistical anomaly; and

2) it disadvantages Cal.

---

Hopefully, today the House of Representatives will vote "yes" on releasing the "ACC Bye Files."

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

---

It really depends. It definitely helps with healing minor injuries, having guys play that might not have otherwise. It should also help the coaches scout and devise a game plan for the next game, given the extra time, but we rarely see our coaches or opponents do that on an obvious way. It might take away the edge from teams on a winning streak. It might cause teams that lost the last game to brood a bit longer. On the other hand, it gives a team time to enjoy an emotional win and avoid a letdown the next week.

The statistical anomaly 003 points out does seem more than random, but the good news it is not ACC teams traveling west being given a bye before travel. Only UNC had a previous week bye and that was before a Friday night game in Berkeley. Because if that were the case, we should expect to see more than 2 teams having byes before playing us be an annual occurrence. That does not appear to be the case.

---

Yes, two things are correct:

1) It is almost always advantageous to have a Bye week before playing a team when the other team doesn't have a bye; and

2) Cal is facing 5 teams with Bye weeks before facing us this season, a crazy number, while we have two bye weeks before playing our opponents, which is standard for each team.

---

Yes, it is definitely a number that seems greater than chance. My hypothesis was that maybe it was because the ACC wanted to give a break to the East Coast teams traveling to California to ease that burden for them (and was part of the price of admission for us). However, of those teams, only UNC had a bye before playing us and that may have been because it was for a Friday night game. So the good news is it is not systemic bias. It appears to be a fluke and most likely will not be seen again.

---

Interesting use of unnecessary complex language and a red herring.

---

You brought up an interesting statistical anomaly: that we have 5 games against teams that had byes the previous week, versus the two we might expect. We both agreed that is a disadvantage for Cal, all things being equal. We might disagree on the magnitude, but we agree it is a disadvantage.

For me it raised a question: was this by design, is it the ACC that is giving ACC East Coast teams a bye before flying to the West Coast? Which would actually make sense since we barely got voted in due to the concern existing members had with long distance travel. If that were the case we could expect it to continue in subsequent years. That should be something that would concern you since you see it as big disadvantage. The good news is that is not the cause of 4 of the 5. It appears it really was chance, unless you think the B1G and MWC schedulers are conspiring against Cal. It isn't a red herring because I wasn't arguing with you. It is a continued discussion of an interesting point that you brought to my attention that peaked my interest as an economist and statistician.

---

I am glad you agree that

1) Facing 5 opponents with bye weeks is a statistical anomaly; and

2) it disadvantages Cal.

---

Hopefully, today the House of Representatives will vote "yes" on releasing the "ACC Bye Files."

---

Only BI free forum negabears can turn an obvious point defending our record into an X Files conspiracy.

oski003 said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

My perhaps unsubstantiated opinion is that we expect teams to have an advantage coming off a bye week, but then they don't, as they appear to play without intensity or "sharpness".

There must be data on this. I'd love to see some.

---

It really depends. It definitely helps with healing minor injuries, having guys play that might not have otherwise. It should also help the coaches scout and devise a game plan for the next game, given the extra time, but we rarely see our coaches or opponents do that on an obvious way. It might take away the edge from teams on a winning streak. It might cause teams that lost the last game to brood a bit longer. On the other hand, it gives a team time to enjoy an emotional win and avoid a letdown the next week.

The statistical anomaly 003 points out does seem more than random, but the good news it is not ACC teams traveling west being given a bye before travel. Only UNC had a previous week bye and that was before a Friday night game in Berkeley. Because if that were the case, we should expect to see more than 2 teams having byes before playing us be an annual occurrence. That does not appear to be the case.

---

Yes, two things are correct:

1) It is almost always advantageous to have a Bye week before playing a team when the other team doesn't have a bye; and

2) Cal is facing 5 teams with Bye weeks before facing us this season, a crazy number, while we have two bye weeks before playing our opponents, which is standard for each team.

---

Yes, it is definitely a number that seems greater than chance. My hypothesis was that maybe it was because the ACC wanted to give a break to the East Coast teams traveling to California to ease that burden for them (and was part of the price of admission for us). However, of those teams, only UNC had a bye before playing us and that may have been because it was for a Friday night game. So the good news is it is not systemic bias. It appears to be a fluke and most likely will not be seen again.

---

Interesting use of unnecessary complex language and a red herring.

---

You brought up an interesting statistical anomaly: that we have 5 games against teams that had byes the previous week, versus the two we might expect. We both agreed that is a disadvantage for Cal, all things being equal. We might disagree on the magnitude, but we agree it is a disadvantage.

For me it raised a question: was this by design, is it the ACC that is giving ACC East Coast teams a bye before flying to the West Coast? Which would actually make sense since we barely got voted in due to the concern existing members had with long distance travel. If that were the case we could expect it to continue in subsequent years. That should be something that would concern you since you see it as big disadvantage. The good news is that is not the cause of 4 of the 5. It appears it really was chance, unless you think the B1G and MWC schedulers are conspiring against Cal. It isn't a red herring because I wasn't arguing with you. It is a continued discussion of an interesting point that you brought to my attention that peaked my interest as an economist and statistician.

---

I am glad you agree that

1) Facing 5 opponents with bye weeks is a statistical anomaly; and

2) it disadvantages Cal.

---

Hopefully, today the House of Representatives will vote "yes" on releasing the "ACC Bye Files."

---

Only BI free forum negabears can turn an obvious point defending our record into an X Files conspiracy.

---

Except, your obvious point is bs. You know how 99% of the people on the internet just argue without actually checking whether the other side's factual statements are true, and then there is the 1 really annoying guy who actually checks? I'm that guy.

Cite one source indicating that there is a statistically significant advantage coming off of a bye week? One. You can't. People who have done that analysis have, depending on the data set and time frame all found a number hovering within 1-2 percentage points of 50% plus or minus. In other words, statistically there is no advantage and if there is possibly any advantage it is so small that it is not worth considering. So far this year, teams are 129 and 127 coming off a bye. Sagarin doesn't track it because it doesn't have a statistical impact. More importantly, unlike home field advantage (64% win percentage) where odds makers/bettors generally give 3 points, they give no advantage to a team coming off a bye. And when betting is involved, they think of everything. There is simply no statistically significant advantage to playing after a bye no matter how truthy it sounds that there would be one.

As for Cal this year, they have played 4 teams coming off of a bye:

SDSU - Nothing to do with the ACC. We got clobbered. There is no 34 point bye advantage
UNC - We both had byes. So cancels out. We won.
BC - We won.
Duke - We got clobbered. There is no 24 point bye advantage.

We are 1-2 against teams coming off a bye when we weren't coming off a bye. 1-1 in conference. There is no way you can argue that either of our losses were the result of byes. Shockingly we beat a crappy team after their bye, and lost big to 2 teams that are better than we are.

So there is no argument that there is a statistically significant advantage to playing after a bye generally and there is no argument that Cal has had a disadvantage that in any way impacted its record.

As for it being predictable that people will argue we have an easy schedule.

1. We do. Our Sagarin strength of schedule is 63 out of 68 power teams (p4+ND).
2. Calumnus has been beating that drum, and me to a lesser extent since the schedules came out. It was not to slam Wilcox. We both made the same argument that coming into a new conference we had a fresh start and that the schedules looked very easy year one and exceptionally easy year two and that Cal really had an opportunity to change its narrative and it really needed to take advantage of that opportunity. When we didn't in year one, we both said, okay well, we have one more year. We better take advantage. We proved to be correct on the schedules. They were as easy as we anticipated.

As for next year, nonconference we scheduled a team (BYU) who should clobber us (why the hell did we schedule that). We have UCLA who sucks but I would presume will be a middling to below average p4 opponent. UNLV who we should beat, but is good enough to pose a challenge. Wagner who is Wagner. In conference we have 3 games that we should expect to lose (Clemson, SMU and Virginia). We have 5 crappy opponents, but it's a crappy league, so that is par for the course. Ceiling looks like 8 wins. Floor looks like 6 wins unless the doors fall off. I'd say a middling schedule but not the opportunity to pull off 9-10 wins like we had the last two years. So, no. Not as easy as the last two years. It's not that guys like calumnus and I make shyte up about the schedule. It's that you don't bother to look at it.

The bottom line is, if you want to you can find something to argue against any point no matter how stupid and inconsequential that thing is. Like you can argue that a coach who hasn't had a winning record in conference in 8 years is excused by one year having a nonexistent disadvantage in bye weeks. Or you can argue that a QB completing 90% of his passes isn't actually impressive and that he has apparently fooled the entire football world into thinking he is good instead of wondering why your coaching staff couldn't take advantage of that talent.

What is predictable is people who make up ridiculous excuses like this will then say "no, I'm not arguing for the completely untenable position that the coach has done well. I'm just sayin' he has an excuse for losing" when if you weren't arguing for the coach, you wouldn't be just sayin' a bunch of excuses for his failures.

Quote:

---

> Hopefully, today the House of Representatives will vote "yes" on releasing the "ACC Bye Files."

---

dunno about that, but here's some other House news from today..
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/federal-judges-block-texas-from-using-its-new-us-house-map-in-the-2026-midterms/ar-AA1QGlxV
> A federal court on Tuesday blocked Texas from using a redrawn U.S. House map that touched off a nationwide redistricting battle and is a major piece of President Donald Trump's efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority ahead of the 2026 elections.

whooops, WAGs already shared this..
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/81358/replies/2589654

the bears are targeting a 7th win this saturday, the fact that u don't understand the financial picture in berkeley and/or the available coaching options along with the true costs of a total rebuild (ucla will lose 19 games between 2025 & 2026) makes that a very disrespectful question to someone who is donating more than his general manager salary to cal athletics

Shocky1 said:

---

fred, the more u talk, the more i want u to go the gym & do some sit ups for ur overhanging beer belly

the bears are targeting a 7th win this saturday, the fact that u don't understand the financial picture in berkeley and/or the available coaching options along with the true costs of a total rebuild (ucla will lose 19 games between 2025 & 2026) makes that a very disrespectful question to someone who is donating more than his general manager salary to cal athletics

---

All this X1000

Shocky1 said:

---

fred, the more u talk, the more i want u to go the gym & do some sit ups for ur overhanging beer belly

the bears are targeting a 7th win this saturday, the fact that u don't understand the financial picture in berkeley and/or the available coaching options along with the true costs of a total rebuild (ucla will lose 19 games between 2025 & 2026) makes that a very disrespectful question to someone who is donating more than his general manager salary to cal athletics

---

I appreciate all the support Ron Rivera has given over the years and all that he still gives.

I don't have a huge issue with his answer although I think it could have been more tactful. He could have just said we will deal with that after the season. Right now we are trying to win the Big Game. But he isn't going to answer that question now and I'm not going to make a huge deal out of the phrasing of his answer.

But it is not a disrespectful question. He is our general manager and how much he donates has nothing to do with it. A GM has to expect to field questions about the future of his football coach at any moment in the best of circumstances. If the program is going well it will be about keeping him. If it is going poorly it will be about whether you want to keep him. That is the job. It's a reasonable question of any GM at any time.

I don't think it is an unfair question, but after seeing how hard the team fights against Louisville I would probably avoid saying things like we will address it at the end of the year because who does that benefit other than some fans?

Ron needs some PR training. You have to be prepared for questions like this without giving terse responses that don't make anyone happy.

Fred Bear said:

---

The more Ron talks, the more I want to take his keys from him and give them to someone who cares about winning

"Wow, that's an out-of-left-field question. I'm here to talk about the Big Game. I'm not even gonna address that." – Cal GM Ron Rivera when asked about Justin Wilcox's future

— Golden Bear Report (On3 | Rivals) (@CalBearsOn3) November 18, 2025

---

Not surprising. Cal is not a normal football school so an overall 48-54 record and 26-46 conference record isn't really that big a deal. Clean program, bowl eligible every once in awhile, winning record against Stanford, kids graduating - what is there to complain about? You people just don't understand the football world like Ron and the administration do. I doubt they even think there's an issue and probably think the only people complaining simply don't get it. But hey, tell me again that with Lyons and Rivera it means this time is different! LOL

HKBear97! said:

---

Fred Bear said:

---

The more Ron talks, the more I want to take his keys from him and give them to someone who cares about winning

"Wow, that's an out-of-left-field question. I'm here to talk about the Big Game. I'm not even gonna address that." – Cal GM Ron Rivera when asked about Justin Wilcox's future

— Golden Bear Report (On3 | Rivals) (@CalBearsOn3) November 18, 2025

---

Not surprising. Cal is not a normal football school so an overall 48-54 record and 26-46 conference record isn't really that big a deal. Clean program, bowl eligible every once in awhile, winning record against Stanford, kids graduating - what is there to complain about? You people just don't understand the football world like Ron and the administration do. I doubt they even think there's an issue and probably think the only people complaining simply don't get it. But hey, tell me again that with Lyons and Rivera it means this time is different! LOL

---

Why would anyone expect the same Ron Rivera who was notorious for handing the reigns of power to his coordinators both at Carolina and Washington do anything but vehemently support his direct report?

It's laughable that people think he will fire Wilcox and take over as head coach. When he trusted Bieniemy to the end to run the offensive of the horrid Redskins

Fred Bear said:

---

The more Ron talks, the more I want to take his keys from him and give them to someone who cares about winning

"Wow, that's an out-of-left-field question. I'm here to talk about the Big Game. I'm not even gonna address that." – Cal GM Ron Rivera when asked about Justin Wilcox's future

— Golden Bear Report (On3 | Rivals) (@CalBearsOn3) November 18, 2025

---

I'm not sure why anyone would expect him to answer that one way or the other right now.