<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Bears Necessity - Latest Comments in How Has Cal Football Performed in the Humidity?</title><link>http://bearsnecessity.disqus.com/</link><description>Discussion of all things Cal.</description><atom:link href="https://bearsnecessity.disqus.com/how_has_cal_football_performed_in_the_humidity/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:01:08 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: How Has Cal Football Performed in the Humidity?</title><link>http://bearsnecessity.com/cal-football/how-has-cal-football-performed-in-the-humidity/#comment-2578904</link><description>&lt;p&gt;As suspected, it looks like much of the correlation has to do with how good the teams were at the time. A lot of these Cal teams were way inferior to the SEC teams they faced. It makes you wonder how much it matters in the end.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Avinash</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:01:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Has Cal Football Performed in the Humidity?</title><link>http://bearsnecessity.com/cal-football/how-has-cal-football-performed-in-the-humidity/#comment-2513430</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I see that most of the games are losses, but shouldn't there be some sort of negative correlation here if our theory is that as the heat index goes up, we should lose by more points?  Upon cursory visual inspection, there does appear to be somewhat of a negative correlation but extremely weak.  I don't remember how to find regression lines (if that's what it's even called).  &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">HydroTech</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:49:21 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>