I don't think it's recency bias.

It's confirmation bias. We've had a long history under Kelly of underperforming. We've done so in three games this year against crap teams (Vandy, BSU, Pitt).

The Michigan win is a great win no matter how you slice it. Stanford and Virginia Tech are both underwhelming but solid teams that we dominated. Wake Forest was a solid win against a crap opponent.

So, on the course of the season, with both quarterbacks, we've had solid wins, and crummy wins. I don't think people are just looking at the Pitt game and extrapolating that out. I think people are looking at the broad arc of the Kelly era, seeing consistencies this year with past Kelly versions, and expecting that the results (wins and losses) will start to match the performances (highly inconsistent).

Fortunately for us, our schedule is not that tough. It's possible that we could match poor performances against poor teams, and good performances against better teams the rest of the way and win out. It's also true that the remaining teams on our schedule might be better at football than Pitt, and could actually take advantage of an off-day at the office.