KOR value

Looking at his first two seasons:

2005 (0-4-7)
WV: an ugly game but still a T
UB: an easy win but expected so a T
UVA: a good effort but a T
FSU: never really close but a T
UConn: L all the way
RU: an ugly L
Pitt: tale of two halves but still a T
Cincy: a game we should have won so its a L
USF: WTF was that? L
ND: we never challenged but play hard so T
UL: late TDs made it seem worse so T

Not a good season but his first on the job.

2006 (2-2-8)
Wake: prolly should have won but it is a T
Iowa: had chances but couldnt capitalize, ending solidifies T
Illinois: late scores made it look closer a W here
Miami: may be our most dominate game so W
Wyoming: nearly overted disaster a T
Pitt: game was not close so a L
WV: gave them a game for a half, T here
UL: good effort came kept game close another T
Cincy: ugly game but will give a T
USF: very close to a L but I will give a T
UConn: almost a W but not quite another T
RU: ugly L

Much better season an gave a lot of hope for GRob's future. We were only 4-8 but we had a .500 KOR.

Overall (3-12-16)
So GRob has a winning % of .250 using the KOR. His actual % is .2258 so he has done ever so slightly better than his record shows. Now the KOR has more merit for a middle of the pack team. Those teams have an equal chance at upset Ws or WTF Ls. For a top team, the KOR is biased because there are very few chances if any at Ws. And most games are potential Ls. The opposite holds true for teams at the bottom.

The KOR is based on the belief that most games the HC really doesnt matter. You would expect a lot of Ts with few Ws and Ls. But there are a handful of games each year where a good coach will get you some extra Ws and a bad coach will get you some extra Ls. The fact that GRob averages 4 Ls a year is not a good sign.