Appreciate the effort to have a conclusion and show evidence to support it. I've done this a few times (see examples here: http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=13986576), and this kind of discussion interests me.

That said, my feeling is you've cut the data in a way to show Coach Rose is the worst possible light. For example, including walk-ons in the "success" percentage seems unreasonable. Why would anyone expect them to be a success? Also, you've included one stretch 4 who was never on the block (Rogers), but not another stretch 4 who frequently scored and passed from the mid-post (Tavernari).

Lastly, your refusal to include Keena Young, despite the evidence that Rose 1) identified him and 2) developed him from a 7 and 5 guy to a 17 and 8 guy seems like a miss. Granted, I have more information than most on the board given my brother played AAU ball with Keena for 3 summers, but the short story is Dave found him, brought him in, and he became a star under Dave's watch despite literally no one on this board seeing it coming (including me, as I recall scoffing at my brother who said between Keena's soph and junior years that Keena was about to be a breakout star in the new offense).

So I'll take a contrarian viewpoint (which I'd imagine you could appreciate) to yours, and here's how I'd look at it. First, I will not include walk-ons as again it's irrelevant to the conversation on identifying or developing talent. It sounds to me like you're concluding Dave Rose cannot a) identify good talent or b) develop good talent. Your criteria is basically boom or bust. If you were a starter with big stats, success. Otherwise, bust.

I'll introduce some nuance. IMO, a player is only considered a bust if he does not fulfill expected potential. For example, NBA Lottery Picks that flame out in 2-5 years (i.e. Araujo) make the bust list. Why? Lottery Picks are expected to be be starters or at least have long NBA careers.

So if a 4 or 5 star recruit is never a starter in college, it's fair to say he was a bust (i.e. David Burgess). If someone is a 2 or 3 star recruit, generally speaking he is not recruited to be a big star but to round out a roster as a role player. There are 13 guys on a roster, and most NCAA teams give 7-8 solid minutes, 2-3 more sporadic, and then totally bench 3-4 players. So expecting all 13 players (or all 6 post players) on a roster to be a strong contributor is unreasonable.

For example, Fernando Malaman and Vuk Ivanovic played behind Keena Young and Trent Plaisted. There were 10 available minutes per position. How could all 4 be a "success" under your criteria? They overlapped, and two were stars, two spelled the stars in sporadic minutes. IMO, all 4 fulfilled what they were recruited to do (particularly Malaman, who signed when the team was 9-21 and was a two year stop gap). It's unreasonable to expect that those 4 players could all be listed as a "success" under your criteria.

So let's look at this two ways...identifying and developing talent.

IDENTIFYING TALENT

I'll use 4 buckets: Hits, Misses, Role Players, and Inconclusive Evidence.

Hits -- Strong contributor who fulfilled expectations
Misses -- Expected more than what we got
Role Players -- Recruited to be a role player, and was
Inconclusive Evidence -- Didn't see enough to know where he would have ultimately landed.

The Hits

Keena Young
Noah Hartsock
Brandon Davies
Eric Mika
Jonathan Tavernari -- a strong stretch 4 contributor

The Misses

James Anderson - lightly recruited as a 2 or 3 star from Page, AZ, and could argue he belongs in Role Players. I put him here b/c they didn't extend his scholly to a 4th season.
Augustin Ambrosino -- yep, bust b/c we didn't give him a 2nd year
Isaac Nielsen -- if we pushed him out, he didn't fulfill expectations

The Role Players

Fernando Malaman - averaged 9 ppg in JUCO, never meant to be a star and gave some solid minutes
Vuk Ivanovic -- put up small stats at a D2 school, same comment as Malaman
Josh Sharp -- Was a 6th man in HS and a walk on at Utah. Was meant to do exactly what he did, provide a little rebounding in spot minutes.
Nate Austin -- lightly recruited, and has contributed

Inconclusive
Ian Harward -- Never healthy, could have been in the Role Player camp if he was.
Luke Worthington -- If he doesn't make the team post mission, he'll go in Misses. If he does and provides spot minutes, I'd argue he's a role player. 3 star two-sport kid wasn't meant to be a star, but I think he did mean for him to be a solid 4 year player. Leaning towards Miss.
Chris Collinsworth -- Saw enough that he was the right talent, but career inconclusive.
Stephen Rogers -- Was tracking for a strong campaign pre-injury
Corbin Kaufusi -- Can be looked at for development, but will agree we lucked into him. Although, if the program stunk, he wouldn't have switched over. So some credit can be given.
Ryan Andrus -- TBD, looking good
Dalton Nixon -- TBD
Kyle Davis -- TBD, but looks like a Hit
Payton Dastrup, Braiden Shaw, Jakob Hartsock, Jamal Aytes -- TBD

Where you see 4 successes and 12 busts, I see 5 successes, 3 "busts", 4 guys who fulfilled an expected role, 3 injuries that cuts short our ability to evaluate, and then a bunch of guys with the jury out.

I was going to do the same for player development (in which case I'd include Plaisted as a success, given he went from a 2 ppg role player pre-injury as a freshman, and blossomed into a star under Rose), but this is too long already and I'm tired. So, good enough.