1) Dave Rose's 10 years has been far and away the best in our history. See analysis: http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=13765089

2) "Under performing" based on talent lacks substance, IMO. Take a look at our competitive set (here's the top 100 teams or so from Dave Rose's era): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q8d4ZieVgFIhQ5zT0M8sggpB3-yLU1-ObQkumbM5Z7Q/edit#gid=1

Based on access to talent, 3-5 star recruits signed, etc., what is the argument that we've under-performed? I feel like those comments come from fans who follow our teams intensely, but lack the broader context for college basketball and who we are competing against.

Saying "we should have been a Sweet 16 team b/c we had Davies and Haws" shows a lack of understanding (IMO) that there are 50 teams every year that have equivalent or better talent.

I'd argue the opposite, that Rose has over-performed based on historical expectations and recruiting constraints.