Of course, you did. You don't like to be challenged. If you did you wouldn't have written this:
The only way you could feel comfortable writing that is by not reading what I wrote. Almost all of your points are wrong.
Book did regress in year 2 by his own admission and then got better later in the year but the jury is still out overall because he got better against some very weak teams. We still need to see what he can do against top teams with good defenses. That has been a big question mark since last year and it remains so.
Golson most definitely did NOT improve in year two. As you are reading that sentence I'm sure you are thinking, "Aha, you are full of it because I can prove it by bringing up his 2014 statistics and compare them to 2012." Only a sophist would think that way. Statistically, Golson was doing well in the first half of 2014 and then he epically fell apart in the 2nd half. His regression was actually a really big story. Looking only at his year-end statistics is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand. And to sum up his 2nd year as "he improved" means you either don't know what happened to Golson in 2014 or that you want to play a sophist's game with statistics while ignoring what actually happened as the year progressed.
Zaire most definitely did regress. He was a very effective QB in 2014 and early 2015 and became extremely ineffectual in 2016. When he had his opportunities against UT - and he had plenty of opportunities in that game - and against Stanford, he didn't look like his former self in any way.
You are close to being right about Kizer. He was similar statistically but, ultimately, I believe he regressed. He wasn't the same cool, calm, and collected QB we saw in 2015 that could mount a game-winning drive to close out a close game. Some of that had to do with the personnel that he lost from the year before but most of it was because of BK's team-wide failure to prepare his team for 2016. DK regressed in 2016 along with almost everyone else on the team. If you think he was somehow immune from the team's overall regression no one else seems to see it that way. His slide from being considered a surefire 1st round pick to an iffy 2nd round pick has everything to do with what people saw in 2016.
Saying the staff got the most out of Rees doesn't say anything about his overall development, but I have always said Rees was the one guy who didn't regress. He didn't improve either and, again, that is supposed to be what development is all about.
And, of course, you didn't mention anything about the notable backups along the way because that wouldn't support your argument either but the backups are a big part of BK's history with QBs too.
Look, this really isn't a controversial topic. The data for ND QBs under BK paints a clear picture that QBs haven't been improving as they progress through the system. It's no longer debatable. The sports media this year has made this an open topic including bringing it up with BK directly. This was Eric Hansen after the UM game:
The link to that quote is right
here. The other ND sites and media sources have talked about this topic as well and have also brought it up to BK in press conferences.
As I said before but, of course, you claim to have not read, I hope what we have seen in Ian Book in the last several games are signs of true development and not a reflection of the competition he has faced. BK said the coaches would be accountable after the UM game and hopefully the proof will be in the form of Ian playing lights out against a top defense next year.