The fact is that NQs only make up 20% of each recruiting class with just 53 of 260 recruits from 2010-2017 being NQs.
.
According to your numbers, 53 have been non-qualifiers over 8 classes. That's an average of just under 7 per class. If 23 of 53 have not left the program prematurely, as you stated, you're looking at a 43% retention rate.
If retention is already a major problem with the program, why does Marshall continue to recruit non-qualifiers, a group that historically has a very high retention rate? Doing that, as your own numbers show, leads to an even lower retention rate.
Are almost all of the NQ guys more talented than others we would have signed at that position? Of course. But taking them is a drain on resources. You don't get them for at least a year. That not only hurts immediate depth, but it also means you have a kid who hasn't played in a year.
It also means you lose out on the option for him to play up to four games as a redshirt year, so you lose yet more opportunity at development. Programs don't have unlimited tutors. Your academic support team spends a substantial amount of time with NQs due to them already showing that academics is a struggle.
I'm guessing non-qualifiers tend to have more off-field issues than other athletes. Which players have had the most egregious off-field issues under Doc? Butler, Grooms, and Lang? Of those, at least the first two were non-qualifiers.
I support taking non-qualifiers when they are kids who have the character, desire, and ability to succeed in college. That isn't the case when you're taking 7 NQs every year.
There is a reason why many conferences either don't allow them or have a tight restriction on the number you can take. Marshall has neither. Their retention issue has a lot to do with that.