09-10 Overall Record: 15-17
09-10 Conference Record: 7-11
09-10 Conference Efficiency Margin: -0.01 (T-6th)
Percent of Returning Minutes: 49.4
Percent of Returning Freshman Minutes: 15.4 
 
It’s a rebuilding year.  That much is certain.  No, last season the Wolverines were not as bad as its 7-11 conference record suggested (the squad matched 10-8 Illinois’ efficiency margin, for instance).  But Michigan is losing over half of the minutes as well as the two epicenters of the offense.  So the phrase “jumping off point” has little relevance here.  Short of Stu Douglass and Matt Vogrich morphing into Kevin Pittsnogle and Mike Gansey, Michigan will not go dancing this season.  But, this season does offer the first where it’s not only John Beilein’s system, but also his players.  
 
Beilein’s approach to roster construction really hasn’t changed much since his days at West Virginia, either.  Take the 2005-06 Mountaineers: that squad started four guards and the aforementioned Pittsnogle, a guard stuck in a center’s body.  This year’s Michigan team will be no different: Douglass, Zack Novak, and Darius Morris are indisputably backcourt players, despite the occasional “PF” designation one would see next to Novak’s name.  Also in the rotation will be freshman Tim Hardaway, Jr., and sophomore Matt Vogrich--both guards.  Indeed, every player on the roster taller than 6-5 is a freshman, of which the most likely to see early action is Evan Smotrycz, who is probably more comfortable from 20 feet than on the block.   

 
One might reasonably ask oneself, “Self, how the heck is Michigan supposed to rebound?  Or defend the paint?  Or get to the free throw line?”  The answer, of course, is that they aren’t, at least not in a typical Beilein system.  Really, the advantage of the Beilein-coached team becomes apparent when the Beilein offense is juxtaposed with the Beilein defense: 

Through this lens, the advantage of the Beilein system is clear--win the turnover battle.  And frankly, mission accomplished.  Last year the Wolverines led the conference in opponent turnover percentage while coughing it up on just 17 percent of their possessions.  So why the 7-11?  Well, the problem lies in the two pointers.  Although Big Ten foes held up their end of the deal (51 percent), the Wolverines did not (49 percent).  It also did not help that Michigan’s three-point percentage fell to Mendoza levels (30 percent).  
 
For this season, the goal should be forming the pillars of the Beilein system.  The shooting will likely struggle, as the offense will rely on freshmen and sophomores.  While it’s possible that the youngsters are hugely underrated, it’s unlikely that the scouts never bothered to check out guys with names like Tim Hardaway, Jr., Jordan Dumars, and Jon Horford (on a given night, Michigan’s cheering section might represent the best players in the building).  But hey, they missed out on Dell Curry’s kid.  The more likely scenario, however, is that it’s going to be a year or two before this roster comes together, but the parallels to Beilein’s WVU teams are already obvious.