Every coach should be above .500 in conference play every year, just like all children should be above average. It's just that pesky problem with mathematics....
This brings up an interesting question:
If you can pretend you are an outside analyst who doesn't care about any Big Ten teams, which teams do you think Illinois *should* outperform?
Which teams, from a non-Illini perspective, *should* be better than Illinois?
I'll give it a shot:
Should be better:
Ohio State (biggest athletic budget in the conference)
Michigan State (best program in the Big Ten since 2000, I think)
Indiana (borderline blue blood)
Michigan (has great basketball and football history)
Not Sure:
Wisconsin (hasn't finished below 4th in forever, just a great consistent program. Their status remains TBD without Bo)
Maryland (revived program with a sort of recent national championship)
Should be worse:
Rutgers (they are dumb)
Penn State (strong tradition of bad)
Minnesota (too cold)
Iowa (not a strong home recruiting base, and it overlaps with Kansas)
Purdue (second fiddle team in Indiana. Granted, they have a lot of wins and some recent good teams, but still)
Northwestern (facilities and admissions standards hold them back. If they invested in upgrading facilities, I would be more concerned about their potential)
Nebraska (dangerous program. The school has a history of valuing athletics, and they have new facilities and a decent coach. But we have more home-court recruiting advantages)