I think there are two very different and equally fair ways to view the job:
Version 1: Illinois is a top-15 all-time program in one of the most talent-rich states in the country. We have been nationally relevant for long stretches in the past (our all-time peer programs are along the lines of Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State, Maryland, Villanova, Georgetown - the current situation is anomalous). We recruit the St Louis area as well as anyone and have strong regional connections to Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Chicago is a top-5 media market and St Louis is big enough to generate plenty of visibility. We are a major research university with abundant resources, top-notch athletic facilities, and a vast network of powerful alumni. This is a job where the right coach can become a legend. We were on the cusp of elite status from 1980 to 2007 - constantly on ESPN, perpetually sold out arenas, pulling in top-50 recruits regularly. So there's a precedent.
Version 2: Illinois is a difficult job. Fans have outlandish expectations due to the Henson-Kruger-Self stretch and won't settle for even brief stretches of mediocrity. The brand has eroded to the point where schools like Northwestern, Minnesota, Texas Tech, and Colorado are seen as more reasonable program peers by national observers. The state itself is a financial and administrative disaster, the university is in the rural Midwest (the picture of cultural desolation according to many), the Big Ten is an annual bloodbath with strategically brilliant coaches and brutally physical play, Chicago recruiting is at best difficult to break into and at worst rife with corruption. Maybe 10-15 years ago the Illini brand had enough sex appeal to overcome the cornfields and bitter winters, but not now. While the program's past success represents a sort of proof-of-concept, the expectations now are a millstone.
I don't think that either viewpoint is wrong, per se. I think it's complicated and ultimately a matter of perspective. We all tend toward the former view, while most people around the country likely lean toward the latter (or somewhere in the middle). The right coach will embrace the glass-half-full version and relish the challenge.
Version 2 is probably more in line with reality. Just like after Bruce got fired, people were throwing candidates out there that just weren't going to happen. It was Stevens, Smart, etc...and Groce was the guy.
Now, the list's people are throwing out....Miller, Marshall, Williams, etc...Not going to happen(IMO)
We are not a destination coaching position. We are on that third tier:
1)Blue Bloods/Top Tier(Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, etc...)
2)Second Tier(Michigan State, Florida, Louisville, Arizona, etc...)
3)Third Tier(Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa State, Missouri, Arkansas, etc...)
We're not a school that's going to make an NBA coach jump at a "huge opportunity" or make a coach at any of the schools in the top 2 tiers move. Maybe if you throw enough money at one of the coaches at the same level of program where they've been stagnant for a few years, you could get them to move.....but outside of money, why move? We've gone through two coaches in 10 years and have a fan base that believes we are a destination program.
That leaves going after a coach at a tier 4(mid majors) school, looking for a promotion (Self, Weber and Groce) or going after a coach that was recently fired and looking to land somewhere.
Reality being what it is, we are not a job that is causing Dayton or Wichita State recruits to lose sleep. UNC-Wilmington might be a little more concerned.