Translation: Better gig. Illinois is a better gig than ASU. Anyone outside of an ASU alum or homer will tell you so.
A better gig in what way? Other than the things I mentioned specifically - a place he started his career at, a blue blood, more money, can 'play the game'.
Why do you expect all the coaches you keep using as example have consistent results whether they're at Iona or Kentucky, UMass or Kentucky? Kentucky's a better program than UMass, but his results were similar - why?
And if good coaches win wherever they are, we're back to the original question - why does one of these two comparable coaches; the one that's worse at X's and O's no less!; have so much better results than the other?