That dude is the worst "hot name coach" that I have ever seen.
At ISU his best season was 8-5, with a third place Big 12 finish, he has a losing bowl record all in sub-NY6 Bowl Games, and he has gone winless in rivalry (Cyhawk) games during that time.
And before anyone belts out a vacuous "it's Iowa St, what do you expect?" from the back row, and I already know it's coming....
The Cyclones lead the Cyhawk series 10-8 from 1998 up until the year before they hired Campbell. It was a game that gave Ferentz fits no matter who was coaching the Cyclones, or how bad the Cyclones sucked. That is up until they hired this clown, and now you can just circle that one as a w on Iowa's schedule.
He has even lost a game to N Iowa, and needed OT in order to beat them on another occasion.
What do people see in this guy? That he was able to build Iowa St up to the level of Boston College?
So this is interesting. It asks, does the next hot name coach need to be someone who beaks through with a big season (9-plus wins)? Or can someone who has been more consistently solid get a nod. It's the reason Darrell Hazel gets a promotion after two years on the job, while Chris Chrighton, who has five years of 5 to 7 wins at Eastern Michigan does not. (Four years at one game below .500 at EMU is bonkers).
I supposed the Iowa rivalry thing is notable, though it's two sides of the same coin. Before Campbell, Iowa State could upend decent Iowa teams, but even then was mostly mediocre to bad, so it was losing slip up games aplenty. Now Iowa State can up end better teams like OU and such, but is still prone to slip ups.
I respect there's some tiring of "it's ISU," but it really is. ISU's winningest coach didn't win 40 percent of his games. Since Earl Bruce, the best full-time coach by winning percentage was 18-24-2. But there's also a factor that winning big upsets and losing slip up games works at an underdog school and makes you enemy of the state at a bigger one (it's like a great anecdote about being a bad team goalie in one of my favorite books about hockey).
I think Campbell has some good personality traits. He's got system stuff, but he's mostly a culture guy, makes good impressions. I know his Toledo time was successful but probably not where it should've been given the talent at hand. If that makes him a good option at the next level, who knows? Most coaches rise till they're fired, and he likely will go down that path.
