[washingtonismoney]

Well, look, it may be anonymous but, Red McCombs definitely said:

"I think the whole thing is a bit sideways," McCombs said of the selection process during an interview with ESPN 1250 San Antonio. "I don't have any doubt that Charlie is a fine coach. I think he would make a great position coach, maybe a coordinator.

"But I don't believe [he belongs at] what should be one of the three most powerful university programs in the world right now at UT-Austin. I don't think it adds up."

Maybe-a-great-position-coach-maybe-a-coordinator Charlie Strong was, what, 23-3 in his past two years at Louisville with a pair of top-15 finishes. He'd been a top defensive coordinator for nearly twenty years before getting his shot at Louisville.

On the other hand, Tom Herman is 22-4, with a top ten and unranked finished, and had spent seven years as a coordinator before getting his shot at Houston.

The point here is: by what standard is Herman a well-qualified guy -- I've seen nothing but approval for him -- and Strong not? By what standard is Strong apparently so ludicrously unqualified that he, I guess, should spend a 21st or 22nd year as a defensive coordinator? I mean this sincerely. People get angry when you suggest race has anything to do with anything. So why was Strong met with such mixed reviews and Herman with such rapturous ones?

[washingtonismoney]

Well, look, it may be anonymous but, Red McCombs definitely said:

"I think the whole thing is a bit sideways," McCombs said of the selection process during an interview with ESPN 1250 San Antonio. "I don't have any doubt that Charlie is a fine coach. I think he would make a great position coach, maybe a coordinator.

"But I don't believe [he belongs at] what should be one of the three most powerful university programs in the world right now at UT-Austin. I don't think it adds up."

Maybe-a-great-position-coach-maybe-a-coordinator Charlie Strong was, what, 23-3 in his past two years at Louisville with a pair of top-15 finishes. He'd been a top defensive coordinator for nearly twenty years before getting his shot at Louisville.

On the other hand, Tom Herman is 22-4, with a top ten and unranked finished, and had spent seven years as a coordinator before getting his shot at Houston.

The point here is: by what standard is Herman a well-qualified guy -- I've seen nothing but approval for him -- and Strong not? By what standard is Strong apparently so ludicrously unqualified that he, I guess, should spend a 21st or 22nd year as a defensive coordinator? I mean this sincerely. People get angry when you suggest race has anything to do with anything. So why was Strong met with such mixed reviews and Herman with such rapturous ones?

[washingtonismoney]

Well, look, it may be anonymous but, Red McCombs definitely said:

"I think the whole thing is a bit sideways," McCombs said of the selection process during an interview with ESPN 1250 San Antonio. "I don't have any doubt that Charlie is a fine coach. I think he would make a great position coach, maybe a coordinator.

"But I don't believe [he belongs at] what should be one of the three most powerful university programs in the world right now at UT-Austin. I don't think it adds up."

Maybe-a-great-position-coach-maybe-a-coordinator Charlie Strong was, what, 23-3 in his past two years at Louisville with a pair of top-15 finishes. He'd been a top defensive coordinator for nearly twenty years before getting his shot at Louisville.

On the other hand, Tom Herman is 22-4, with a top ten and unranked finished, and had spent seven years as a coordinator before getting his shot at Houston.

The point here is: by what standard is Herman a well-qualified guy -- I've seen nothing but approval for him -- and Strong not? By what standard is Strong apparently so ludicrously unqualified that he, I guess, should spend a 21st or 22nd year as a defensive coordinator? I mean this sincerely. People get angry when you suggest race has anything to do with anything. So why was Strong met with such mixed reviews and Herman with such rapturous ones?

[washingtonismoney]

Well, look, it may be anonymous but, Red McCombs definitely said:

"I think the whole thing is a bit sideways," McCombs said of the selection process during an interview with ESPN 1250 San Antonio. "I don't have any doubt that Charlie is a fine coach. I think he would make a great position coach, maybe a coordinator.

"But I don't believe [he belongs at] what should be one of the three most powerful university programs in the world right now at UT-Austin. I don't think it adds up."

Maybe-a-great-position-coach-maybe-a-coordinator Charlie Strong was, what, 23-3 in his past two years at Louisville with a pair of top-15 finishes. He'd been a top defensive coordinator for nearly twenty years before getting his shot at Louisville.

On the other hand, Tom Herman is 22-4, with a top ten and unranked finished, and had spent seven years as a coordinator before getting his shot at Houston.

The point here is: by what standard is Herman a well-qualified guy -- I've seen nothing but approval for him -- and Strong not? By what standard is Strong apparently so ludicrously unqualified that he, I guess, should spend a 21st or 22nd year as a defensive coordinator? I mean this sincerely. People get angry when you suggest race has anything to do with anything. So why was Strong met with such mixed reviews and Herman with such rapturous ones?

[oman]

Strong was met with very favorable reviews when he was hired, and given time to succeed.

When he didn't -- he didn't win the games he should have this year, he was fired.

Herman is similarly being met with optimism about the future. 

I don't think there is a whole lot of difference in who either is being treated.  If Herman doesn't succeed, he is going to be shown the door, and probably has a shorter leash than Strong had.

I'm happy that Little is going to end up at one of my schools.  I certainly feel that Texas needs him a whole lot more than Stanford.

[oman]

Strong was met with very favorable reviews when he was hired, and given time to succeed.

When he didn't -- he didn't win the games he should have this year, he was fired.

Herman is similarly being met with optimism about the future. 

I don't think there is a whole lot of difference in who either is being treated.  If Herman doesn't succeed, he is going to be shown the door, and probably has a shorter leash than Strong had.

I'm happy that Little is going to end up at one of my schools.  I certainly feel that Texas needs him a whole lot more than Stanford.

[oman]

Strong was met with very favorable reviews when he was hired, and given time to succeed.

When he didn't -- he didn't win the games he should have this year, he was fired.

Herman is similarly being met with optimism about the future. 

I don't think there is a whole lot of difference in who either is being treated.  If Herman doesn't succeed, he is going to be shown the door, and probably has a shorter leash than Strong had.

I'm happy that Little is going to end up at one of my schools.  I certainly feel that Texas needs him a whole lot more than Stanford.

[oman]

Strong was met with very favorable reviews when he was hired, and given time to succeed.

When he didn't -- he didn't win the games he should have this year, he was fired.

Herman is similarly being met with optimism about the future. 

I don't think there is a whole lot of difference in who either is being treated.  If Herman doesn't succeed, he is going to be shown the door, and probably has a shorter leash than Strong had.

I'm happy that Little is going to end up at one of my schools.  I certainly feel that Texas needs him a whole lot more than Stanford.

[oman]

The point here is: by what standard is Herman a well-qualified guy -- I've seen nothing but approval for him -- and Strong not? By what standard is Strong apparently so ludicrously unqualified that he, I guess, should spend a 21st or 22nd year as a defensive coordinator? I mean this sincerely. People get angry when you suggest race has anything to do with anything. So why was Strong met with such mixed reviews and Herman with such rapturous ones?

Simple answer:  People making a decision now are only interested in recent history.  Herman recruited well over the last few years in Texas and thus is seen as someone who can compete in recruiting in Texas and against the SEC.  The loss of recruits due to Strong's firing can be rectified if Herman brings a few folks over from Houston.  Herman has Texas ties. 

I don't angry when people suggest race has something to do with anything when there is some basis for their suggestion.

But when it is reddit bullshit and rumors, I do.

[oman]

The point here is: by what standard is Herman a well-qualified guy -- I've seen nothing but approval for him -- and Strong not? By what standard is Strong apparently so ludicrously unqualified that he, I guess, should spend a 21st or 22nd year as a defensive coordinator? I mean this sincerely. People get angry when you suggest race has anything to do with anything. So why was Strong met with such mixed reviews and Herman with such rapturous ones?

Simple answer:  People making a decision now are only interested in recent history.  Herman recruited well over the last few years in Texas and thus is seen as someone who can compete in recruiting in Texas and against the SEC.  The loss of recruits due to Strong's firing can be rectified if Herman brings a few folks over from Houston.  Herman has Texas ties. 

I don't angry when people suggest race has something to do with anything when there is some basis for their suggestion.

But when it is reddit bullshit and rumors, I do.

[oman]

The point here is: by what standard is Herman a well-qualified guy -- I've seen nothing but approval for him -- and Strong not? By what standard is Strong apparently so ludicrously unqualified that he, I guess, should spend a 21st or 22nd year as a defensive coordinator? I mean this sincerely. People get angry when you suggest race has anything to do with anything. So why was Strong met with such mixed reviews and Herman with such rapturous ones?

Simple answer:  People making a decision now are only interested in recent history.  Herman recruited well over the last few years in Texas and thus is seen as someone who can compete in recruiting in Texas and against the SEC.  The loss of recruits due to Strong's firing can be rectified if Herman brings a few folks over from Houston.  Herman has Texas ties. 

I don't angry when people suggest race has something to do with anything when there is some basis for their suggestion.

But when it is reddit bullshit and rumors, I do.

[oman]

The point here is: by what standard is Herman a well-qualified guy -- I've seen nothing but approval for him -- and Strong not? By what standard is Strong apparently so ludicrously unqualified that he, I guess, should spend a 21st or 22nd year as a defensive coordinator? I mean this sincerely. People get angry when you suggest race has anything to do with anything. So why was Strong met with such mixed reviews and Herman with such rapturous ones?

Simple answer:  People making a decision now are only interested in recent history.  Herman recruited well over the last few years in Texas and thus is seen as someone who can compete in recruiting in Texas and against the SEC.  The loss of recruits due to Strong's firing can be rectified if Herman brings a few folks over from Houston.  Herman has Texas ties. 

I don't angry when people suggest race has something to do with anything when there is some basis for their suggestion.

But when it is reddit bullshit and rumors, I do.

[oman]

Little to Stanford. 

Big big deal.

[oman]

Little to Stanford. 

Big big deal.

[oman]

Little to Stanford. 

Big big deal.

[oman]

Little to Stanford. 

Big big deal.

[CTcard]

Since I was the one called out here, perhaps I should offer a mea culpa. My tone may have been off.

I do think that what I primarily did was spell out what WIM was hinting at, but it may be a poor idea to do so.

It is true, however, that at the time of Strong's hiring there were many stories indicating uneasiness about Strong among some backers of the Longhorns connected to him being black. Certainly there were comments, one of which was quoted above by WIM, that seemed to disparage Strong in ways that seemed unwarranted by his resume at that time. I admit that I do not know the detailed origin of the thinking that led to these comments, and perhaps they came from a much more benign evaluation of Charlie Strong's particular strengths and weaknesses.

In addition, it seems likely that whatever uneasiness may have existed among a few backers was not shared by anyone in the University of Texas administration. They did hire him, and they did keep him through three seasons where he never ended up with a winning record. I see nothing to criticize there in the events as I know them (which isn't all that well).

[CTcard]

Since I was the one called out here, perhaps I should offer a mea culpa. My tone may have been off.

I do think that what I primarily did was spell out what WIM was hinting at, but it may be a poor idea to do so.

It is true, however, that at the time of Strong's hiring there were many stories indicating uneasiness about Strong among some backers of the Longhorns connected to him being black. Certainly there were comments, one of which was quoted above by WIM, that seemed to disparage Strong in ways that seemed unwarranted by his resume at that time. I admit that I do not know the detailed origin of the thinking that led to these comments, and perhaps they came from a much more benign evaluation of Charlie Strong's particular strengths and weaknesses.

In addition, it seems likely that whatever uneasiness may have existed among a few backers was not shared by anyone in the University of Texas administration. They did hire him, and they did keep him through three seasons where he never ended up with a winning record. I see nothing to criticize there in the events as I know them (which isn't all that well).

[CTcard]

Since I was the one called out here, perhaps I should offer a mea culpa. My tone may have been off.

I do think that what I primarily did was spell out what WIM was hinting at, but it may be a poor idea to do so.

It is true, however, that at the time of Strong's hiring there were many stories indicating uneasiness about Strong among some backers of the Longhorns connected to him being black. Certainly there were comments, one of which was quoted above by WIM, that seemed to disparage Strong in ways that seemed unwarranted by his resume at that time. I admit that I do not know the detailed origin of the thinking that led to these comments, and perhaps they came from a much more benign evaluation of Charlie Strong's particular strengths and weaknesses.

In addition, it seems likely that whatever uneasiness may have existed among a few backers was not shared by anyone in the University of Texas administration. They did hire him, and they did keep him through three seasons where he never ended up with a winning record. I see nothing to criticize there in the events as I know them (which isn't all that well).

[CTcard]

Since I was the one called out here, perhaps I should offer a mea culpa. My tone may have been off.

I do think that what I primarily did was spell out what WIM was hinting at, but it may be a poor idea to do so.

It is true, however, that at the time of Strong's hiring there were many stories indicating uneasiness about Strong among some backers of the Longhorns connected to him being black. Certainly there were comments, one of which was quoted above by WIM, that seemed to disparage Strong in ways that seemed unwarranted by his resume at that time. I admit that I do not know the detailed origin of the thinking that led to these comments, and perhaps they came from a much more benign evaluation of Charlie Strong's particular strengths and weaknesses.

In addition, it seems likely that whatever uneasiness may have existed among a few backers was not shared by anyone in the University of Texas administration. They did hire him, and they did keep him through three seasons where he never ended up with a winning record. I see nothing to criticize there in the events as I know them (which isn't all that well).

[washingtonismoney]

To be fair, as well, I think Charlie Strong didn't have a bulletproof resume -- it was probably worse than Urban Meyer's when he was hired by Florida, or Jim Harbaugh's at Michigan. But you rarely get those opportunities, even though fans of big-time schools seem to want them every time they fire a coach. (NDNation wants to fire Brian Kelly and simultaneously rejects almost every plausible candidate to replace him as insufficiently qualified. Bob Stoops is always the guy they settle on. Sometimes they grudgingly concede Shaw fits their elaborate requirements.)

Anyway, so I get being slightly disappointed by Strong. What I don't get is being over-the-top about it (see McCombs), or, for that matter, being super-excited about Herman but somewhat less so about Strong. Oman may have a sharper memory than I, but I recall the reaction to Strong varying from "seems like a solid hire, we'll give him a shot" to "OMG this sucks." Whereas the Herman reaction is more like "THE BEST!" to "seems like a solid hire..." Personally, I would've gone "seems like a solid hire..." for both, but that's because of my skepticism regarding coaching hires. They're hard, and involve a lot of luck.

[washingtonismoney]

To be fair, as well, I think Charlie Strong didn't have a bulletproof resume -- it was probably worse than Urban Meyer's when he was hired by Florida, or Jim Harbaugh's at Michigan. But you rarely get those opportunities, even though fans of big-time schools seem to want them every time they fire a coach. (NDNation wants to fire Brian Kelly and simultaneously rejects almost every plausible candidate to replace him as insufficiently qualified. Bob Stoops is always the guy they settle on. Sometimes they grudgingly concede Shaw fits their elaborate requirements.)

Anyway, so I get being slightly disappointed by Strong. What I don't get is being over-the-top about it (see McCombs), or, for that matter, being super-excited about Herman but somewhat less so about Strong. Oman may have a sharper memory than I, but I recall the reaction to Strong varying from "seems like a solid hire, we'll give him a shot" to "OMG this sucks." Whereas the Herman reaction is more like "THE BEST!" to "seems like a solid hire..." Personally, I would've gone "seems like a solid hire..." for both, but that's because of my skepticism regarding coaching hires. They're hard, and involve a lot of luck.

[washingtonismoney]

To be fair, as well, I think Charlie Strong didn't have a bulletproof resume -- it was probably worse than Urban Meyer's when he was hired by Florida, or Jim Harbaugh's at Michigan. But you rarely get those opportunities, even though fans of big-time schools seem to want them every time they fire a coach. (NDNation wants to fire Brian Kelly and simultaneously rejects almost every plausible candidate to replace him as insufficiently qualified. Bob Stoops is always the guy they settle on. Sometimes they grudgingly concede Shaw fits their elaborate requirements.)

Anyway, so I get being slightly disappointed by Strong. What I don't get is being over-the-top about it (see McCombs), or, for that matter, being super-excited about Herman but somewhat less so about Strong. Oman may have a sharper memory than I, but I recall the reaction to Strong varying from "seems like a solid hire, we'll give him a shot" to "OMG this sucks." Whereas the Herman reaction is more like "THE BEST!" to "seems like a solid hire..." Personally, I would've gone "seems like a solid hire..." for both, but that's because of my skepticism regarding coaching hires. They're hard, and involve a lot of luck.

[washingtonismoney]

To be fair, as well, I think Charlie Strong didn't have a bulletproof resume -- it was probably worse than Urban Meyer's when he was hired by Florida, or Jim Harbaugh's at Michigan. But you rarely get those opportunities, even though fans of big-time schools seem to want them every time they fire a coach. (NDNation wants to fire Brian Kelly and simultaneously rejects almost every plausible candidate to replace him as insufficiently qualified. Bob Stoops is always the guy they settle on. Sometimes they grudgingly concede Shaw fits their elaborate requirements.)

Anyway, so I get being slightly disappointed by Strong. What I don't get is being over-the-top about it (see McCombs), or, for that matter, being super-excited about Herman but somewhat less so about Strong. Oman may have a sharper memory than I, but I recall the reaction to Strong varying from "seems like a solid hire, we'll give him a shot" to "OMG this sucks." Whereas the Herman reaction is more like "THE BEST!" to "seems like a solid hire..." Personally, I would've gone "seems like a solid hire..." for both, but that's because of my skepticism regarding coaching hires. They're hard, and involve a lot of luck.

[oman]

Thanks.  I am defensive of my university and they and their alumni aren't without sin.

[oman]

Thanks.  I am defensive of my university and they and their alumni aren't without sin.

[oman]

Thanks.  I am defensive of my university and they and their alumni aren't without sin.

[oman]

Thanks.  I am defensive of my university and they and their alumni aren't without sin.

[DC 86]

My $0.02 on the topic:

1. Charlie Strong replaced Mack Brown following 8-5, 9-4 and 8-5 seasons that were considered disappointing, and there was a sense that the program had become mediocre, soft and complacent. Nevertheless, there was still appreciation for the fact that Brown had delivered UT's first national championship in 35 years and rebuilt the program post-Mackovic. Brown put together a fantastic run and left as the second winningest coach in history, so while there was consensus that a change was warranted there were still some supporters who reasonably felt that Brown had earned a chance to return the program to the top and should be retained. Brown had built a lot of goodwill after 16 years in charge (and chose to remain with the program in a fundraising role) so out of respect for him many boosters and administrators muted their public enthusiasm for the coaching change.

2. Herman is replacing Strong after 6-7, 5-7 and 5-7 seasons that included historically embarrassing losses, so the perceived need for a savior is greater. Strong was only around for those three years and his personality is not of the glad-handing, aw shucks variety, and he already found another job out of state, so supporters don't really have a need to contain their enthusiasm for the new hire. The combination of the program being much worse and there being much less loyalty accrued to the outgoing coach explains a lot of the greater exuberance for Herman.

3. Strong is a reserved, serious personality whereas Herman is a much younger, charismatic personality with Texas connections whose most recent success is within the state itself, so that's also a factor in fans and boosters being more excited by him.

4. Red McComb's radio interview after Strong's hire was disgraceful but he was quickly criticized and boosters on the whole were supportive of Strong, both publicly and privately. I don't think it's accurate to take McComb's views as representative, in fact the resulting backlash demonstrated real support for Strong.

5. Charlie Strong was an assistant coach for 26 seasons (which included two seasons as DC for national championship teams) before receiving his first head coaching job. He interviewed but was passed over numerous times in favor of less heralded candidates before being hired by Louisville. It seems naive to think that being black (and being married to a white woman) was never a factor. Nevertheless, the fact is that Texas did hire him and did support him, and his record was abysmal, so it seems unfair to bring race into the discussion of his Texas tenure. He was given all the extensive resources that UT has to offer and given the freedom to operate the program as he saw fit, and failed to deliver. Surely a segment of fans and boosters would have preferred a white coach (or a Texas coach, or an alum, or a coach with a warmer personality) but there's no evidence that personal feelings ever manifested themselves in Strong being hamstrung or undermined in recruiting or running the program.

[DC 86]

My $0.02 on the topic:

1. Charlie Strong replaced Mack Brown following 8-5, 9-4 and 8-5 seasons that were considered disappointing, and there was a sense that the program had become mediocre, soft and complacent. Nevertheless, there was still appreciation for the fact that Brown had delivered UT's first national championship in 35 years and rebuilt the program post-Mackovic. Brown put together a fantastic run and left as the second winningest coach in history, so while there was consensus that a change was warranted there were still some supporters who reasonably felt that Brown had earned a chance to return the program to the top and should be retained. Brown had built a lot of goodwill after 16 years in charge (and chose to remain with the program in a fundraising role) so out of respect for him many boosters and administrators muted their public enthusiasm for the coaching change.

2. Herman is replacing Strong after 6-7, 5-7 and 5-7 seasons that included historically embarrassing losses, so the perceived need for a savior is greater. Strong was only around for those three years and his personality is not of the glad-handing, aw shucks variety, and he already found another job out of state, so supporters don't really have a need to contain their enthusiasm for the new hire. The combination of the program being much worse and there being much less loyalty accrued to the outgoing coach explains a lot of the greater exuberance for Herman.

3. Strong is a reserved, serious personality whereas Herman is a much younger, charismatic personality with Texas connections whose most recent success is within the state itself, so that's also a factor in fans and boosters being more excited by him.

4. Red McComb's radio interview after Strong's hire was disgraceful but he was quickly criticized and boosters on the whole were supportive of Strong, both publicly and privately. I don't think it's accurate to take McComb's views as representative, in fact the resulting backlash demonstrated real support for Strong.

5. Charlie Strong was an assistant coach for 26 seasons (which included two seasons as DC for national championship teams) before receiving his first head coaching job. He interviewed but was passed over numerous times in favor of less heralded candidates before being hired by Louisville. It seems naive to think that being black (and being married to a white woman) was never a factor. Nevertheless, the fact is that Texas did hire him and did support him, and his record was abysmal, so it seems unfair to bring race into the discussion of his Texas tenure. He was given all the extensive resources that UT has to offer and given the freedom to operate the program as he saw fit, and failed to deliver. Surely a segment of fans and boosters would have preferred a white coach (or a Texas coach, or an alum, or a coach with a warmer personality) but there's no evidence that personal feelings ever manifested themselves in Strong being hamstrung or undermined in recruiting or running the program.

[DC 86]

My $0.02 on the topic:

1. Charlie Strong replaced Mack Brown following 8-5, 9-4 and 8-5 seasons that were considered disappointing, and there was a sense that the program had become mediocre, soft and complacent. Nevertheless, there was still appreciation for the fact that Brown had delivered UT's first national championship in 35 years and rebuilt the program post-Mackovic. Brown put together a fantastic run and left as the second winningest coach in history, so while there was consensus that a change was warranted there were still some supporters who reasonably felt that Brown had earned a chance to return the program to the top and should be retained. Brown had built a lot of goodwill after 16 years in charge (and chose to remain with the program in a fundraising role) so out of respect for him many boosters and administrators muted their public enthusiasm for the coaching change.

2. Herman is replacing Strong after 6-7, 5-7 and 5-7 seasons that included historically embarrassing losses, so the perceived need for a savior is greater. Strong was only around for those three years and his personality is not of the glad-handing, aw shucks variety, and he already found another job out of state, so supporters don't really have a need to contain their enthusiasm for the new hire. The combination of the program being much worse and there being much less loyalty accrued to the outgoing coach explains a lot of the greater exuberance for Herman.

3. Strong is a reserved, serious personality whereas Herman is a much younger, charismatic personality with Texas connections whose most recent success is within the state itself, so that's also a factor in fans and boosters being more excited by him.

4. Red McComb's radio interview after Strong's hire was disgraceful but he was quickly criticized and boosters on the whole were supportive of Strong, both publicly and privately. I don't think it's accurate to take McComb's views as representative, in fact the resulting backlash demonstrated real support for Strong.

5. Charlie Strong was an assistant coach for 26 seasons (which included two seasons as DC for national championship teams) before receiving his first head coaching job. He interviewed but was passed over numerous times in favor of less heralded candidates before being hired by Louisville. It seems naive to think that being black (and being married to a white woman) was never a factor. Nevertheless, the fact is that Texas did hire him and did support him, and his record was abysmal, so it seems unfair to bring race into the discussion of his Texas tenure. He was given all the extensive resources that UT has to offer and given the freedom to operate the program as he saw fit, and failed to deliver. Surely a segment of fans and boosters would have preferred a white coach (or a Texas coach, or an alum, or a coach with a warmer personality) but there's no evidence that personal feelings ever manifested themselves in Strong being hamstrung or undermined in recruiting or running the program.

[DC 86]

My $0.02 on the topic:

1. Charlie Strong replaced Mack Brown following 8-5, 9-4 and 8-5 seasons that were considered disappointing, and there was a sense that the program had become mediocre, soft and complacent. Nevertheless, there was still appreciation for the fact that Brown had delivered UT's first national championship in 35 years and rebuilt the program post-Mackovic. Brown put together a fantastic run and left as the second winningest coach in history, so while there was consensus that a change was warranted there were still some supporters who reasonably felt that Brown had earned a chance to return the program to the top and should be retained. Brown had built a lot of goodwill after 16 years in charge (and chose to remain with the program in a fundraising role) so out of respect for him many boosters and administrators muted their public enthusiasm for the coaching change.

2. Herman is replacing Strong after 6-7, 5-7 and 5-7 seasons that included historically embarrassing losses, so the perceived need for a savior is greater. Strong was only around for those three years and his personality is not of the glad-handing, aw shucks variety, and he already found another job out of state, so supporters don't really have a need to contain their enthusiasm for the new hire. The combination of the program being much worse and there being much less loyalty accrued to the outgoing coach explains a lot of the greater exuberance for Herman.

3. Strong is a reserved, serious personality whereas Herman is a much younger, charismatic personality with Texas connections whose most recent success is within the state itself, so that's also a factor in fans and boosters being more excited by him.

4. Red McComb's radio interview after Strong's hire was disgraceful but he was quickly criticized and boosters on the whole were supportive of Strong, both publicly and privately. I don't think it's accurate to take McComb's views as representative, in fact the resulting backlash demonstrated real support for Strong.

5. Charlie Strong was an assistant coach for 26 seasons (which included two seasons as DC for national championship teams) before receiving his first head coaching job. He interviewed but was passed over numerous times in favor of less heralded candidates before being hired by Louisville. It seems naive to think that being black (and being married to a white woman) was never a factor. Nevertheless, the fact is that Texas did hire him and did support him, and his record was abysmal, so it seems unfair to bring race into the discussion of his Texas tenure. He was given all the extensive resources that UT has to offer and given the freedom to operate the program as he saw fit, and failed to deliver. Surely a segment of fans and boosters would have preferred a white coach (or a Texas coach, or an alum, or a coach with a warmer personality) but there's no evidence that personal feelings ever manifested themselves in Strong being hamstrung or undermined in recruiting or running the program.

[OutsiderFan]

Isn't it time to add Dalyn Wade-Perry and Ryan Johnson to the list Wedington is on?

[OutsiderFan]

Isn't it time to add Dalyn Wade-Perry and Ryan Johnson to the list Wedington is on?

[OutsiderFan]

Isn't it time to add Dalyn Wade-Perry and Ryan Johnson to the list Wedington is on?

[OutsiderFan]

Isn't it time to add Dalyn Wade-Perry and Ryan Johnson to the list Wedington is on?

[lex24]

Hasn't Wedington been admitted??

[lex24]

Hasn't Wedington been admitted??

[lex24]

Hasn't Wedington been admitted??

[lex24]

Hasn't Wedington been admitted??