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.
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.