Yeah, really. As someone who has watched and loathed Texas football for decades, it has always been the redeeming factor of the Texas program, to me, that their head coach job is not about football; it's about keeping the right people satisfied and being a politician.
A good coach would win 10 games a year at Texas, no questions asked-- he'd just have to tell the administration that he's a coach, not a gladhandler. It'll never fly with Texas, unless the coach is bigger than Texas football, which is why the Texas fans talk Saban/Billichek, etc. for their dream hires-- they are the only type of guys who carry the weight of success to get away with telling the people who want the head Longhorn to be a socialite to go pound sand.
This makes just about every Texas hire a 'safe guy', someone who may have almost won big somewhere (North Carolina, Illinois, Wyoming, and Tech) the new guy. Mack was actually a better hire than anyone they managed previously post-Royal, in terms of being a proven success, and it has translated to something of a species of recovery and one MNC for Texas. That said, he should be doing better than this.
So, when Mack goes, Texas is going to end up going with the political candidate, and keep on underachieving. I believe that's good for college football, as someone who hates Texas.