re: Why is it taking Texas so long to make a hire?

While in many ways I'd agree with your rank-and-file, especially is based upon financial strength, academic prowess, huge alumni fanbases, and OSU/Michigan as powerhouses..

One could argue that the Big-12 despite recent conference disassembly, and having too many members in one state(albeit a huge, populous, prospering, and fertile state), with rising programs in Baylor and OSU, and two schools in UT/Okla with natty titles in the last 13 years, both also with multiple BCSCG appearances..4 for OU..2 for Tex.

Until this year's BCSCG, the ACC had been DOA since FSU and Miami in early '00s. The Pac-12 sans One-Pete and UO BCSCG appearances, recent Stanford rise, largely underachieving in UCLA, ASU, AZ, UW, WSU, OSU, Cal.

Granted, many Big-10 programs get geeked, and take down some SEC schools in scheduled-up/down bowl games, for conference pride sake. But, sans OSU and the late whistle vs Miami, Buckeyes would be 0-3 in BCSCGs, needed Ark to whiff on easy pointblank scoop-and-score to hold onto Sugar win vs Ark to stop SEC bowl streak vs OSU. Michigan usually overrated, gets slapped by OSU and/or USC in Rose, even if unbeaten late in the season, Wisky faded since Alvarez and not dominant away from Madison,etc..

There is no doubt that the Big-12 has a weak lower middle and bottom-tier in terms of Football, and leaner population metros/epicenters than the aforementioned conferences. But, UT/OU's BCS era workload and trophy case outshine just about any sans SEC's Big 4, Ohio St, USCw..and on par with FSU/Mia if based strictly upon BSC title wins. Oregon arguably also on par(despite no hardware)in terms of BCS berths, Ws,etc..