COLUMN: Lovie's COVID-19 Blunders Fell Short of High Image Expectations He's Previously Earned

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- When athletics director Josh Whitman announced the hiring of Lovie Smith as the 25th head football coach at the University of Illinois on March 7, 2016, the assumed dependable constant was always going to be that the school finally had a leader who would never embarrass the Illini football program.

Say what you want about his win/loss record, his recruiting performance or his overall sideline demeanor but nobody was ever going to have to worry about the program being laughed at for something their coach said or did.

And don’t kid yourself. This ideal was and still is a much-needed, revered personality trait when you consider the men Smith was following. Think about it this way, the last two head coaches of the Illini program before Smith was hired (Bill Cubit and Tim Beckman) got into a sideline scuffle during a 2013 home game vs. Ohio State where I, you and all God’s children still can’t be sure whether punches wouldn’t have been thrown if staff members hadn’t gotten between the two middle-aged men.

In his introductory media conference, Ron Zook repeatedly forgot the ‘s’ on Illinois was silent. Beckman’s antics included being caught by TV cameras inserting a dip of chewing tobacco into his lip while on the sideline, giving the media a pep talk about doing what was best for the program and being fired amid numerous allegations of physical player abuse.

The perception was and is Smith will never present the university in any image but honorable. In fact, let it be known that before Monday, if Whitman wanted to address the public through the media to announce that Smith was getting a new long-term contract for no other reason than he’s the correct figurehead of the university, athletics department and Fighting Illini football program off the field, that’s a position this Illini Now/Sports Illustrated news organization would not and should not have an issue with. He’s done wonders to cultivate a culture where, for the most part, his players succeed in the classroom, stay out of trouble and are able to lead social causes that show immense personal development. There are numerous examples of how Smith could be identified as being overprotective in terms of the overall welfare of his players. Smith has never publicly put his boss (Whitman), his boss’s boss (chancellor Robert Jones) or the school’s image in a compromising position. And despite what fans will scream, complain and tweet about following consistent losing, having an immaculate off-the-field program reputation has a dollar value of something to a university, especially when it didn't start out that way.

On Monday, that pure reputation was blemished. No, it wasn’t ruined, polluted or tainted. Don’t misunderstand, because the trust is not close to all gone. Smith certainly is still, by all accounts, a very honorable public figure. He’s just no longer somebody who can be trusted to ALWAYS be the proper public representative of what everybody in the U of I marketing office happily calls themselves: “The State of Illinois’ Flagship University”.

On Monday, following a virus outbreak in his football program and presented with absolutely legitimate inquiries regarding coronavirus, there’s only two ways to look at how Smith handled the questions.

1) He was intentionally vague.

2) He was unintentionally obtuse.

And it’s important to get on the record. I've never EVER felt Smith has wandered into the category of being ignorant to the reality of the world around him and that’s why I tend to believe option one is the culprit here. Either way, it’s an embarrassing tactic to take while we’re undertaking tackle football during a public health pandemic.

And before everybody rolls their eyes and shouts “fake news!” at a media member being unsatisfied with answers to his/her questions, let’s take a look at the transcript of what Smith was asked and how he approached answers.

Q: “Is it accurate to say there are two positive tests on your team?”

Lovie: “Is it accurate to say there are two positives? Right now how many guys do we have out? Your numbers say what? Most of those guys are out because of contact tracing. Yes. We’re not going to give an exact number. We have about two. How’s that?”

Q: Okay...so more than two are positive?

Lovie: “How about three? I think we have three. We had one before and two that were knocked out this time. That’s three total.”

Q: Okay...so three right now are positive?

Lovie: “Yes.”

While recognizing Smith isn’t a doctor or an infectious disease expert, these should be questions he’s capable of answering. Let’s also be clear Smith heard the first question very clearly and repeated it for no other reason than he didn’t enjoy the subject matter and wanted to show somewhat embarrassment to the reporter. Needless to say, that plan sort of backfired. Simply put, it took three questions to get a one-word number answer. That's a ridiculous waste of time and energy.

The next element of this exchange was Smith’s “We’re not going to give an exact number. We have about two. How’s that?” answer. Let’s disregard the idea that it took a few seconds for Smith to contradict himself in the same train of thought by refusing to give a number and then giving a number. Let’s focus on the idea he honestly thinks the best play here is to ask the reporter if his vague answer is acceptable. From the moment ‘Sesame Street’ introduced a Count character on my television screen I’ve known the obvious difference between two and three. Smith does too. Which one is it? Accuracy is the cornerstone of proper journalism and when Smith is being intentionally vague in his answers involving a number of positive cases during a virus pandemic, it brings his credibility of giving us accurate information on any topic he doesn’t particularly care for into immediate question. So, let me answer Smith’s condescending questions.

Lovie: “Right now how many guys do we have out?”

Answer: “I don’t know Lovie. That’s why we’re asking you. You need to please tell us.”

Lovie: “We have about two. How’s that?”

Answer: “That isn’t good enough Lovie. We need an accurate count please. Otherwise we’re not being fair and honest to the public readers/viewers/listeners we answer to.”

NOTE: It was later pointed out to Illini Now/SI immediately after Smith’s media session that the third positive test was a staff member and this is something Smith is very much smart enough to point out in the proper context. He just simply chose not to do so.

Let’s continue with the transcript...

Q: A quick follow-up to the “no more positive tests” (claim), you mentioned the guys who were out last weekend will not be able to play this weekend. Does this include the guys out last weekend due to contact tracing?

Lovie: “Well, you know, I’m not going to necessarily say who all will be (out). Eventually, all of those guys will come back. We don’t have positive tests. We’re going to leave it at that right now. As soon as we can get the guys back on the field, we will. Hopefully sooner rather than later. I don’t want to run around your question but there’s a couple of things up in the air a little bit. We’re following protocols and when you look at our protocols, you can kind of see when some of those guys will be coming back.”

This is the first time Lovie Smith has treated COVID-19 with the same “I don’t want to give my opposition any advantage” approach as the right ankle injury of backup quarterback Matt Robinson. This tactic simply misses the mark and shows a lack of appreciation for the times we’re living in. And again, Illinois officials immediately clarified these comments with Illini Now/SI to say any player out due to contact tracing protocol is part of a mandatory 14-day quarantine procedure so no, they’ll be out this weekend vs. Minnesota. This is something Smith was very much capable of doing.

It was not asking too much for Smith to say “we’re not giving specific names out of respect for the student-athletes but those in contact tracing protocol will also miss this weekend’s game as well.”

Everybody should be allowed a bad or poor showing as human beings aren’t perfect. However, let it be known that in terms of being a responsible figurehead of the University of Illinois football program, I have high standards for Smith. Quite frankly, the man has a history of actions to warrant such cause for an elevated bar of expectations. On Monday, Nov. 2, 2020, he fell short. Here’s hoping a repeat of this behavior simply because he’s uncomfortable with the subject matter isn’t in his immediate future.