No, what they are afraid of is that university employees might possibly overserve patrons at a university-owned facility, then that overserved patron might get in his car and and on his way home potentially wipe out of a family of 5 in a mini-van on I-394. It is one thing if a guy leaves a bar and is overserved. It is something entirely different if it is a university-sanctioned event, hosted at a university-owned facility, being sold and hand-delivered by university employees. There is no way to keep track of just how drunk someone is when you're dealing with keeping track of 50,000+ people.
That said, in the grand scheme of things, you are right, no one ever died after years of games at the dome.
So, I tend to think the U should simply say - what the hell - if the lawmakers of this state endorse the idea that it is okay to serve beer to everyone, then okay, let's serve beer to everyone and rake in the additional revenue (which would likely be millions in beer sales and sponsorship money).
And, if that family of 5 gets wiped out by a drunken fan heading home from the game, then those ambitious lawmakers who made such a big deal out of it and thumped their chest about how they're representing the peasants, probably will not feel so high and mighty about their self-proclaimed stellar work on this anymore. Nope those same hypocritical lawmakers will run from it faster than Bryant Allen runs the 60-meter dash. But, hey, they sponsored the bill, advocated for it's approval, affirmed it, and must live with it's possible ramifications if the U puts it into effect.
In my opinion, the U can wash their hands entirely of any negatives that come from it by simply saying they were following the great leadership of these zealous legislators.
Also glad to see you start your day with such classy comments. I'm cool if you want to be ignorant. If not sounding ignorant is taking myself too seriously then I'm definitely cool with that too. 
