By C. JEMAL HORTON
The Indianapolis Star

They should punish Mike Davis. After Davis' out-of-line invective last weekend in Louisville, Ky., Big Ten officials have every right to make the Indiana coach pay for his actions with a suspension and/or a fine.

But the line between fair punishment and excessive punishment is thin in this case.

Davis shouldn't become some ridiculous example. He shouldn't suddenly become a walking testament that the Big Ten no longer tolerates the boorish behavior some of its coaches have put on - and gotten away with - in the past.

This week, the Big Ten told Davis' bosses at IU that they should suspend the coach for his poor actions. Among the possibilities? A monstrous and senseless six-game suspension.

Indiana submitted a response to the conference Friday, and Davis is in Philadelphia today to lead his Hoosiers against Temple. The Big Ten now must respond to IU's response.

We don't know how long a suspension the Big Ten has recommended, but here's what would be an appropriate reprimand: a one-game suspension.

That would be more than sufficient.

What Davis did and said in the late moments of the Hoosiers' loss to Kentucky was inexcusable. There just is no getting around that. It was an horrific example for children and adults. And, truthfully, a suspension is exactly what Davis should give one of his players for similar behavior.

But a six-game suspension -- or anything close to that -- would be arbitrarily excessive.

More than that, it would come across as if the Big Ten is trying to make up for not being stern with some of the big-name coaches who have had their share of embarrassing moments for the conference.

The Davis issue cannot be about making up for Bob Knight's antics. (Now, even the most ardent Knight supporters have to remember The Chair.)

It is inexcusable for this situation to be about Joe Paterno going unpunished for twice making contact with a referee this past regular season.

The Paterno incidents brought a great deal of criticism against the Big Ten for being too lenient. And it deserved it.

But going 180 degrees in the other direction would be foul.

There's a growing sentiment out there that Davis somehow is out of control, that his range of emotions sometimes make him volcanic, that he isn't altogether different from You Know Who when it comes to standing up against perceived injustices against his team.

That's a really stupid sentiment.

Davis lost it at Kentucky. It was an aberration. It wasn't the real Mike Davis.

That's the difference.

There are some people -- "haters," as my homeboy Bob Kravitz accurately describes them -- who point to Davis' post-game criticism of officials after last season's Butler game.

Three things: 1) I wouldn't exactly call that a pattern, 2) Davis paid for the Butler comments, $10,000 to be exact, and 3) Davis was contrite then.

Davis was contrite after the Kentucky game, too.

"I'm so, so sorry," Davis said. "There's no reason for me to act that way."

Contrition doesn't excuse what Davis did. But contrition does mean something.

Contrition had to play a role in Temple president Peter Liacouras' decision to limit coach John Chaney's suspension to one game after Chaney threatened to "kill" then-UMass coach John Calipari in 1994.

The Big Ten needs to make certain the punishment fits the crime in Davis' case.

If the conference allows the punishment to fit some preposterous new profile for misbehavior, then it is as wrong as Davis was when he stomped and screamed those terrible things into official Bert Smith's ears last weekend.

Davis should be punished.

There's little doubt about that.

But he shouldn't be punished cruelly and unusually for the transgressions of other coaches -- and the Big Ten.

---

C. Jemal Horton is a sports columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Contact him at 1-317-444-6514 or via e-mail at jemal.Horton@indystar.com