I suppose the guy at Sports Illustrated shooting JPG because the photos need to go to website live is shooting junk. You shoot in RAW for one set of circumstances and shoot in JPG for another and neither has to do with quality/junk photography. That is a gross misinterpretation of their uses. I've had to shoot JPG at sports before and of course I've shot RAW at sports before. To say one is better than the other in all situations is assanine.
Personally I shoot RAW because I like to have it. Yes I've shot sports before and racked up 500 RAW files. I simply picked the best 50-70 and deleted the rest. It wasn't that hard. And no I don't use RAW as a crutch, I use it because I can and it's available to me. It's called technology.
To My knowledge, Sport illustrated Photogs shoot RAW because they will crop the crap out of the pictures later.