HARTFORD, Conn. — Ken Krayeske prodded Jim Calhoun.

Calhoun blew his cool.

Was this a surprise?

Are you kidding? The unfortunate exchange Saturday at the XL Center was more predictable than a 30-point rout by the UConn women.

In one corner, we had Civil Disobedience.

In the other corner, we had Periodic Postgame Lapses In Civility.

It was a match made for YouTube and "SportsCenter," which, of course, is precisely where it landed for the rest of the nation to enjoy a good laugh.

In a setting ordinarily reserved for basketball, the free-lance journalist/political activist bolted to the front of the line with the first question, asking Calhoun if in these harsh economic times he should take a pay cut.

"Not a dime," said the coach of the No. 1 team in the nation.

And from there we all got our quarter's worth. Calhoun told Krayeske to shut up and essentially called him stupid. Krayeske took a roundhouse shot at the reporters in attendance, saying if they covered this stuff, he wouldn't have to do it for them. Then Calhoun, who makes $1.6 million a year, not counting endorsements, did a lot of shouting about his program bringing in $12 million.

Krayeske doesn't want to be portrayed as a cartoon figure. Neither does Calhoun. Yet what transpired following a 64-50 victory over South Florida was the kind of animation that flatters neither man.

If you thought Krayeske was some kind of self-serving anarchist before Saturday, you believe it even more today.

If you thought Calhoun was an uncontrolled bully, you believe it even more today.

Neither stereotype begins to capture the complexities of either. As Calhoun would say, life is not a snapshot. It's a motion picture. Yet as you repeatedly watch the video you can't help but shake your head. Such a serious topic should have elevated the discussion of big-time sports in a depressed economy.

So this is my call: Good question. Bad timing.

I spoke with Krayeske for the first time Sunday. He wasn't buying my argument he should have at least waited a few minutes before he spoke. He maintained being assertive and going first guarantees an answer.

In this case, it only guaranteed national exposure, and Krayeske now must look within himself and ask if this was his real motive.

Surely he knew he was waving the red cape at the bull. Assertive did get him an invitation from Calhoun to go outside and discuss the matter at the conclusion of the group conference. Krayeske refused. He shouldn't have.

"As a reporter at the Hartford Advocate in 1999, I asked him what his endorsement contract with Nike was worth," said Krayeske, who is a law student at UConn. "He asked me what my salary at the Advocate was. I told him $28,000 or so. ... He still refused to tell me the value of the Nike deal. He is somewhat incorrigible on these matters, so based on my past experience, the only way I felt I could get a fair answer was to approach it publicly.

"Second, I thought that after he yelled at me, after he disrespected me by calling me stupid and telling me to shut up, that I didn't think that he was dealing in good faith with me."

There has been some back and forth on whether Krayeske, who had a photo credential, should be asking questions.

To be honest, that doesn't bother me. I'm more concerned with the question.

"I think it was unfair in that setting," said Coach Geno Auriemma after the UConn women beat Notre Dame by only 10 — not 30 — Sunday. "I would venture to say it's unfair in any setting.

"I'm sure Jim was thrown for a loop. He handled it better than most coaches would have handled it. I wouldn't have wanted to be that guy 20 years ago and ask Jim that question."

For years, The Hartford Courant has jousted with Calhoun and Auriemma on contracts and quantifying endorsement money.

Krayeske leaves me a little cold when he starts coming off like the only Woodward or Bernstein in Connecticut.

Having said that ... in the wake of Gov. M. Jodi Rell's request of a 5 percent across the board budget cut at state schools, I know of no journalist who has asked Calhoun or Auriemma about the merits of a pay cut. So bully for Krayeske. As big a pain as he can be, he keeps us honest.

I honor his agitation.

"Governor Rell has asked that we share the pain and sacrifice of this difficult budget time, and I think a coach who enjoys the celebrity exception to the state employee ethics rule can share the pain and sacrifice and forgo a small percentage of his statewide salary," Krayeske said. "If state employees at the Department of Social Services are taking furloughs, Coach Calhoun can chip in and show he is a leader not just on the court."

Goodwill is a good argument, but from a pure business standpoint I do think it's rather foolish to argue Calhoun should take a cut. I don't know how Calhoun arrived at $12 million. The government Web site showed revenue of $7.3 million and a profit of $1.2 million, but there are so many television, donor numbers, etc., to factor. There also is little doubt the success of basketball has attracted higher quality students and helped pay for non-revenue sports. His face may turn red, but I don't think he's the reason our state is in the red for nearly a billion dollars.

None of this means Calhoun is beyond a reasonable question in a reasonable setting, and it certainly doesn't mean he has carte blanche to scream and demean.