By now, you’ve probably heard all about the dustup between the University of Connecticut’s Jim Calhoun and freelance reporter/activist Ken Krayeske over the coach’s salary and whether it’s appropriate in these difficult economic times.As for the question itself, I don’t think there’s an easy answer. Judging from the consistent excellence of the UConn basketball program, Calhoun earns his money. The team has won two national championships, is always in the Top 25 (if not the Top 10) and rarely misses the NCAA “Big Dance” in March.So, from a performance perspective, it’s difficult to argue that Calhoun isn’t an effective coach. It’s also tough to put a black-and-white value judgment on whether the school itself is throwing money away by paying its basketball coaches $1.6 and (in the case of women’s coach Geno Auriemma) $1.5 million respectively when the state is facing a severe budget deficit.In a black-and-white world, that answer would probably be yes. Both men are state employees (as are all the coaches at public Massachusetts venues like UMass and Salem State, and other athletic employees in the state education system). And if you went directly by how much the state benefits from the services of Calhoun, Auriemma et al, and didn’t take into account intangibles, you’d have to conclude that both are pretty far down the ladder of importance to the overall function of the state.I suspect opinions on this subject would fall along predictable lines. Those who don’t see the value of athletics will argue that any athletic salary is probably exorbitant. And those who consider athletics part of the culture of society (I’d fall into this group) see the value of having a national-caliber basketball team in their midst.Recreation and diversion are necessary to the overall morale of any social group. And besides, there are few states in the country these days who a) aren’t in budget crises; and b) don’t have public university athletic officials pulling down more, probably, than Jim Calhoun.Putting this entire economic fiasco on the Jim Calhouns of the world, merely because they’re paid for something you don’t consider vital, is unfair. I’d imagine with little effort, I could find a few highly paid UConn officials whose jobs I would consider either unnecessary or redundant. So it’s a fool’s game to play.I’m more concerned about the advocacy of the reporter. Now, Lord knows I don’t object to these kinds of questions, and these kinds of crusades. It may not be popular to grill someone who’s seen as almost sacrosanct in the eyes of college basketball, but that’s all right.We might not always do the job well, but our objective is still to tell people things they’d never know otherwise (surely you’re not naïve enough to think the UConn athletic department would ever initiate such discussion).But there is a time and a place, and there’s such a thing called fairness. We still have rules in this business, and sometimes following them wouldn’t be such a bad thing. And different situations call for different tactics.To wit: Jim Calhoun, despite what this guy might think, isn’t stealing anyone’s money. He did not come by it in any other unethical way. He negotiated a contract with the school, and did it in good faith. This means that regardless of what might be bothering Ken Krayeske, Jim Calhoun deserved enough respect not to be blindsided, and treated as if he’d robbed the state treasury.It would be one thing if six of Calhoun’s players had their grades changed, or were involved in some off-campus illegal activity. In that case, he’s fair game to be asked about it anywhere anyone can find him.But not about this. There is certainly a time for such questions. And I’d never argue that they’re not legitimate, and that the whole money structure of college and professional sports couldn’t use a good thorough (and perhaps even LOUD) discussion.But in this instance, I’m glad Calhoun stood up for himself and humbled the reporter. My only regret is that he d