Jim Calhoun vs. Ken Krayeske...WHO YA GOT?

The #2 ranked University of Connecticut men's basketball team defeated #10 Marquette last night to give head coach Jim Calhoun his 800th career win, one of only seven men's college basketball coaches to achieve such a feat.

It was at his press conference after his 799th win over South Florida Saturday, however, that earns him a spot on the blog.

Among those in the press conference that night was blogger Ken Krayeske, a UConn law student. His blog, The 40-Year Plan, focuses mainly on issue affecting his beloved Connecticut, particularly how to dig out of a $2 billion budget deficit.

As you can see in the above video, Krayeske prodded Calhoun about his $1.6 million salary, making him the highest-paid Connecticut state employee (UConn is a public school), and whether that is the best thing for the state.

Calhoun, with a reputation for press conference tirades, apparently could not believe that such a question was being asked in this setting and ripped into Krayeske, refusing to give a serious answer.

Not surprisingly, reaction came swiftly.

Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell was not pleased with Calhoun's tirade:

"I think if coach Calhoun had the opportunity right now, he would welcome a do-over and not have that embarrassing display," Rell told reporters, adding that Calhoun's tone was what upset her most.

The Hartford Courant posted an editorial saying that the question was an appropriate one, even if the setting was not ideal.

Jason Whitlock of FOXSports.com said Calhoun's tirade was "stupid" and "brainless".

Krayeske himself said he was "thrilled" that his blasting by Calhoun got the amount of press it did.

"It wasn’t me who created this. He happened to respond in that way," Krayeske said. "We have to question the amount of importance placed on athletics," he said. "I always wanted to have this discussion on a national level, and here we are."

Despite this groundswell of support for Krayeske, there were many who took Calhoun's side, as well.

Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post and ESPN's "Pardon the Interruption", in addition to calling Krayeske a "weasel" defended Calhoun.

"Calhoun has won two NCAA championships and come close to winning two others. What, some bozo comes into a press conference and gets to challenge everybody's salary? If I was Calhoun, I'd have served up this clown on a platter. He's earned everything he's gotten and will get in the future."

CBSSports.com writer Gregg Doyel, who ironically wrote a scathing 2005 article about Calhoun and some supposedly shady recruiting methods, said he had no reason to defend the coach this time, but did anyway.

In addition to refusing to put Krayeske's name in print and calling him a "grandstanding attention hound", Doyel wrote this:

"For his troubles, the attention hound got blown up, which is exactly what he deserved. He's the one, not Calhoun, who walked down the wrong dark alley and picked a fight. Shame on the guy who started the fight -- not the guy who finished it...There was only one thug in that exchange. And Calhoun knocked the thug on his [expletive]."

Here are my observations on the incident:

*Calhoun invited Krayeske to speak to him in private about the situation at the 0:37 mark. After having read Doyel's description of his private meeting with Calhoun over the 2005 article, I believe him. Many people say this in vain, but I think Calhoun would have responded more favorably to that question in a private setting.

*Notice the reaction of the other journalists in the room when Krayeske tells Calhoun "If these guys covered this stuff, I wouldn't have to do it." Such disdain for their alleged comrade. I think it seems like just another salvo in the Bloggers vs. "Real" Journalists tussle. The rift seems to be growing wider and wider, but is the blog takeover inevitable?

My final verdict: Krayeske may have a point, but he needs to pick his battles (and the battlefield) a bit more carefully.

The Continuing Saga of Alex Rodriguez

It's the sports story that just won't go away.

A-Roid and Journalistic Ethics: Where to Begin?

As an aspiring sports journalist, I had an entirely different level of fascination with the revelation that Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees tested positive for steroids in 2003, when he was with the Texas Rangers.

Selena Roberts and David Epstein of Sports Illustrated first broke the story Saturday on the SI website, which he confirmed on ESPN Monday. What a scoop! Journalism at its' finest: digging, scratching and clawing to find the truth! Not even the news pixie herself, Katie Couric, could get A-Rod to admit it!

To what extent, however, did Roberts dig, scratch and claw? According to A-Rod, a bit too much.

"What makes me upset is Sports Illustrated pays this lady Selena Roberts to stalk me," Rodriguez told Peter Gammons in an exclusive interview with ESPN (More on this later). "This lady has been thrown out of my apartment in New York City. This lady has, five days ago she was thrown out of the University of Miami police for trespassing. And four days ago she tried to break into my house while my girls are up there sleeping, and got cited by the Miami Beach Police. I have the paper here.

"And this lady's coming out with all these allegations, all these lies, because she's writing an article for Sports Illustrated. And she's coming out with a book in May." (Actually, Alex, the publication date just got moved up to April 14...hmmm) "And really respectable journalists are following this lady off the cliff, and following her lead. And that to me is unfortunate."

So, is Selena Roberts a crazy A-Rod stalker? Why don't we ask her via the Major League Baseball (MLB) Network, The New York Observer and SI.com, shall we?

From the MLB Network interview, as reported by Newsday (NY):

"'I've never set foot in the lobby of Alex's New York apartment. I've never set foot on his property. It's pure fabrication,' said Roberts, who did say she drove by Rodriguez's house after receiving permission from Miami Beach police to drive on public property near A-Rod's house. The Miami Beach police have a "miscellaneous incident" report of that conversation, but Roberts was not cited for anything.

"Roberts also asked for and received permission from security at the University of Miami to enter the school's workout facilities and talk to Rodriguez on Thursday.

"'I think it's a diversion, a shoot-the-messenger type of thing,' Roberts said."

Roberts told the Observer the following with regards to the above quote:

“It’s not at all close to what happened. I wrote it off: It’s a diversionary tactic to throw blame on the messenger. He’s probably upset with me and maybe he wants to divert the attention to the credibility of the article, which is not in dispute.”

Roberts told SI.com this:

"In a meticulous process, we verified and re-verified our information, because this is a human being here, so you absolutely do not want to be wrong. We made a decision to confront Alex with the evidence we had regarding his positive test, and give him a chance to explain. He chose not to."

So, what about Roberts' methods and motives? Are they a product of the modern era of journalism, or is she kickin' it old school?

Now back to the exclusive interview on ESPN. (I swear that was said about 20 times during the hour of Sportscenter on Monday during which it aired.)

Why the lovable Peter Gammons? ESPN has loads of excellent baseball writers, including Tim Kurkjian and Buster Olney, who covered the Yankees for The New York Times for pity's sake?

SI writer Jeff Pearlman offered his opinion on his blog:

"The reason Gammons scored the interview with [John] Rocker (ten years ago) a decade back is the same reason he scored one with A-Rod today: He’s the Larry King of sports television. Softball questions, limited inquisitiveness, an easy time for all involved."

Specifically responding to how Gammons did not react to A-Rod's rant on Roberts, Pearlman said this:

"I’m not sure if Gammons was jealous of Selena for scoring a huge story, but he had to—absolutely had to—follow up Rodriguez’s presumably ludicrous accusations with a question or two or three or 10. 'Alex, are you saying Selena Roberts literally broke into your building? Alex, can I see the paper you’re referring to? Alex, you rip Selena Roberts’ reporting? But wasn’t she, ahem, correct?'"

Gammons gave his answer in an e-mail to the sports blog Deadspin:

"I think in retrospect, I should have interrupted the A-Rod rant. My first question asked if Selena's story were true, he essentially admitted it was, and I believed she was therefore vindicated. I usually don't get into grudges, and felt he was promoting her book, which will be her response. I was trying to get Alex in his own words, but Jeff's criticism has merit that I accept."

Does this mean Gammons is going to start getting tough on his interviewees? It probably won't matter, since he will probably never cover as big a story as this in his remaining years.

Nevertheless, A-Rod has confessed and apologized. Does this make him a sympathetic figure? Will the media respect him a bit more?

Not the New York Post.

This photo of A-Rod preparing for the exclusive ESPN interview at his home was published in the Tuesday edition of the Post and its website. However, A-Rid saw it as an invasion of privacy and had it removed from the site.

I can understand his beef with Roberts, but with the photog? Really?

The intrigue is just beginning on this story, both in the world of sports and journalism. I see it as a primer for what I need to be thoughtful about as I pursue a story like this in my sports journalism career. On the other hand, no matter how thoughtful I am, will it even matter in the mind of the player or team? Won't they just see me as an annoying reporter?

Is that fair?