Trey Wingo joins the program to talk about two sports on the opposite side of ESPN’s spectrum, linked only by one man - Wingo.

Yes, we’re talking about the NFL and NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament action. Wingo is not only the host of ESPN’s NFL Live, but also the host of their Women’s Basketball Tournament coverage. And the conversation starts right there.

With 48 games played over the first four days of the tournament, including 32 over the weekend, is the First/Second round of the NCAA Tournament Wingo’s toughest assignment of the year? How much is he able to keep abreast of the happenings in the men’s draw? I ask him if he’s got MMOD on a laptop at the desk. He does not deny this.

We discuss the notion of coverage in the women’s game. Wingo has claimed that the women’s game gets good ratings -- just not the same audience as some of ESPN’s other events. So why was the women’s tournament relegated to ESPN2 and the NIT was on ESPN? While Wingo doesn’t get into the decision of what to program where, he does explain with somewhat specificity that, in fact, women’s basketball does rate well for ESPN and brings in a different audience to the network.

But he’s quick to mention that it’s not ESPN’s job to promote the game. I asked if ESPN as a network, and he as the host, felt responsible to promote the game as a way of bringing in new viewers. Wingo feels that it’s his responsibility to cover the event the same way he’d cover any other event. ESPN doesn’t promote the NFL, they cover it. Same with their other male-dominated sports. So why would the NCAA women’s tournament be any different?

We talk about his preparation for the tourney. For the NFL, he’s following the league all year anyway. But for a niche sport like women’s hoops, at what point does he start to pay attention? Is it possible to host these shows with ZERO preparation, just walking on the set and reading a prompter? In other words, how knowledgeable does he have to be to anchor coverage...of any sport?

We touch on We Eat Kids and wonder if it’s something that might show up on the ESPN coverage -- slipping back in to the coverage/promotion of the game debate again. And Wingo drops some Tennessee knowledge on the show, just to prove he pays attention to the women’s game.

On to what else he pays attention to -- the NFL. We talk about the potential for an 18 game schedule. Is it necessary? Is it in the player’s best interest? Wingo brings up the financial concerns for players and some potential roadblocks from the Players Union.

We also talk about the financial woes of the NFL and how this potential expansion of the season seems in direct contrast to the layoffs and paycuts the NFL has put out this offseason. Yes, I know that more games means more TV revenue for the league, but where does the money ultimately come from? The fans. Are we losing sight of that with the carrot of more football they have dangled in front of our faces?

Wingo obviously works at ESPN. But we talk about the NFL Network’s constant blunders. Is it possible for a network (league, whatever) to admit their mistakes and retool? Does pride and stubbornness get in the way of making a better product...or just getting rid of a product that isn’t working?

We talk about Darren Rovell’s claims that the Era of the Luxury Box is over. With several huge stadiums being erected and opening this year, how will teams survive when we’ve been told for years that the only way to make real money is to sell the suites. Now if the suites don’t sell, what will teams do?

We finish with the biggest story of the off-season -- Jay Cutler. Amazing how a quarterback from a non-playoff team with a losing career record can be the story of the offeseason but we are where we are. Wingo has some strong thoughts on Cutler, as well as players in general. Basically, Wingo asserts that players have zero power. Zero. He gives a lot of examples to defend that point. So as much as it sucks, Cutler should shut up and play.

Thanks to Trey -- a Friend of the Program -- for coming on. Watch him this month with the women’s coverage.