[cferneyh]

Indeed, few Americans watch hockey. But that's not the point you're defending. The point you're defending is "no one watches hockey anymore."

First, you post a list of top-ranked sports programming, which shows no hockey. When the Stanley Cup final draws almost the same audience as the top program on the list, you drag in the Superbowl.

That's moving the goalposts. The proposition is not that hockey outdraws the Superbowl, but that it still draws an audience. In fact, Woods is wrong. Viewership is up.

Actually, it wasn't my list. My comment was on grimes' "Americans do watch hockey." comment. I pointed out that only 2% of Americans watch hockey (and I was largely being sarcastic, as is my nature). But you called it a "cheap trick".

Fair enough I thought. Then let's put Game 6's numbers into the context of other deciding games of the major sports, rather than meaningless NASCAR races or early round NBA playoff games. And the result leads to the same conclusion - Americans - either when looking at the entire population, or when comparing the Cup winning game to the deciding matches in other "major" sports - don't watch hockey.

Hey, if you think seven million Americans watching Game 6 is evidence that Americans do watch hockey, great. I think it is evidence that seven million Americans watched Game 6, which is minuscule in a number of contexts.