Contrary to popular opinion, the national opinion of hockey in the United States is indeed... popular.

There is no need to look further than attendance numbers. The NHL's average attendance is virtually neck and neck with the NBA, with the NHL having a slight lead. When percentage of capacities is compared, the difference is greater, as the NHL is in the 93% range while the NBA is below 90%.

Without question, the NHL has always drawn good crowds. Even in the Original Six era, most arenas were sold out every night. At the same time, the NBA was struggling to gain a footing, often averaging no more than a few thousand fans per night in many cities.

No, it is not in arena attendance that has caused the media to think hockey is not popular in much of the United States. Instead, it is television ratings.

Nobody will dispute the NHL's TV ratings could be better, but there are several factors to consider. First and foremost, the reality is, hockey loses more than any other sport when translated from an in-person event to television.

Hockey is very different from most popular North American sports, sharing certain similarities with only soccer. In both hockey and soccer, the knowledgeable fan is not watching only the puck or the ball, but rather, is focusing more on watching the play develop.

This is why hockey fans prefer a variety of seats. Some prefer sitting high on the sides. Some prefer low on the ends. Others prefer anything in between.

Each fan sees the game differently from different perspectives, and their enjoyment is generally greatly increased or decreased based on their positioning.

On television, there is a great limitation placed on the viewer, as they are only able to watch what the camera shows them. On a good broadcast, especially those in high-definition, the camera angle is wide enough to show most of the players on the ice.

Increasingly, too many broadcasters -- especially U.S.-based broadcasters who are searching for a way to boost ratings -- are focusing in too much on the puck. If a team has a power play and the point man has the puck, but you cannot see the net at the same time, that is not good camera work.

When the puck wraps around the boards, the camera does not have to follow the puck's movement, first to the left and then to the right. The preferred method would be to zoom out so the viewer could see the status of the forecheck.

Camera work is absolutely essential, and many networks get this. HDNet, CBC, TSN, and Rogers Sportsnet generally have outstanding camera work. NBC and Versus can vary from game to game -- sometimes they are decent, but on some occasions, they zoom in to the point where the game is unwatchable. Local FSN broadcasts also vary wildly from game to game and market to market

In addition, when the camera zooms in more, there is more camera movement. On most new HD televisions, this is a serious issue. Even a plasma television, which has a significantly faster refresh rate than an LCD or DLP, has a much slower refresh rate than traditional tube televisions.

In plain English, this means more blurring on the television set. When the blurring becomes too strong, a game becomes nearly unwatchable -- even in HD.

To add to the problem, many announcing teams have quit doing a solid play-by-play, instead opting to tell distracting stories with the occasional break for play-by-play.

The time for stories is whistles and intermission -- the game needs a play-by-play. There are those who say you can already see what's happening, but this thought has several flaws.

First and foremost, the fan watching on TV is already struggling to follow the play as a whole because of previously mentioned issues. The fan's focus is typically to watch the play as a whole instead of looking for who is on the ice.

The play-by-play man is supposed to fill in those gaps, telling the fan who is on the ice and who has the puck. Even in person, many fans find it easier to watch the game with a play-by-play, explaining why so many fans traditionally bring portable radios to games.

The second issue -- if the play-by-play man never says the players' names, fans do not learn the players. Most fans do not spend hours online researching names and numbers, so the play-by-play man is their way of learning out-of-market teams.

This issue is especially accented with the current schedule, as fans in each conference have only seen teams from the other conference once in person since the lockout. It is pretty hard to learn teams that way.

Generally, traditional markets have better play-by-play teams. All Canadian teams, Detroit, Chicago, New York, and Buffalo are among the best. Many non-traditional markets have gotten very bad in recent seasons, and generally, those are the teams with the lowest television ratings.

There are exceptions, of course. Los Angeles, Tampa Bay, and Phoenix have good broadcast teams, but there are others who would be best left telling their stories on the pre-game show.

Add it up, and hockey on television just does not compare to hockey in person. And perhaps that is why so many hockey fans choose to watch junior or minor league hockey instead of watching hockey on television.

Basketball is different -- most fans choose to watch the NBA on television instead of going to a minor league game.

Check the numbers -- the AHL is once again averaging over 5,000 fans per game. The ECHL averages more than 4,000. The Central Hockey League is a shade under 4,000, while the IHL draws more than 3,400 per game.

All three major junior leagues draw well with a traditional average attendance of more than 4,000 per game, while the USHL also draws more than 2,500 per game.

The most prevalent minor league basketball leagues, the NBA's developmental league and the modern version of the ABA, do not post attendance averages, and it is understandable why they do not. While some games draw better, many games draw significantly less than 1,000 fans, with some ABA teams playing games in high school gyms.

Factor in those numbers, and there are more hockey fans than the TV numbers indicate.

The fact is, a higher percent of hockey fans will choose developmental leagues in person over the top level of the game on television than in any other sport.

This does not help the TV networks, but the TV networks could help themselves. To get the die-hard fans to watch more on TV, the aforementioned improvements could be made to broadcasts.

It is no coincidence the TV ratings are better in many of the markets with better TV coverage. If the league could get every broadcast up to the level of Hockey Night in Canada, the ratings would unquestionably skyrocket.

There has been more than one theory over the years as to why hockey does not receive higher television ratings in the United States.

Personally, I have to question the ratings process when the numbers show only a few hundred people typically watch a game in San Diego, then more than 300 call when there is an unexpected blackout on the same channel later in the season. Considering most people would not call to complain, the ratings seem to be a little low.

On top of that, the ratings do not take into account people who watch in bars or in large groups -- and that is a significant portion of hockey fans.

Regardless, television executives are continually looking for a way to prop up ratings south of the border. One of the more recent ideas was the rail cam on Versus. The camera ran along a rail on top of the glass -- good in theory, but questionable in reality.

The game was broadcast from Dallas, an arena with a notoriously low main camera angle. The shallow pitch of lower level seats means television cameras tend to shoot through the glass, and when there's a rail on the top of that glass, it is distracting to many viewers.

When the main camera angle was used, watching the camera move through the picture was bizarre -- even several casual hockey fans complained of the distraction. For the fans in the seats, it would be just as big of an issue -- maybe more so. In the end, it seems like another idea that worked better in concept than reality.

One of the latest notions indicates television does not accurately portray the speed of the game and that is something the rail cam was intended to provide. The theory states the casual fan will be impressed by the speed of the game and become hooked.

To aid with that concept, several arenas have adjusted their main camera angles the past two years to bring the fans closer to the ice.

The problem is, they are treating the wrong issue. Translating the speed of hockey to television is not an issue -- in fact, the speed of the game is what often makes the sport hard to follow for newcomers. Casual viewers never complain the game does not seem fast enough to be interesting. Instead, they complain the play is hard to follow and the puck is hard to see.

Many of the best broadcasts actually seem to slow down the play, allowing the viewer to watch the play develop. This is particularly noticeable in high definition broadcasts, especially on HDNet. A good HD broadcast finds a way to incorporate close to half the ice in a single shot, giving the viewer a good perspective on the development of the play. In the process, the game naturally slows down -- but that is not a bad thing.

Notice how scouts, press, and team executives perch themselves at the top of the arena? It is not because the front row seats sell for more, it is because the game can be better viewed and understood from a distance. Front row seats are interesting for the odd game, but for most hockey fans, a front row seat means the game moves too fast.

So why are television executives trying to bring the speed of the game into the broadcast? If the problem is casual viewers following the puck and understanding the flow of the game, the key is to slow down the game.

Many casual fans have commented they can not watch standard definition hockey and follow the game, yet they enjoy watching on HDNet. Mark Cuban's channel slows the game down with wide camera angles and slow-scrolling cameras.

Too many networks -- especially American cable channels -- feel they have to keep the puck in the middle of the frame. This simply is not the case -- in fact, sometimes it pays to lead the play and have the puck behind the center of the frame.

In addition, most HD television sets -- which are becoming more standard -- have a slower refresh rate than traditional tube televisions. As a result, whenever the camera is in motion there is a blurring of the action on the ice. Watching a game, especially a standard definition broadcast, on an LCD television is an exercise in futility no casual fan would want to undertake.

The answer to improving the NHL's U.S. television ratings is to make the game easier to follow. Go back to higher camera angles that show more of the ice -- televisions are larger now than 10 years ago, so why lower the camera angles to show less of the game? Scroll the camera at a reasonable pace and do not worry about keeping the puck in the middle of the frame -- watch a CBC, TSN, or HDNet broadcast to see how this should be done.

The Versus show On The Glass is a great sidebar if the league wants to portray the speed of the game. In this hour-long show, Versus shows extended highlights of a single game from a glass camera. Following the play is almost impossible, but it portrays the speed of the game.

When it comes to the actual broadcast, however, slowing down the game and making it easier to follow for the casual fan -- or even the die-hard fan -- should be the goal.