Curiously, the NBC coverage of the Stanley Cup final has a superior announcing crew than that of the CBC and its venerable tandem of Bob Cole and Harry Neale. I've watched hockey in Canada for decades, and only recently have I begun to appreciate the efforts of the American national broadcasts (however lowly rated they may be in America).

John Davidson is one of the best in the business, and NBC added the enthusiastic Pierre McGuire (from Canada's TSN) to do ice-level analysis. What I appreciate most about the NBC coverage is that they really try to engage and enlighten the viewers. Davidson is better than anyone at breaking down hockey strategy in everyday language, and McGuire is good for the exact opposite reason: he knows the coaching lingo, and peppers his analysis with words like "identifies" and "puck support". McGuire sees the game like a coach, and his insights, while often long-winded, are informative even for the experienced hockey viewer.

The CBC broadcast, admittedly, is intended for an audience that knows more about the game and is used to watching it on TV; however, I find lately CBC has become lazy with its coverage. Bob Cole is getting on in years, and he frequently misses calls. Neale's only contribution to the game is to remind viewers that "when leading after 2 periods, team X has a 13-2 record." Yes, we get it, Harry: the team leading after 2 periods usually wins. Neale is, like McGuire, a former coach; but Neale seems to disappear for a cocktail or something, for long stretches.

Where NBC fills intermissions with taped segments that are often informative (or at least foreground the personalities behind the game -- I imagine because Americans seem to like "personal" stories behind their sports), CBC hasn't tried something new in decades. The first intermission involves the increasingly incoherent and belligerent Don Cherry badgering his straight man, Ron Maclean. The second intermission usually has the Satellite Hotstove (more talking heads). I know Canadians will watch no matter what fills the intermission, and I know as a public broadcaster you don't have a big budget, but please, CBC, put some effort into the broadcast for once!

As for the anthems: You forgot to note that the Edmonton fans also sing along to the American anthem. Personally, I don't think anthems belong in professional sports; but I guess credit goes to the people of Edmonton for making lots of noise.

King,

Do you think TV ratings, especially national TV ratings, are as meaningful for sports as they were thirty years ago?

You make a good point about the number of people watching the Mexico match in Los Angeles. Sure, most Americans don't give a hoot about the World Cup, but in local areas there are heavy concentrations of people who do. It reminds me of basketball in Canada: Not many Canadians give a crap about the NBA, and the TV ratings demonstrate this (Raptors games get beat by curling on TV). But in Toronto the games are sold out regularly.

Is it possible that "national TV" ratings neglect the pockets of, for example, ethnic communities that may not have the same interests as the Nielsens? Are there other ways these niche ratings manifest (Internet audiences?)? I don't know. I don't know how TV ratings are measured.

Maybe all those jokes about the World Cup on late night TV are intended for the small groups of people who watch those shows, and don't reflect the true interest in soccer in America?

That's the term rhetoricians use to refer to a figure in which a part stands in for whole ("all hands on deck" -- "hand" stands in for "sailor"). A number of people in this thread have applied the figure of synecdoche to the Bush Administration in an attempt to figure Dubya's bumbling as the relative incompetence of the entire administration.

"The government" is a massive, heterogeneous entity with a multitude of factions and commitments within it. Bush's own stupidity says nothing of the potential competence of various moles, mercenaries, and whole factions working within the government. The fact that Bush read about goats while America burned does not mean the entire government is incapable of orchestrating 9/11. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Similarly, the absence of WMDs in Iraq has nothing to do with a shadow government's ability to orchestrate 9/11. For one thing, it would be easier to plan and execute a deception such as 9/11 on your home soil, especially when your brother Marvin is on the board of directors for the company that controls WTC security. For another, it has made no difference that WMDs were absent in Iraq. Sure, people still argue about it, but do you see any troops coming home as a result?

Please put to rest this illogical argument that the Bush Administration is too incompetent to pull off 9/11. The argument presumes: (1) one slightly retarded former alcoholic/coke fiend is representative of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who comprise the elected government and the military-industrial complex that controls it; and (2) that you know to what end the Bush Administration acts (that is, you presume Bush was "dumbfounded" on 9/11, when maybe he was in Florida for the same reason all the principals of this operation were away from their posts that day; you also ignore the fact that the secret service is in charge of such a situation, not the President, and would, unless following orders to the contrary, rush the President away from a dangerous situation such as being exposed to terrorist attack in a publicly-declared photo op).