Since television ratings and hockey don't exactly mesh like oil and vinegar, the phrase "are up" is relative, of course.

You could play shirts -- OK, sweaters -- against skins with two Wayne Gretzky clones on either side in Game 7 in the most compelling championship series of all time and still come up a slow second to Kristi Yamaguchi dancing in her poodle skirt and Chuck Taylor hi-tops when Lord Neilsen's viewership books are revealed. That's just the way ice-life operates.

And to the NHL's credit, no one in authority has ever attempted to disguise the fact that hockey equates to heavy lifting by TV audience standards.

Folks who watch a hockey game on television are not channel surfers. Accidental tourists just don't skate into play. Hockey viewers are as committed to the product as those folks who film sharks on the Discovery Channel.

Hockey hard-liners are perfectly willing to wade through two commercial-infested intermissions and as many video replays as the league law allows to determine a legal goal from a visual apparition. They'll patiently stick with the telecast until Tampa, Fla., freezes over, if need be.

"It's a different clientele from most sports," NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said during the Carolina Hurricanes' march to the league title in 2006. "Our TV ratings are what they are, but I don't think there's much variance in our numbers. The people who watch hockey on television are there because they are watching exactly what they want to watch."

These days, more folks than normal are watching. The first two games of the Stanley Cup finals between Pittsburgh and Detroit, on Versus, averaged a 1.85 rating nationally (one rating point is roughly 1 million homes).

And Game 3, aired by NBC on Wednesday night, drew a 2.8 overnight rating and a 5.0 market share, which is the percentage of television viewers who tuned in at that time. It was the best championship series overnighter for a Game 3 since the Hurricanes' game at the Red Wings in 2002.

The Penguins, who failed to score a single goal during the first two games, were able to take a 3-2 win that was in itself promising. It adds an element of suspense to today's Game 4 (8 p.m., WNCN, WITN) in Pittsburgh. Given the surge of interest, albeit modest, the last thing the NHL needed was a Red Wings' 4-0 waltz.

An added bonus was that in the metro Detroit area, where the NBA Pistons are facing Boston in the Eastern Conference finals, the Wings and Pens got an 18.2 rating to easily outperform hoops, which did a 15.9.

Compared to a year ago, when the Stanley Cup finals were between Anaheim and Ottawa, the Game 3 ratings were up almost 90 percent. Only four national markets -- Pittsburgh, Detroit, Buffalo and Columbus -- did better than a 4.0 rating.

That, too, has to be put into some focus. This is a time of year when only a handful of sporting events -- U.S. Open golf, Wimbledon tennis and isolated car races -- traditionally do well in television ratings.

Eventually, the NHL, the NBA -- or both -- need to grow enough brain cells to shorten their seasons if television ratings are to be given serious weight. But short of such radical but rational thinking, which isn't likely, the NHL at least deserves credit for making small steps.

What was billed as a dream championship series -- Pittsburgh's youth against Detroit's legacy -- is reaping dividends. If nothing else, it's proof that hockey still has a viable future in the United States' television industry.

Now, it's up to Bettman and the NHL owners to capitalize on this opportunity by making the product even more viewer friendly.

The first move in that direction, painful as it could be, has to be to eliminate one of the two intermissions. Almost all sports have one 900-pound gorilla rampaging around their TV room. The NHL has two. That's one too many.