Yes, according to this analysis at The Situationist, a Harvard-based blog that examines why humans act the way they do. The authors argue that ESPN is largely to blame for the decline in popularity of professional hockey, because it has deliberately reduced the amount of coverage it has given the league on SportsCenter and other programs since deciding against bidding for the NHL's broadcasting rights two years ago.

"At first glance, the argument that ESPN has the power to "kill" any major sport may appear sensationalist," the authors write. "However, the impact of ESPN on the average American sports fan can be easily underestimated."

They go on to say that "[w]hile ESPN's stock has been rising, there can be little debate that the NHL's stock has been dropping on ESPN. Since the NHL made the questionable decision to abandon the cable network as its broadcast partner in favor of the fledgling Versus network, many have argued that NHL coverage on the Worldwide Leader in Sports has ranged from underwhelming to disrespectful."

Television ratings for the NHL have been dismal on Versus, despite strong efforts by the new network to turn the sport into its marquee programming. I have argued for some time that the NHL must find a way to get back onto ESPN, even if it means entering into some sort of revenue sharing agreement with the network. The further the NHL gets away from the most powerful sports network in the world, the more it will find itself marginalized.

Dan Patrick, one of the most recognized sports anchors on television and radio, will be leaving ESPN in August, ending an 18-year relationship with the network.

Speaking on his afternoon radio show, the baritone-voiced personality offered few clues to the reason for his departure, except to say that he wanted to pursue outside interests.

"I've not been a free agent," said Patrick, whose real name is Daniel Patrick Pugh. "[ESPN] has been my home, but I was starting to take it for granted."

Patrick began his career with ESPN in 1989, teaming with Keith Olbermann as co-anchors of "SportsCenter." Most recently, Patrick has hosted his own afternoon radio show on ESPN Radio, with the since-departed Olbermann making frequent appearances. Patrick had planned to announce his departure from ESPN last week, but the network made a last-ditch - but unsuccessful - attempt to keep him.

"Dan has accomplished so much over the past two decades at ESPN and fans and newsmakers have turned to him for his steady and trusted approach," ESPN executive vice president Norby Williamson said in a press release. "We wish him the very best."

During the last week of Patrick's radio show, ESPN will air memorable moments of the program and invite special guests.

"If there was any animosity, I wouldn't be doing a radio show after this one today," Patrick said this afternoon.

There have been numerous rumors about Patrick's future plans, including a suggestion that he could replace Bob Barker as host of "The Price Is Right" game show. (Patrick said he politely declined an inquiry from officials at CBS.)

Here are a few suggestions on how Dan Patrick can pay the bills from here on out:

-Anchor on MSNBC, then Fox Sports, then back to MSNBC
-Tour de France reporter for Versus
-David Stern's psychoanalyst
-Rob Dibble's pool boy
-Replacement for Pat Sajak
-Replacement for Alex Trebek
-"Dancing With the Stars" (he couldn't do worse than Kenny Mayne.)
-President of condo board for Del Boca Vista, Phase III

Darren Rovell is the dean of sports business reporters, and I love reading his blog at CNBC.com. But I disagree with his latest post, in which he argues that the World Series of Poker is not very compelling this year because of the number professional players who have a chance to win. In his eyes, the WSOP is more exciting when no-names like Chris Moneymaker and Greg Raymer are coming out on top.

I will agree that the WSOP really took off as a television event when Moneymaker, a man who had never won a live poker tournament in his life, shocked everyone by winning the main event in 2004. On some level, it's very inspiring and even ultra-American.

But would you watch Wimbledon if Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal were gone by the second round? If Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson were to miss a cut at the British Open, would you be watching over the weekend? Cinderellas are nice, but I would much prefer to see top players like Phil Hellmuth, Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer battle it out than tune in for a couple of mid-level pros and some unknown guys.

The reality of the WSOP is that the tournament is filled with many players who did not pay the $10,000 entry fee. Instead, they arrive in Las Vegas after winning small online tournaments, satellite events or even contests. (Though this has changed a bit due to the crackdown on Internet gambling.) While these entrants are still very good poker players, they come into the event with little to lose and will get as much pride out of busting a top pro than actually advancing in the tournament.

ESPN, of course, would benefit by having top pros compete in the final table because it would demonstrate that poker is a game requiring more skill than luck. Seeing a guy land a miracle flush on the river is exciting, but I'd much rather see a top pro steal a pot with a great series of bluffs.

-- Tim Lemke

Wow. If you're David Stern, the headline "NBA Ref in Mob Betting Scandal" is not something you want to read with your morning bagel.

We should probably avoid getting carried away with what this all means, but the nightmare scenario goes like this: NBA ref confesses to betting on games he officiated. NBA ref confesses to making calls to deliberately affect the outcome of said games. The results of hundreds of games placed under a microscope. Wins, records, championships perceived as invalid. NBA's credibility questioned once again.

This could be uglier than the Pete Rose affair in baseball. I know that seems ridiculous. But there's never been any evidence that Rose, despite his freighter of faults, actually bet against his own team while manager of the Cincinnati Reds. Thus, it's possible Rose's gambling may never have had an impact on the results of games.

A referee, on the other hand, has the power to change an outcome with a single call. If we discover this referee was making calls to adjust scores, what are we to think of every close game that took place with him carrying a whistle?

No matter the outcome of this, there will be a serious examination of who the NBA hires to officiate its games and the programs it has in place to ensure that those referees are competent and fair. My guess is there will also be an exploration of whether other referees were involved or at least knew that the referee under investigation had a gambling problem, as has been reported.

It's Mike Vick versus the NBA Ref scandal for the biggest off-the-field sports story of 2007.

-- Tim Lemke

I'm writing to you now having recovered from what felt like the longest bus trip in history--up to Cooperstown and back in a single day. Sunday saw me travel to baseball's Hall of Fame inductions not as a reporter, but as a fan. (More accurately, my wife and her folks are big fans of the Orioles and Cal Ripken.)

I didn't get to see much of the actual town while up there, but I did see Pete Rose charging for autographs just two blocks from the Hall. And I found an old bookstore where I bought an old copy of Roger Angell's "Season Ticket," a collection of articles that center largely around baseball in the 1980s, a very underrated decade of baseball, in my opinion.

Anyway, as I sat in the hot sun listening to the speeches by Ripken and fellow inductee Tony Gwynn, I was struck by the sheer size of the crowd. Upwards of 75,000, I'm told, which is something like five times the normal crowd. I'd say at least 75 percent of those in attendance were Orioles fans, which underscores something I have believed for quite some time: people in Baltimore LOVE baseball. They love it, and have a tremendous appreciation for its history. Unfortunately, going without a winning season since 1997 has taken its toll on fans in Charm City. If the Orioles ever turn it around (and they are showing some signs of life, thanks to some great pitching), Camden Yards will once again become a raucous place. Couple that with the expected big crowds at the Nationals' new ballpark beginning next year, and you might have a concentration of baseball fandom not too different from that seen in Chicago or Southern California.

And while fans were breaking records in Cooperstown, they were also breaking records in ballparks across the country. Major League Baseball announced 717,478 fans saw baseball in person Sunday, setting a new single-day record. Granted, the 17 games played were one more than normal thanks to a Mets-Nationals doubleheader, but that still represents an average crowd of more than 42,000. Baseball attendance has topped 50 million this season and is on pace for its fourth straight year of record-breaking attendance.

As if to back this whole notion of baseball being popular, the Los Angeles Dodgers just reported they have surpassed 3.5 million in ticket sales this season. (Anything above 3 million, and you're doing awfully well.)

With so much negative news surrounding baseball and its steroids scandal, has any of it really hurt the sport all that much? I wonder.

-- Tim Lemke