By now, you've probably read accounts of hockey enjoying a significant spike in the sport's television ratings recently. No doubt you also know of (and admire) hockey's embrace of alternative media. That union has been a fusion of opportunism, technology, and desperation. Generally, it seems to be working.

Still, we're three years into the Crosby-Ovechkin Era, and even with the promise of hockey benefitting dramatically -- perhaps moreso than any other sport -- from high definition television, there are durable limitations posing a serious ceiling on Television America's embrace of our frozen game.

One is geography. Climate, while not metaphysically determinative in the matter, nonetheless plays a lead role in forging many puckheads' attachments to the game. The other is the physical parameters and pacing at play. Football with its rectangular field, allowing many varying camera angles, and regular stops in the action, doesn't merely allow television a foothold in its event but actually, in its modern incarnation, is determined by it. Or perhaps you've missed the past twenty Super Bowls.

But think about the hockey rink, which necessarily with its dasher boards shields three-and-a-half feet of action from the camera eye and many spectators seated low-in-the-bowl. Its oval, walled- and netted-in configuration just isn't super fan friendly, relative to the playing fields and surfaces of other sports. It ever has to be so.

This week, freshly considering this reality, aware of a new and fabulous North American fascination with the untelevised World Championships, and aware of film increasingly relying on viral marketing, I wondered: just how much does hockey really need TV?

Can hockey go Cloverfield?

Something fantastically viral transpired with these Worlds. True, North American hockey hearts could welcome them into their lives as not before because of their arrival in Canada, and their being contested in North American time zones. But in Washington at least, it seemed to me that many, many more followed this tournament than in recent years past.

They were able to because of the arrival of the World Championship Sports Network. You plunked down $5 and you got about 50 world-class hockey games broadcast on your computer. On demand, too. Folks like me on regular business travel could carry our laptops along on trips and catch the Worlds in our world of airport terminals, bars Wi-Fi, or hotel rooms.

We in D.C. didn't want to surrender high-level hockey when we were forced to last month, and when in prelude exhibition play for the Worlds word filtered out (virally) that Russia's top line was comprised entirely of Washington Capitals, a fair number of folks in this region found a storyline they wanted to follow a bit.

In years past, I don't recall hockey fans clogging my in-box with reactions to the Worlds they were unable to view. They couldn't. Also in years past, if I wanted some reaction forum on the tournament I was pretty much confined to the tournament message board at hockeysfuture. This spring there was vibrant commentary on the Worlds on the Caps' official message boards; in comments left here and on other Washington hockey blogs; and perhaps most tellingly, on the media blogs of the Caps' beat reporters in town.

Now consider, too, the behemoth ESPN's role in hockey's rather robust return from its labor stoppage of a few years back. Which is: nothing. People still snicker at the agreement the NHL has with Versus, but the league's revenues keep on growing. Somehow word is getting out about great hockey being played these days.

Moreover, hockey's roots in the broadcast medium are with iconic, culture-defining radio personalities (Foster Hewitt) as opposed to John Madden- or Howard Cosell-type mega personalities on TV. I find that charming. And telling.

I'm still fascinated by the X-Files-like thought of Comcast one day rising up and challenging ESPN's dominance. But if that never happens, if hockey is never accorded a seat at the broadcast dining room table by the usual suspects, is that so bad? It will always have regionalized television coverage. The league's dedicated channel is a hit with its fans. Its universe of supporters on line grows by the week -- and it appears to be broadening internationally, too -- and they're distinctly engaged. And I'm sure the league and its visionary, new media marketers like Leonsis are by no means exhausted of their ideas for broadening further sports' fans interest in hockey.

Still, what a lovely virus we have at the moment.