The NHL has made a lot of changes recently in order to make the game of hockey more appealing to the national audience. And a lot of these changes are definitely steps in the right direction.

But there is one potential change that the NHL is discussing that would, quite simply, destroy the most exciting part of the game.

The league is discussing a new format for deciding the winner of a tied game. If a game is still tied after the overtime period, the teams will engage in a penalty-shot shootout to determine the winner.

Message to NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman: Don't do it! A shootout is without a doubt the worst possible way to determine a winner.

Sure, there are some appealing aspects to it. The penalty shot is quite possibly the most exciting play in all of sports. It is the ultimate one-on-one challenge.

But I have two major problems with this idea:

First, in all of professional sports, there is one other play that involves similar one-on-one competition: a baseball pitch. Of course, a pitch is not all that exciting, is it? And why not? Because we see more pitches in one baseball game than we see penalty shots in an entire season of hockey. One major reason a penalty shot is so exciting is because it is so rare.

Not including last night, there have been 88 tie games so far this season. Now, assume that the league favors the shot-per-shot shootout rather than the five-shots-per-team shootout. That's at least 176 penalty shots. And the season's only a little more than half over.

Second, of the 16 penalty shots awarded this season, seven have resulted in goals. That's about a 60 percent save percentage. If you look through recent years, the penalty shot save percentage is right around 60 percent.

The average save percentage of NHL goalies during games this year is about 89 percent. Through the years, this number has dropped a little, but remained relatively stable.

In a penalty shot, the edge is leaning toward the shooter, whereas a goaltender clearly has the edge during normal play. Hockey is not meant to be a high-scoring game. The goalie should have a clear advantage.

We really don't need to have a winner in every game, but if the NHL is determined to do so, why not do what the other leagues do? If there's a tie after 10 innings of baseball, is there a home-run derby? If there's a tie after the first overtime in the NBA, is there a foul-shot contest? No. They keep playing. The winner of a game should be determined by regular play, not by shootout. I think any fan of Penn State field hockey would agree with that.

I think there's very little doubt that one of the greatest hockey games of this generation was the Washington Capitals-New York Islanders four-overtime game in the 1987 playoffs. That might never have happened with a shootout. The drama of an overtime period is far greater, and lasts far longer, than the drama of a penalty shot.

Furthermore, do we really need to eliminate ties? They can be just as dramatic as a big win. Case in point: the scoreless tie.

Hockey is the only professional sport in which a 0-0 game can occur. It can't happen in baseball or basketball. It hasn't happened in pro football since 1943, and with the caliber of offensive players in the league these days, it seems unlikely that it will ever happen again.

If you've ever witnessed a scoreless game, it is truly a remarkable event. It is the ultimate display of goaltending skill and the height of tension and excitement.

While the NHL should be commended for trying to improve the game's appeal, it is going about it the wrong way this time. Hockey is a team sport. If a winner must be determined in every game, it should be determined by teamwork, not by who has the best goalie or individual shooters.