Ties stink. They stink more every season NHL teams raise ticket prices.

Which means they stink more every season.

Through Sunday's NHL games, 23 out of 212 games ended in ties. That's 10.8 percent of all games, and that figure at least is lower than the percentages posted in each of the previous two full seasons under the guaranteed-point, four-on-four overtime format. The good news was that none of the 15 games on Saturday and Sunday were ties, dropping the tie percentage from 11.6 to that 10.8 in two days.

	Mike Peca averted a tie with his goal against Dallas on Oct. 28.

The percentages were 12.3 last season, and 12.7 in 1999-2000. In the final season of overtime minus the guaranteed point, the percentage was 15.1.

So far this season, only 24 of the 47 games tied at the end of regulation have been decided in overtime. Last season, 45 percent of games that went into overtime produced a winner; the figure was 44 percent two seasons ago.

Sorry about all that numbers crunching. Now we'll put away the abacus.

There are two issues involved here.

One is that in this era of astronomically high ticket prices, paying customers at NHL games -- which, of course, leaves out sportswriters -- deserve to leave the building after witnessing a game reaching a definitive winner-and-loser verdict. The fans watching on television, or, heck, even checking out on the progress of the game on ESPN.com deserve the same thing. (Everyone involved is part of the chain of the sport's popularity.)

The hockey tie is archaic, outmoded -- and even insulting. The NHL has made progress since the days when ties were more commonplace, including when the Flyers set the league record with 24 ties in 1969-70, and the Colorado Rockies could make the playoffs with more ties than victories. (The Pet Rocks were 19-40-21 in 1977-78 and qualified as the 12th and final playoff team in the 18-team league.)

Secondly, this system is in its third season, and NHL teams STILL don't seem to have grasped the realities of the guaranteed point. In interconference games especially, but in most games generally, there is no reason -- none -- not to jettison all sense of conventional defensive responsibility and concern and, figuratively, put the pedal to the metal.

If more teams did that, if more coaches advocated it, then this debate wouldn't even be necessary. The percentage of games ending in ties and the percentage of games going into overtime not producing a winner, both would be far lower than they are now.

Yes, in intraconference games, a point of ground lost to the opponent can, ahem, "come back to haunt you." At least in a Flyers-Devils game, relatively conservative play in the overtime makes some sense. Some.

But unless the games involve teams in the same echelon in the standings, meaning they could be fighting one another in the final days of the regular season for playoff seeding or a home-ice advantage, that's not a major issue. (Point conceded: Early in the season, you don't know whom you're going to be fighting with for a spot late in the season; but you have an idea, don't you?)

Now, back to the general concept of ties. They are a part of NHL tradition, as ingrained as that postgame debate about whether it was a "good point," a "lost point" or a "we'll-take-it" point. But unless the NHL further drops that ratio of tie games, taking advantage of the opportunities presented by the guaranteed point system, then the league must take further steps. Yes, that means adopting the penalty-shot shootout -- that contrivance that put Peter Forsberg on a Swedish postage stamp, was so instrumental in triggering a gold-medal celebration in Prague and also decides games in minor-league cities in which half the fans in the building couldn't tell you the color of the red line, especially after the 14th beer and the eighth fight.

Cue up the predictable outrage.

SHOOTOUTS WOULD BE A TRAVESTY! WHAT IS THIS, A SOCCER GAME? IT'S A CHEAP STUNT!

And your point is?

THAT'S NOT EVEN HOCKEY; HOW CAN YOU DECIDE A GAME THAT WAY?

Easy.

Show-biz means of breaking ties wouldn't be sacrilegious. We're not talking about standing up in mass at St. Peter's and yelling, "You're the man, John Paul!"

A regular-season NHL game, one of 82 for each team in a league that takes over half the teams into the postseason, where success and failure is defined, is not sacred. A regular-season game is not a Monet painting. It is not a Stradivarius violin. Heck, it isn't even Paul Newman's shooting script from "Slap Shot," autographed by screenwriter Nancy Dowd. It's a disposable one-night stand of entertainment, and it should end up with one team winning -- and that's especially true when the worst seat in the house is costing a huge slice of individual fans' discretionary budgets.

The shootout is not necessarily "fair," because the team with the sharpshooters stands a better chance.

So what?

In hockey, everyone agrees that the play-on-until-somebody-scores format of the playoffs is impractical for the regular season. Too many games on back-to-back nights. Too much travel. Not enough at stake to sustain the drama past the start of Leno's and Letterman's monologues.

But what those who balk at using the shootout to break the ties won't admit is that the above just buttresses the argument that the regular season isn't important enough to consider some sacred rite. Show-biz means of breaking ties wouldn't be sacrilegious. We're not talking about standing up in mass at St. Peter's and yelling, "You're the man, John Paul!" We're talking entertainment, a mere setup for the playoffs, and if shootout losses shove one team out of the 16-team field, tough.

And that brings us back to the strategic approaches in the guaranteed-point, five-minute overtime. NOBODY SEEMS TO GET IT YET! It takes the elimination of years of cultural and competitive indoctrination, as if we're debriefing former KGB agents. But how many times have you seen this? A team gives up a goal in overtime. The number on one side of the scoreboard changes. Guys on the "losing" team bang sticks on the ice. Guys slink off through the bench, into the dressing room, as if they lost something -- when in fact, they haven't at all.

That kind of ingrained thinking needs to be deprogrammed.

Under most circumstances, a 2-1 overtime loss is exactly the same as a 1-1 tie. It's a point. If you go for it, and it backfires, it doesn't matter.

The upside of that extra point, though, should be the carrot.

After this third season of the 4-on-4, guaranteed-point overtime system, if the percentage of ties isn't down into the 5 percent range, and if the percentage of overtime games producing a winner isn't at least 75 percent, then the NHL needs to take the next step.

The shootout.

Terry Frei of The Denver Post is a regular contributor to ESPN.com. He accepts feedback at ChipHilton23@hotmail.com. He will not accept ties, though.