NHL Playoff Predictions

As the NHL Playoffs are approaching, the Boston Bruins seem to be the fan favorites this year. In my opinion, I think any of the teams have a chance but the Bruins are more likely to win considering they have been holding a first place position for almost the whole season. Also, with the Boston Bruins having one of the best goalies in the game I think that gives them a pretty big lead. The Bruins are predicted to win their first match against Detroit, which is also predicted to be the most watched game nationally. I think that if the Bruins win their first match against Detroit, then they have a pretty good chance of making it to the end and potentially winning the Stanley Cup. Though really anything can happen, I think the Bruins are the most consistent team and are more capable of holding a winning streak throughout the playoffs. This is the first time in 57 years that the Bruins will be facing the Detroit Red Wings in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Most people think that Detroit might not even have a chance even if they're playing their best and the Bruins are playing their worst. The Boston Bruins are the top contenders this year and it is possible that nobody will be able to beat them. When it all comes down to it, I think that the Bruins have the best chance in the 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs.

SMU's Said to be Too Harsh Sanctions?

The "death penalty", which is the most strict rule in the NCAA, is allowed to ban a program or team from participating in a sport for a certain period of time. How can it be fair to go against the rule of paying players for whatever reasons? Some people would say it isn't, while others think it shouldn't be a rule. The Southern Methodist University football program received a harsh punishment after violating the NCAA rules when apparently 13 football players were getting paid. SMU has already been on probation six times since 1956, where most of them came from offers of cash. Of the 13 football players being paid, it was up to about $47,000 during the academic year, while eight student athletes continued to get paid from September to December of about $14,000. What makes it OK for SMU to go against the rules and no one else? Turns out it wasn't, and they made sure they received harsh punishments.

After finding about this long term scandal, they made sure that they were the most punished in NCAA history. SMU ended up being punished from the whole 1987 season, which was the first time they ever banned a team for an entire season. The full death penalty rule can allow a team to be banned for two entire seasons if found guilty twice in five years, but they didn't go to that extent. The NCAA also restricted SMU to seven games in the next year, and limited student scholarships throughout the entire probation, which lasts until September 1, 1990.

Senior defensive back, Mark Vincent states, "We really didn't expect them to do this,", "We thought they'd drop the three non-conference games. There's got to be a fairer way than this." What could possible make someone think that cheating should get limited punishments? Why should it be OK to cheat and get away with it? That is absolutely ridiculous, cheating should require the harshest punishments. If it was another team doing this then the SMU football team would be just against it as everyone else. The fact that the severity of the punishments shocked most of the football team means that the NCAA needs to enforce their rules more powerfully. Some people think that they can get away with cheating and going against the rules, but who's fault really is that? The NCAA could be as much to blame for not making the teams realize what they're doing is wrong and that they can't get away with it for as long as they think.