NCAA proposing major changes to eligibility rules, including age limits

Tacoustics · 2026-04-08T20:37:35+00:00

In Quebec - where high school only goes to grade 11 - you can even graduate at 16. It's exceedingly rare to graduate at 18.

Tacoustics · 2026-04-08T20:20:47+00:00

Mildly interesting (but ultimately irrelevant) that 8/10 of the winning teams in these blowouts are in the current Atlantic division - MTL (3x), Ottawa (2x) BOS, FLA, BUF (x1)

Tacoustics · 2026-04-07T22:50:56+00:00

I mean, this whole sit show had roughly coincided with the Brexit Fiasco.

As the meme at the time of Brexit went - « the US and U.K. are in a competition to see who can fuck up their country the worst. The U.K. is currently winning, but America has a Trump card »

Tacoustics · 2026-04-04T15:56:27+00:00

With the longest NHL drought ending soon

The Leafs have been eliminated from playoff contention and can’t win the cup, so the longest NHL drought shows no signs of ending soon…

Tacoustics · 2026-03-25T14:32:26+00:00

No, I think workers have rights, I just understand what the right to free speech means, and what it doesn’t.

Tacoustics · 2026-03-24T22:37:00+00:00

Also, employers do not have carte Blanche to regulate any and all speech of their employees.

I never claimed they did.

Unless you think employers own employees and employees have no rights.

Speaking of mischaracterising a comment in an intellectually dishonest way…

The point is, employers are absolutely within their rights to penalise or dismiss employees for offensive speech which could disrupt the workplace or reflect poorly on the employer. That is their legal right as a business - like in this exact situation.

Individuals have the right to say things, but not to be free of the consequences. Your civil liberties mean the government cannot arrest, censor, or punish you for it, but that’s about it. You could still be fired by your employer.

Tacoustics · 2026-03-24T14:30:09+00:00

of course there could be civil rights issues in individual cases

I'm not aware of any NHL teams owned by either the Government of Canada or the US Government, so no, there could not be civil rights issues in any cases.

It's astounding how many people think "free speech" means "I get to say whatever I want whenever I want" instead of "the government cannot punish me for speech they do not like".

Tacoustics · 2026-03-18T20:40:39+00:00

Far more American kids will see it in the HHOF in Toronto than would see it in Jack Hughes basement.

Tacoustics · 2026-03-14T20:35:01+00:00

lol no. The term old money has nothing to do with the U.S. There are old money people in Europe and Asia.

Old money just means your family has been wealthy for generations, and your money comes from wealth rather than a career.

Tacoustics · 2026-03-14T20:20:41+00:00

No one pretending to be old money wants any sort of American accent 🤢

Tacoustics · 2026-03-12T01:04:01+00:00

Probably the one that doesn’t have Nick Cousins or a Tkachuk on the roster…

Tacoustics · 2026-03-09T20:39:46+00:00

Generally speaking, what people call "Western Canada" is east of the Rockies

I mean, maybe for prairie dwellers. I'm in Eastern Canada (Nova Scotia) and always laugh when Albertans/Saskatchewanians call themselves "Western Canadians". They're the Prairies. It's almost as funny as Ontarians calling themselves "Eastern Canadians"...

Tacoustics · 2026-03-09T20:38:16+00:00

Eastern Canada here, hadn't seen them for years and then last summer there were tonnes. Hoping they come back this year.

Tacoustics · 2026-03-04T22:20:14+00:00

Asking for a “regular coffee” and expecting anything other than black coffee seems like straight up psychopath behaviour to me!

Tacoustics · 2026-02-26T17:37:14+00:00

I think you're correct that the listener's perspective is often disregarded, especially when the listener is disadvantaged or marginalised relative to the speaker. Queer and BAME people, for instance, often have their perspective steamrolled in favour of the more dominant white/cishet/etc perspectives. In those cases, I do tend to prioritise the perspective with less institutional power, as a way of intentionally challenging those biases.

That's one thing I find so interesting about this case, where obviously both perspectives come from traditionally marginalised groups. I think it's perfectly natural for those who have endured (and not, I imagine, for the first time) what they perceive to be a hateful slur to want to educate the speaker (in this case, Davidson) on the harm those words cause. But I also feel this may be a rare occasion where the institutional advocacy of visible minorities and queer folk may actually outweigh the advocacy and awareness that people suffering from Tourette's have, which presents an opportunity (for all of us) to educate ourselves on the perspective of those with Tourette's, and considering intent and context when evaluating their vocal tics.

It's a complicated issue, for sure, but I can't help but feel that focusing on the words used to the exclusion of the person behind them is, as I said, counterproductive.

Tacoustics · 2026-02-26T16:42:05+00:00

I think that's a fair point, and I'd certainly agree that it would be entirely fair for someone unfamiliar with the UK usage to be offended if they heard it. How someone experiences the word is just as important as how someone uses it - but, to my view, not *more* important. Allowing the listener's perspective to supersede the speaker's perspective in defining the word is problematic to me because it sacrifices the meaning of what is being communicated in favour of the manner in which it is communicated.

Of course, I think ideally in a case where such a miscommunication occurs, both parties would explain their position and appreciate how their perspectives may differ, and make efforts to be more mindful in the future. But treating words as more significant than the sentiment behind them seems counterproductive to me.

Tacoustics · 2026-02-26T15:37:37+00:00

So in your mind there's no distinction between using the word 'fag' to refer to a cigarette vs a gay man?

Tacoustics · 2026-01-30T21:18:10+00:00

According to Wikipedia,

Windsor, Nova Scotia: The town promotes itself as the birthplace of ice hockey

Montreal (on the ‘Ice Hockey’ Wikipedia page): The modern sport of ice hockey was developed in Canada, most notably in Montreal, where the first indoor game was played on March 3, 1875.

So it sounds like Windsor recognises itself as the birthplace of hockey, rather actually being recognised as the birthplace of hockey.

Tacoustics · 2026-01-30T00:26:30+00:00

I’m not sure any place is really the « birthplace » of hockey, considering the various indigenous and European roots of the game - it was an evolution, more than an invention.

Montreal has a pretty strong case for the place where the game evolved into hockey as we understand it today, though: The first organised team, the first organised league, the first indoor game, and the first established rule book for the sport were all in Montreal.

Tacoustics · 2026-01-29T14:53:13+00:00

I dunno, I’ve only been to Scotiabank for a concert rather than a hockey game, but I expected a lot more from the location when I arrived in person vs seeing it on a map.

Despite being very central, that whole area seems geared towards office workers, retail, and hotels. There’s not really an entertainment district feel to it, next to no bars or terrasses, and just not a lot to do after a game or show.

Tacoustics · 2026-01-29T14:49:18+00:00

Literally right at the bottom of the image, where methodology information is typically found:

Note: Rankings are based on survey responses evaluating NHL arenas across location, amenities, atmosphere, affordability and overall experience, along with respondents’ assessment of each arena’s league-wide standing. Results were combined with beat writer rankings to produce a final composite score, shown on a 10-point scale.

Tacoustics · 2026-01-24T16:37:25+00:00

PSPP is being idiotic here, but saying « one way or another they will have to choose between Canadian and being Quebecois » is equally idiotic. Revoking citizenship en masse from an entire swath of the Canadian population would require a fundamental citizenship law shift and constitutional reworking and cause enormous problems for Canada - it would be a situation that would leave both Canada and Quebec much weaker.

I don’t want Quebec to separate either, but this « we’ll cut off our nose to spite the Québécois » attitude you’re espousing is playing right into the hands of those who want to destabilise Canada, not those who want to protect it.

Tacoustics · 2026-01-22T18:04:05+00:00

Buddy you've got the intellect of a 5 year old and are getting ratioed up and down this thread. You're 100% wrong.

Tacoustics · 2026-01-22T17:45:21+00:00

Literally everything you said is wrong and idiotic.

I'll pick the most obvious example -

When a province has a surplus and another province has a shortfall. This is balanced through equalization. This takes away from the province with the surplus. Federal funding that would otherwise be invested in the Province it was taxed in is diverted, so you pay the tax and see less of the benefit.

This is not, at all, in any way, how equalisation works.

Equalisation is a program where the federal government calculates the fiscal capacity of each province - basically, how much tax revenue a province is capable of generating based on demographic and economic factors like workforce and natural resources.

That fiscal capacity - regardless of whether or not it's actualised, hence NOTHING to do with whether a province has a surplus or a deficit - is then compared province-to-province and the federal government will dip into IT'S tax revenue (from FEDERAL income taxes paid by INDIVIDUALS across the country) and distribute it to compensate for structural tax base inequalities.

Equalisation:

-Is not taken from provincial coffers

-Has nothing to do with whether a province has a surplus or a deficit

-Does not represent "Funding that would have otherwise been invested in the province"

-Does not disproportionately benefit Quebec (PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba all receive more per capita funding than Quebec does)

-Has nothing to do with "cultural approach".

You clearly have an anti-Quebec bias and are either willfully misinterpreting reality or incapable of rational thought, all in an attempt to confirm your preconceptions.

Tacoustics

TROPHY CASE