The 12-year agreement, announced jointly by the NHL and Rogers in a Tuesday morning press conference, is for $5.232 billion (Canadian). It's the largest media rights deal in NHL history and one of the largest media rights deals in Canadian history. It is also Canada's largest sports-media rights agreement.
The partnership between the NHL and Rogers begins with the 2014-15 season and runs through the 2025-26 season.
^^^^^ This may be the reason for an all Canadian division. It's almost time to renew! Clever scheduling can make it work; and for some reason people assume the Canadian teams wouldn't play the American teams. Of course they would, unless there is another lock down.
I'm not saying they will do this, but there definitely is incentive.
Is there really an incentive? I'm not so sure.
Let's make some assumptions. Let's assume a schedule matrix similar to the current one. I'm also assuming the following divisional placement of Canadian teams.
Canadian Scenario: Canadian division with VAN, EDM, CAL, WIN, TOR, OTT, MON, QUE.
Mixed Scenario: Pacific: VAN, EDM,CAL; Central: WIN; Atlantic: TOR, OTT, MON, QUE; Metro: None
Let's assume both scenarios have a regular season schedule similar to the current one.
Let's also assume that Canadian Scenario has fully divisional playoffs (top 4 teams make playoffs, 1 vs. 4, 2 vs 3, winners play for divisional championship) with the 4 division winners meeting in 2 semifinals similar to last year.
===
In the regular season, the Canadian scenario gives you a few more games with 2 Canadian teams. But those come at the expense of games between a Canadian team and an American team. Is TOR vs. WIN better for Rogers than TOR vs. FLA and WIN vs. DAL (let's assume both are on a night with national broadcasts)? Maybe. It might be a wash.
The Canadian broadcast partner often picks up games between 2 American teams as filler. Do those game better viewership if the teams are fighting for playoff spots with Canadian teams?
Now, let's look at the playoffs:
In the Canadian scenario, you would always get 4 Canadian teams in the playoffs, no more, no less. In the mixed scenario, you could get 0-8 Canadian teams in the playoffs.
In the first round, the Canadian scenario give you 2 series, each with 2 Canadian teams. The mixed scenario could give you anywhere from 0 to 8 series featuring at least 1 Canadian team.
In the second round, Canadian scenario yields 1 series with 2 Canadian teams. The mixed scenario yields 0 to 4 series with a Canadian team.
In the third round, the Canadian scenario gives you 1 series with a Canadian team. The mixed scenario gives you 0 to 2.
Finally, in both scenarios, you could have 0 or 1 Canadian teams in the SCF.
===
Which is better? The Canadian scenario always gives you 2 first round, 1 second round, and 1 third round Canadian series. The mixed scenario gives you 0 to 8 first round series with a Canadian team, 0 to 4 second round series, and 0 or 1 third series. Both have the possibility of a Canadian team in the SCF.
So, the Canadian scenario gives 4 or 5 series with a Canadian team, while the mixed scenario gives you 0-15 series with a Canadian team. Basically, the Canadian scenario is better if Canadian teams are almost all bad, while the mixed scenario is probably better if at least 3 or 4 Canadian teams are good.
So, whether a Canadian broadcast partner prefers the Canadian scenario or the mixed scenario probably depends on how good they think Canadian teams are going to be over the life of the contract.
Just as a point of interest, here are the number of series per round for the normal playoff years since Rogers got the contract.
2019: 2,0,0,0
2018: 2,0,0,0
2017: 5,2,1,0
2016: 0,0,0,0
2015: 3,2,0,0
2014: 1,1,1,0