quote]But even more than the fundamental impropriety of punishing teams simply for being in a higher division, which
Punishing? They (We) get more money for merch and TV, it seems they get enough...
Maybe we need them to pay less tax as well. The Romney's way...
Maybe we should suggest the Lakers to pay for their coach like they paying in fundamental school.
Hey, it just nor fair to punish them...
Of course they receive more merchandise and TV contract money. Merchandise is based on the salary of your teams' players (with some bonuses for homegrown/domestic players, for NT players, and for performance) while the TV contract is based on the total salary level of the league when the season is starting. If you found a V series that had everyone with 500k rosters, they would end up with a higher TV contract than a III with 250k average rosters. They get more money because they spend more money. That's why TV revenues in I in a small country are dwarfed by those in large countries - because it doesn't matter what league level they are in, just how much salary is in that league when the contracts are determined. (On the other hand, the salary floor is affected by league level, which is a good decision in my opinion).
I don't view as productive, there's a much bigger problem with this suggestion. Let's say you had to have roughly $100k in staff to be competitive in a I.1 league in this scheme (though I imagine that you'd wish it to be higher). While I understand that you'd hope that teams with old money will simply burn through it faster, I propose that what will happen instead is that even more teams will identify tanking the season as an optimal solution, since they'll be gaining an additional $100k/week as compared to competition. That's definitely not the behavior I hope to see encouraged in the game, but unless and until there's a fundamental change that makes tanking for money unpalatable, I don't see how this won't aggravate the situation.
A team that does not invest in winning a game losses much more compared to what they profits from.
Look at the number of posts in the tanking thread, about people who are up in arms about it. Contrast that with the number of people who are in support of your posts in general. Now, whatever you personally think is a problem, there is a definite sector of the userbase who is vocal that tanking is a problem and many people are convinced that it is simply the only way to get to the top in this game. (You, yourself, made reference to that whenever you were shown a team that didn't reach the top level by virtue of being here since season 4). Now, given that environment, how is a move that will explicitly reward tankers further going to improve the userbase? And all this to solve, what, a problem we can't really even identify as an actual problem?
And once again I will flow with your point of view to the extreme...
Let's make it zero worth!
Staff will be for free, and JUST for the first division.
As you claimed that the opposite is wrong and will make them compete less, this will surely (as this is the opposite) make them compete more!!!
Somehow it sounds weired to me...
My point of view is that you don't single out any division for different game mechanics or balancing unless there's a very good reason for it. My point of view is that you should have as many interesting choices as possible. Free staff means uniform staff all over the place, which eliminates the point of having it in the first place. Giving advantages OR disadvantages to teams just because of the prefix of their league level is ridiculous. Try to make the game better for everyone and people will respect that; try to make the game miserable for those at the top and people will simply stop striving to get there.