i don't get it.... very quantitatively we have increased salaries more ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS for top level players, who play on top level teams.
So for instance, a player with skills making 300K before, now makes ~330K, a 30K hike.
In contrast a player making 30K makes now ~32K a 2K hike.
So.... both in absolute terms and relative terms, we have affected upper division teams more than middle and lower division teams. It is simply untrue that we have affected lower division teams more than the upper divisions.
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.
Even if it is a bit off-topic I am not only complaining about the salary increase. I do understand it is on a percentage basis with top players getting a higher increase which should affect top division teams the most.
Take a look at this team from ACBB in Spain last year (please consider he just increased his arena a lot):
http://www.buzzerbeater.com/team/75328/arena.aspxHe filled an almost 12000 arena (top teams dwarf these numbers) at MAX prices all season while compiling an impresive 0-22 record. He sold all his top players at the beginning of the league so his fans loyalty was quite amazing as he was being whiped out every game.
A top II division team in Spain with a 22-0 record would not be able to fill the same arena at the same prices.
The diference in income from I to II division and from II to III is considerable.
The salary hikes will hurt lower division teams the most because they are already running on a tight budget. The rich will be rich but maybe you are making it a bit too easy for them.
I like that you regulate the economy on a year to year basis and I have seen changes on salaries, TV contracts, merchandising and never the arena.
Cheers!