The thrust of these changes (and the reason I approve of them) is not to reward division I teams as such (which, as I emphasized, they do not necessarily do). It is rather to enforce two of the guiding principles of BB:
1) that promotion must always be a reward (it was getting to the point that a life of victories in Div. II was better long term and short term than a life of mediocrity in Div. I).
2) that there should not be farm teams.
I would like to add one other goal:
3) That it is possible to win without going the New York Yankees / Manchester United route (basically buying victories). If the game engine works, those who truly understand basketball and what is necessary to produce success will win -- and I would argue that does not always mean having the team with the greater salary level winning. I find the challenge of truly building a team, of paying as much attention to my 8th, 9th and 10th players as my starters or assembling a useful coaching staff to be one of the charms of this BuzzerBeater game. I have not yet reached the elevated levels of Div II much less Div I, but I would hope these reforms keep open the possibility of reaching that level with something other than having seven or eight players earning six figure incomes each week.
That said, I hope the new guidelines -- especially the national character of teams -- are constructed as judiciously as the rest of the game. I can understand the reality of people liking to see local / national heroes, but I do not think that in this day and age this trumps winning. Fans like to see winners. Period. My squad looks like a cross section of the United Nations, but we have won. If I get a reduced TV contract because I have a motley crew of different nationalities without a $100,000 superstar and ignores that the fact that my team has gone something like 43 - 6 over the past two seasons, then I would think that was wrong.
But let us see how the Brain Trust has worked before we reach any conclusions. I think they know what they are doing.