Pay more for longer events?

How about making people who warm up longer pay more, too? After all they're using the pool more than everyone else. Or tack on an additional fee for really slow swimmers. Sound fair? There are at least two ways to consider it. First, there are some precedents for having people pay higher entry fees to do longer sporting events. Running: I am looking at five fliers for running races that simultaneously held events of different lengths. If it is a 5k/10k race, the 10k entry fee is always a few dollars more. For a 10k/half marathon, the half marathon entry fee is about 50% more expensive. The "swag" and finisher prizes for these events were identical, too. Triathlons: There is simultenaously a sprint event held on the same course as an olympic triathlon. The olympic competitors receive a wicking shirt in their goodie bag while the sprint competitors get a regular t-shirt, but otherwise the price is 250% higher for the olympic distance. Open water swimming: I am looking at an event that offers 0.5k ($40), 2.5k ($50), and 5k ($85) distances. These are late/"day of event" registration prices...it was much cheaper if you registered early. Cycling: To undercut my point, I have two fliers for bike rides that offered three or four distances up to a century distance. The entry fee is the same no matter which course you complete. Everyone got the same "swag" regardless of distance. Of course, cycling is a different mindset in that these are not "races" but "rides". (Actual racing has categories, etc., based on skill -- which would be a separate discussion.) But in three of four cases, coordinators are charging higher entry fees for people wanting to do the longer events. I doubt the motivation is pure greed or a wish to penalize distance people. So it seems to represent the greater overhead cost to hold such events. :blah::blah::blah: As a second consideration, what is the true "cost" of a 1650? I am not sure. Many months ago, out of my own curiosity, I looked through results database and saw that 1650 free is more frequently swam than 200 fly. But when I looked at a dozen random upcoming events, 1650 was offered only a couple of times while 200 fly was almost universally offered as an event. So it seems many times they dropped the more popular 1650 event because it "cost" too much to offer. I admit "cost" might be more of a administrative headache or a logistical problem than an actual financial cost for renting the pool. But it is just a question -- could the overhead "cost" be mitigated by higher entry fees? Otherwise, the more popular distance free events will continue to be left off the program while shorter but less popular events will be included. :blah::blah::blah: So okay, those are two quick considerations and I'll leave it at that. Again, personally I would pay more for distance events. I'd be interested in what the event coordinators have to say.

How about making people who warm up longer pay more, too? After all they're using the pool more than everyone else. Or tack on an additional fee for really slow swimmers. Sound fair? There are at least two ways to consider it. First, there are some precedents for having people pay higher entry fees to do longer sporting events. Running: I am looking at five fliers for running races that simultaneously held events of different lengths. If it is a 5k/10k race, the 10k entry fee is always a few dollars more. For a 10k/half marathon, the half marathon entry fee is about 50% more expensive. The "swag" and finisher prizes for these events were identical, too. Triathlons: There is simultenaously a sprint event held on the same course as an olympic triathlon. The olympic competitors receive a wicking shirt in their goodie bag while the sprint competitors get a regular t-shirt, but otherwise the price is 250% higher for the olympic distance. Open water swimming: I am looking at an event that offers 0.5k ($40), 2.5k ($50), and 5k ($85) distances. These are late/"day of event" registration prices...it was much cheaper if you registered early. Cycling: To undercut my point, I have two fliers for bike rides that offered three or four distances up to a century distance. The entry fee is the same no matter which course you complete. Everyone got the same "swag" regardless of distance. Of course, cycling is a different mindset in that these are not "races" but "rides". (Actual racing has categories, etc., based on skill -- which would be a separate discussion.) But in three of four cases, coordinators are charging higher entry fees for people wanting to do the longer events. I doubt the motivation is pure greed or a wish to penalize distance people. So it seems to represent the greater overhead cost to hold such events. :blah::blah::blah: As a second consideration, what is the true "cost" of a 1650? I am not sure. Many months ago, out of my own curiosity, I looked through results database and saw that 1650 free is more frequently swam than 200 fly. But when I looked at a dozen random upcoming events, 1650 was offered only a couple of times while 200 fly was almost universally offered as an event. So it seems many times they dropped the more popular 1650 event because it "cost" too much to offer. I admit "cost" might be more of a administrative headache or a logistical problem than an actual financial cost for renting the pool. But it is just a question -- could the overhead "cost" be mitigated by higher entry fees? Otherwise, the more popular distance free events will continue to be left off the program while shorter but less popular events will be included. :blah::blah::blah: So okay, those are two quick considerations and I'll leave it at that. Again, personally I would pay more for distance events. I'd be interested in what the event coordinators have to say.