1000/1650 seeding; slow to fast or fast to slow?

I think most swimmers of the 1650 want to get it over with as soon as possible and get back to the hotel to rest up for the next day's events. A really competitive 80 year old might take quite a long time to finish but still need the rest more than a really competitive 20 year old, assuming they are both racing similar events the next day. However, and perhaps this is unfair, I would suggest that MOST people who swim fairly slow in the 1650 do so because they are not expending as much effort as MOST people who swim fairly fast in the 1650. I could be wrong here, and I am more than open to being argued out of my position. However, if times are a rough proxy for effort, then I would say that the most fair thing for most swimmers would be to let the fast heats go first and get home to rest. This is especially true if, for instance, somebody really slow decides without even practicing that they want to swim the 1650 for time and ends up taking forever to finish just to prove to themselves they can. Again, I acknowledge the very real possibility I am being unfair here, but to complete my argument, I say let the faster people get it over with and hightail it home to rest. If the work of getting into good shape earns a swimmer nothing else, we should at least afford them this much. I mean even the top seeds in the NCAA Bball tournament earn the right by their year's performance to have easier seeds in the beginning. The desire to be totally egalitarian here ignores the fact that some people do work harder than others to get in optimum shape, and they deserve some kind of reward for this. All this said, masters is different than the NCAAs. I guess if I had to pick a one size fits all solution, it would be what McTrusty in his Solomonic Wisdom suggested: alternate year to year. Alas, this was not a poll option, though I suspect it may have been the favorite one were it offered.

I think most swimmers of the 1650 want to get it over with as soon as possible and get back to the hotel to rest up for the next day's events. A really competitive 80 year old might take quite a long time to finish but still need the rest more than a really competitive 20 year old, assuming they are both racing similar events the next day. However, and perhaps this is unfair, I would suggest that MOST people who swim fairly slow in the 1650 do so because they are not expending as much effort as MOST people who swim fairly fast in the 1650. I could be wrong here, and I am more than open to being argued out of my position. However, if times are a rough proxy for effort, then I would say that the most fair thing for most swimmers would be to let the fast heats go first and get home to rest. This is especially true if, for instance, somebody really slow decides without even practicing that they want to swim the 1650 for time and ends up taking forever to finish just to prove to themselves they can. Again, I acknowledge the very real possibility I am being unfair here, but to complete my argument, I say let the faster people get it over with and hightail it home to rest. If the work of getting into good shape earns a swimmer nothing else, we should at least afford them this much. I mean even the top seeds in the NCAA Bball tournament earn the right by their year's performance to have easier seeds in the beginning. The desire to be totally egalitarian here ignores the fact that some people do work harder than others to get in optimum shape, and they deserve some kind of reward for this. All this said, masters is different than the NCAAs. I guess if I had to pick a one size fits all solution, it would be what McTrusty in his Solomonic Wisdom suggested: alternate year to year. Alas, this was not a poll option, though I suspect it may have been the favorite one were it offered.