Andrew A. wrote:
Faster runners contribute (well in excess of the 20 who received comp'ed entries) the same amount (via entry fees) to keep the course open (road closure permits, EMT & police pay) as slower runners do, yet do not need the course to be closed as long as the slower runners do.
I'd be interested to hear more from the director of a large race, because from what I know of economics, which isn't a ton, it seems like it's an issue of economies of scale.
Say a race director did decide to include a smaller amount of only faster runners. I doubt it costs much more to do that than it does to put on a race that welcomes "runners" of any pace. Sure, joggers require as much as a couple more hours of road closures, depending on the part of the course. But I'd assume that the marginal cost of that extra time is far less than the marginal revenue a race gets from the extra runners.
Companies that put on races aren't charities, and you can't deny that inviting as many runners as is feasible helps them pay the bills and then some. The high-quality race experience you enjoy wouldn't be affordable for race directors without those extra entrants, who add little cost but a lot of revenue.
Why are runners such elitist pricks?