grolby

I'm really not sure what you're getting at, here. You say something like Battenkill is a premium event (or was that someone else? I'm tired), but then that promoters don't owe racers anything but safety and what's on the reg page. Where's the premium value? Is it the big light-up archway over the road? Seriously, though, I understand the desire to charge a fee commensurate with what it costs to produce a race and still make a profit, cause duh. But when you're in a marketplace where the standard price for a road race is half of what you're charging and the experience for the racer feels more or less the same as what they get at those cheaper events - and this is the fundamental thing most people are complaining about with Battenkill - then they're going to feel stiffed, and it's hard to blame them.

No, it's not FAIR, nothing is fair, but that's market economics for you. Personally I've got the 2009 Battenkill course framed and on the wall in my bathroom, so I'm fine with the $65 or whatever it was that I spent at the time. But that same registration fee at a century ride or something like the VT Overland GP gets you staffed rest stops, free food and beer after the ride, maybe a hat and t-shirt... point being, the market for something like a "premium USAC road race" simply may not really exist. And that's why centuries, gravel rides and fondos continue to grow. Because you can sign up so many more people who simply do not care about a "result" and make it up in volume.

This whole tedious debate just stems out of one side wanting to believe the promoters are money-grubbing jerks and the other side wanting to believe racers are just a bunch of entitled whiners. And on the micro level you can always point to examples for both, but ultimately I don't think any of those theories are satisfactory.