A proposed format for a 2 day OTB tournament

As a tournament organizer, there are a lot of headaches to deal with.  You have to balance the desires of different sorts of players within the physical constraints in which you have to play the games.  Some players like long games.  Others like short games.  Some people won't play unless there's a prize.  Everyone likes cheap, and everyone likes comfort.  There are a lot of tradeoffs.

I was thinking about this when contemplating going to a tournament this mont.  It's a five round Swiss, with games at G120 time controls, played over two days.  It's a popular event.  Last year it drew 55 players.  It has a reasonable price.  I'm thinking about going, but ....  two whole days of chess?  Four hours per game?  Looking at last year's results, I would be near the bottom, which means that I could pretty much write off any chance of winning in the first two rounds.  Eight hours into the tournament, and I wouldn't even be in the running yet.  In fact, I would probably be an easy win for my opponent, which means I could be sitting reading a book for 2 or 3 of those hours each round.  That's no picnic for my opponents, either.  The first two rounds are often yawners in a ratings paired Swiss.  Eight hours ends up with a lot of yawning.

It got me thinking about how I would run such a tournament, and I came up with an idea.  I want to run it past people here to see if anyone can spot a fatal flaw in the concept.

Day 1: 5 Rounds SS G45.

Day 2:  The top eight finishers on day one qualify for advancement into round 2, which is a 3 round, SS, G90.  Prizes are awarded based on results of round 2.)

The exact number of rounds and time controls for the rounds can be adjusted, as can the number of players who advance to round 2.  The point is that there are two days of play.  The first day features large numbers of players in relatively short games.  The first day is a "qualifier" for day 2.  On day 2, a small number of players play longer games for the prizes.

What does this do for you?  First and foremost, as a tournament organizer, the big expense is finding a place to play.  It's really hard to find a place for two days that fits your budget.  With this format, day 2 can be in a much smaller, and therefore much cheaper, venue.  Day one has that conference center, but day 2 only needs the conference room.  For lower budget tournaments, day 1 features the entire Church basement (generally available on Saturdays, but Sundays not so much) and day 2 is a back room at the public library, or possibly even a private home if someone were willing.

Second, weaker players tend to want shorter games than stronger players.  Some exceptions apply, of course, but a player like me wouldn't want to sit around for four hour games, but a high rated player often sees a G30 or G45 game as being a lot like Blitz Chess.  With this format, the "money rounds" would have the long games preferred by the strong players, while someone like me wouldn't have to worry so much about what to do with the three hours after I lose in round 1.

One thing I'm not sure about is how it fits in with the USCF's "title" system, where players seek norms at various levels.  A player who didn't make the final round might still earn a fourth level norm, while the winner would want to get credit for a first level norm if he achieved it.  (I wouldn't see this format being used for grandmaster norms.)  I'm not sure exactly how to report the scores so that the appropriate credit was given.

Anyway, what do you think?  Obviously, it wouldn't be appropriate for every event, but I think it has potential for some events.  Can anyone see a reason I have overlooked why this format couldn't work?