I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the bolded part above. Perhaps I am missing something. It seems to me that it never makes any difference to the total prize fund whether the "free" past champions are getting a free entry fee, or their entry fee is paid/deducted from the added money, regardless of how many of them are in the tourney whether it be one, or ten, or sixteen. It is always a wash and a distinction without a difference as you said.
And as long as the number of players who are paying their entry fee remains the same, the number of "free" players also doesn't seem to affect the total amount of the prize fund. For example, if you have 100 paid players the prize fund would be $75k added plus $100k in entry fees for a total prize fund of $175k. Whether you have zero, one, ten or sixteen past champions on top of that, the purse still remains $175,000 (whether they are given a free entry or their entry is paid from the added money either one).
The only time the number or "free" past champions could seem to affect the prize fund at all is when you have a full field and a waiting list of paid players who are unable to play due to the full field, because at that point every free guy is taking the place of someone who would have paid his entry and increased the prize fund by another $1k. For example, with a 128 player field, if sixteen of them are free past champions, you have $75k added plus $112k in paid entries for a total purse of $187k (essentially sixteen paying guys had their spots taken by free guys). But if you have a full field and only ten free past champions in it then you have $75k added plus $118k in entry fees for a total purse of $193k since there are six more paying guys in the field this time. But whether the free guys got free entry or had their entry paid from the added money still makes no difference so I am still not sure what you were trying to say?
I agree with this. I was assuming a full field, in which case it does make a difference.
Gideon