The Norris Penrose facility figures to be synonymous with state cross country for at least another three years. So what has folks around here in a state of upheaval? Photo by Karen McCoy.
For some of us, the state meet location controversy is a familiar topic. For others of us, it’s a little new. I present this as a mapping of where we are and how we got here:
The History
For the seven years prior to 2008, the state cross country meets were held on courses that could be described as fast and easy. From 2003 – 2007, the state meet venue was the El Pomar Sports Complex and Vineyards Golf Course (almost) adjacent to Harrison High School on the south end of Colorado Springs.
By near-universal consensus the course was short the first year, leading to some enormous drops in times over season performances. Regardless, the course tended to run fast except for the one year that it snowed two days before the state meet and left the soccer fields where the races started and finished a spongy mess. The venue’s tenure as a state meet course ended prematurely when the golf course went belly-up, so another course had to be found.
Fossil Ridge High School in Fort Collins hosted in 2008 and 2009 on another course that was mostly flat and fast. The most serious objections to this course were the overall unevenness of the first couple hundred meters and sometimes narrow trails and bridges that made passing difficult in spots. But, the course was done in more by lack of local enthusiasm than by objections to the nature of the course.
Still, after seven years of flat-and-fast as the defining state course characteristic, a change was in the wind. Smoky Hill produced their proposal—and two-circuit course, with plenty of down and up, around the Arapahoe County Fairgrounds.
As fate would have it, a number of unfortunate circumstances converged on the first year of use of the course. Both at the pre-state meet and the actual state meet, temperatures were unseasonably warm, it was a dry year overall, and the wind was up a little, leaving some very dusty conditions. Making matters worse by an order of magnitude was the interminable line of traffic for the entire 1.2 miles from the fairgrounds entrance to E-470. It may have been the worst access (technically, egress) mess a state-level event has ever endured in Colorado. And, the course itself was on the more difficult end of the spectrum for Colorado courses. That, too, produced a measure of resistance to the venue.
It’s said that you never get a second chance to make a first impression, and that old saw was never more true than it was in the case of the Arapahoe County Fairgrounds. Although things were much improved the second year (the line of traffic being the most bothersome exception), the course was doomed. The Smoky Hill group had had enough of the bashing, and was only too happy to let the hosting burden fall into other hands.
Cheyenne Mountain was first in line to make the next bid for the state course at the current NPEC/BCRP venue. The state meet has now been at this venue for three years. NPEC/BCRP has handled the parking the best of any of the four most recent state meet venues (probably only slightly better than Fossil Ridge and Arapahoe County Fairgrounds, but markedly better than El Pomar/Vineyards—for those whose memory of state meets takes them back that far).
The NPEC/BCRP course has been riddled with criticisms regarding overall course difficulty, bottlenecking at the outgoing stream crossing, difficulties for spectators, and safety issues. CHSAA, however, has remained steadfast in its backing of the NPEC/BCRP course.
NPEC/BCRP Issues
We’ll detail here the issues mentioned in the paragraph above.
The overall course difficulty is exactly what you imagine it is. This course climbs 150 feet from start line (low point) to Hodgson Hill (high point). The actual uphill is well in excess of 150 feet due to downhill sections between the start line and the top of the hill. Though a little difficult to calculate precisely with course profile maps, it probably comes out at about 250 feet of vertical gain around the entire course. The course has a net uphill of almost 50 feet due to a stadium finish that is considerably higher than the starting line.
Some people like this, some people swear by this, some people are indifferent, some people would rather see something a little less intense for a state race, and some people loathe it. Obviously, those who like it and those who swear by it are enjoying the fruits of evening up the score after seven years of flat and fast. I don’t propose to be able to tell you the approximate percentages falling into each group. I just know from conversations with other coaches that all five groups exist. And stopping to count noses here doesn't serve the purpose of this article.
The bottlenecking at the stream crossing is likely the most universal complaint about the course. Behind a certain point in the field—and that point varies some from race to race—you will get slowed down in the stream crossing meaning, as a competitor, you make kind of a devil’s bargain between getting out hard enough to be ahead of the point where congestion backs things up like Denver rush hour traffic and spending so much energy getting clear of the bottleneck that you’re cooked for the rest of the course when you’re only a quarter mile in. This crossing has little effect on the first 20 or so runners through the creek, but an increasingly greater impact on runners after that point until somewhere near the tail end when things finally start to thin out again.
The spectator difficulties are also well-known. For the most part, you must make a decision of what side of the creek you will be on for the race. On one side of the creek, you can see the start and finish. On the other side of the creek you can, if you’re in good shape, agile, and don’t mind plunging through weeds and thickets, see the race in four spots. If you’re not very mobile, you can see the runners three times at close range and at greater distances with binoculars.
Safety issues have come in three forms. Most pronounced this year was runners fading or dropping from some combination of heat and hills. In previous years, however, there have been issues with runners getting trampled and spiked in the outgoing creek crossing, and issues with runners catching a foot on the erosion control strips coming off Hodgson Hill and taking a high-speed header. The erosion control strips were covered over this year with the new layer of trail surface, but their locations were marked with the intent of replacing those strips.
CHSAA and Venue Selection
Some of the issue related to the current NPEC/BCRP site stems from the initial selection of the course. Lyons also put a bid in for the state course the same year that Cheyenne Mountain put in a bid, but later. Despite an understanding that Lyons had put their bid in on time, their bid was never actually considered. Accounts differ on exactly what happened, and it’s not within my realm of expertise to say exactly what happened and when, but there has been some lingering perception that the Lyons bid was never given due consideration.
Last year’s CHSAA cross country committee meeting was attended by a large number of coaches. While it’s probably safe to say that most of the coaches in attendance came to voice a preference for considering a new state course, there were coaches in attendance who supported the current state course (all coaches and athletic directors of member schools are invited to attend these meetings and offer input). The meeting was opened by CHSAA Commissioner Paul Angelico with the statement, “Location is determined for the next two years,” effectively cutting off any meaningful discussion of the matter. A number of coaches left that meeting visibly angry and frustrated.
The meeting went on, of course, and coaches asked for a subcommittee that would establish course standards for state meet venue selections going forward. A subcommittee was formed. It is not clear that any specific course standards for venue were ever established. If they were established, they were never made known to the coaches as a whole.
Members of the subcommittee visited the various venues proposed for the next cycle of state meets during the course of the 2014 season. This meant visits to Colorado Springs, Denver (D’Evelyn), Lyons, and Greeley. Those attending the 2014 CHSAA cross country committee meeting were told that the site selection subcommittee had not yet been able to meet, but that the subcommittee would meet and ultimately make a recommendation which CHSAA would decide upon. “Within the next month” was a phrase used to describe the timing of the selection.
The subcommittee went ahead and met in the afternoon after the CHSAA cross country committee meeting had concluded. That meeting resulted in a course recommendation of two more years (2016 and 2017) at the current NPEC/BCRP site. CHSAANow.com published an article this morning (November 18) reporting on the selection for two more years at NPEC/BCRP. That selection is still pending approval of the CHSAA board of directors. I am not certain if that means the decision ever comes before the Legislative Council (where member leagues have representation and votes) or not. Someone with a clearer understanding of CHSAA workings and terminology will need to answer that question.
I trust this serves to help lay the groundwork for people to understand the current upheaval regarding the state meet venue selection.
************
For those disappointed by the latest news from CHSAA—and for those heartened by it—you’re welcome to make comments on the forum of this site (I understand the frustration that is present, but please try to keep the tone somewhere near civil--I'm not threatening to delete posts, but I am asking nicely), but understand that anything that is accomplished by posting on this site is cathartic in nature. If you hope for your comments to be read by those with the power to make decisions and hope to have any chance of making any difference, CHSAA is a much better place to direct your comments. Coaches, a best first stop for your concerns is your athletic director. Cross country tends to be a low maintenance sport and most of us like having that reputation, but this is one time when if you have something to say—pro or con—it might be worth passing it along to your athletic director.
************
For those feeling I've not done fairness to all concerned in this article, be you an athlete, a parent, a coach, an athletic director, or even a CHSAA employee, I want to let you know I will give full front page space on Colorado Track XC to any well-written article submitted to me in response to this article.