Questions, Old and New, About Cross Country in Colorado


Three weeks from today, we will have started official fall practice. For teams with an eye on league, regional, or state titles, of course, practice has already begun, but there's still something special about that August 15 date. Once it arrives, everything is suddenly a bit more tangible, and the perspiration a little more worthwhile.

In anticipation of that day, I thought I'd take a moment to visit and revisit some questions about cross country here in Colorado (and sometimes a little beyond). Not every question will be a starter for every person in the audience, but each of you should find at least a couple you resonate with.

Should we have differing course lengths for boys and girls? Say 6K for boys and 5K for girls?

Please no. As someone who hosts a meet, it's enough work to measure out and set up a course of a single length. I don't want a meet with differing course lengths. 6K and 5K won't even work well with a criterium course, and nobody wants 6K and 4K (which, however, would work well with a criterium course). I get it that men and women run different course lengths in college and levels beyond, but this is a headache we don't need at the high school level. For me, differing course lengths at this level is also just a little too close to the notion of girls-can't-do-what-boys-can-do. We only have to look as far as high school track and field here in Colorado to see the legacy that's left us with.

When will we get a new state course? 

This question lost all of its urgency with the revision of the state meet course last year. You know, I would really rather run our state meet on a nice, low-cut golf course, but I just don't see that in the works for any number of reasons. Parking is the biggest reason on the list. No golf course in the state can handle the parking demands, period. Nor do they want to ditch a Saturday of business to host a cross country meet that will tear up their fairways. So, I'm content to run the state meet where it is for as long as I stay in coaching. If another place comes along that can handle the crowds and all the issues, that's fine (and we can switch off years, or whatever seems best to do), but the current course adequately serves the purpose of the state meet and is a fair and reasonable course. A lot of folks spent of lot of energy in the process that ended up with the revision we saw last year. Asking those folks to ramp up that kind of energy again is asking a lot.

When will we move from a run 6/score 3 model in 2A?

The short answer to that question is when some league (preferably a small school league) brings a proposal to the CHSAA cross country committee meeting to run 6 and score 4 and the committee votes in favor of the proposal. Note that the second part never comes under consideration unless the first part happens.

Currently, only one other state in the nation scores as few as three runners at any level of cross country, and the schools in that situation are, on the whole, smaller than our 2A schools. In most states, all classifications score 5, including states where the smallest classification of schools starts with enrollments well below where our 2A schools start. 

A lot of people, therefore, would be fine with 7/5, but at least 6/4 moves us in the right direction. Scoring three doesn't really feel like a team sport, compresses the gaps between teams, and makes 2A state titles more of a function of who hit the jackpot in their student body than of developing a team. 

Obviously, I'm opinionated about that one--and you're allowed to disagree--but this seems so fundamental to the sport. If you have an enrollment like Lake City's, you're allowed to quibble with me. But, if you have 100 students in your school, you should be able to suit up four of each gender. 

Let's make this happen. If you want to make the presentation, I can point you in the direction of all sorts of data you might be able to use to make your case.

How is the run-two-extra-team-members thing working out at the regional level?

This question takes us back to 2010, when CHSAA ruled that regional meets were not a place for sub-varsity competition. Very quickly, coaches pointed out that a major reason for having those JV races was to give those kids on the cusp on making varsity one last opportunity to earn a spot on the varsity roster for state. A compromise was struck, and CHSAA allowed each team to suit up and run two extra competitors at the regional varsity races. But, JV races at regionals were deep-sixed. 

Since that time, sub-varsity races during regional week have cropped up all around the state. That keeps those kids running with the program through regional week. Most coaches, including me, feel that's important to their development as runners.

And, the opportunity for the kids on the cusp of making varsity is now actually a better opportunity than it was when they were stuck running in a different race (albeit on the same course). 

I think all of us coaches felt a little anxiety when the ruling came down, but--with the compromise we worked out--it has all come together rather nicely. The biggest issue with making it work smoothly has been communicating with timing companies and such to ensure that the 8th and 9th finishers for each team are removed from the scoring. There was a mix-up or two in the first year, and maybe once since, but we all seem to have it figured out now.

Why does the Colorado season end sooner than most states' cross country seasons?

Good question. For as long as I've been able to dig out records, the Colorado state meet has been on the last Saturday in October unless snowed out--in which case it has always ended up on the first Saturday in November, though not necessarily on the same course. Somewhere between once in every ten and once in every 20 years, the state meet has been postponed. Big snows aren't exactly rare in Colorado late in October.

At one point, daylight savings time ended on the last weekend in October, but it now ends on the first weekend in November. Honestly, I wish it never ended--but that's another story. I would feel for mountain teams, especially ones on east-facing slopes, that had to run practice after daylight savings time has flipped to standard time. But, with the new change date, it seems we could bump the state meet to the first weekend in November. That would put us more in the middle of the state meets around the nation. But, nobody has been making that proposal. Like the 2A scoring thing, nothing happens if nobody makes the proposal.

What's the gnarliest course in the state?

There's always some team that wants to run the gnarliest course in the state. Well, actually, there are a few such teams. I don't know what that course is, but I'm pretty sure the short list of candidates includes Beaver Creek Ski Area (Battle Mountain), Aspen, Lake County, Snow Mountain Ranch (Middle Park), Ridgway Reservoir (Ouray), Rosalie Property (Platte Canyon), and Clear Creek. If you have another nomination, let me know and I'll include it. Here's a course that probably held the distinction at one point in time.

I'd like to see a small school Nike Cross Nationals. Will it ever happen?

Not if small schools don't show up at NXR-SW where the idea is being tried. Go ahead, make the trip this year, see what you've been missing.

Which meet is faster? Liberty Bell or Desert Twilight?

I tried to answer that question in this article.


If there's a question I missed, send it my way. I have a lot more time to revamp and revise articles this time of year than I will in another month.