Making the Case for a Different State Meet Course

In 2012, Elise Cranny and Katie Rainsberger dueled spectacularly in the 4A State race, but no one spectator saw anything more than glimpses of the contest. Colorado Track XC file photo by Alan Versaw.

Editor's Note: On November 18, 2014, I invited readers who wanted to say more about the State cross country course than I had said in my article, So, What Is the Flap Over the State Meet Venue All About?, to submit to me a well-written article expressing their point of view. The article that follows is the first completed submission I have received in response to that invitation, but there could be more following (in fact, I know of at least one more potentially in the works). And, I reissue that invitation here and now. I will not edit what you have to say except for purposes of clarity. I will open my archive of photos to provide a suitable cover photo for your submission, as I have done for this piece. This is not about agreeing with my perspective; it is about getting well-written expressions of a point of view about the State meet course into the public eye. My intent here is to clear an avenue for the best arguments, pro or con, to be heard and openly discussed. Tim Geldean, in the article that follows, does an excellent job of presenting his case.

Special to Colorado Track XC by Tim Geldean

On October 27th, 2012, Katie Rainsberger and Elise Cranny battled for Colorado's 4A State Cross Country Championship in the first year at the distinctive Norris-Penrose/Bear Creek Park (N-P/BCP) course. They separated themselves from the field early on, running through a barn, splashing through creek crossings, and racing their way up and down the route's significant hills.

As the battle waged on, the national-class duo spent the race within mere steps of each other. Yet, something had to give. Late in the race, Rainsberger crossed the creek once more and gapped Cranny while sprinting up the final hill. Though Cranny didn't cover her competitor's move, she hadn't given up. She burst into the stadium and summoned a kick for the ages to run down Rainsberger at the line. In the most memorable finish at the current state meet course, only a single tenth of a second separated these two Colorado greats.

However,… was it really a memorable finish to those of us at the meet who didn't actually see it? This particular race was what drew my daughter and me to the meet, yet after spending several hours viewing the meet (plus a few hours driving there and back), we certainly didn't see it (until catching it on the local news the next morning).

Due to a questionable course configuration that forces fans to choose whether they want to see the start and finish or the middle of the race, the majority of spectators didn't witness this remarkable finish.

That year, we ran up and down hills, to and fro on trails, and all around the course to see what we could of the competition, but as fans of the sport, we left the meet feeling unfulfilled. We returned in 2013 but faced the same frustrations. In 2014, my daughter and I just weren't up for the hassles, disappointment, and incomplete spectating experience that the current course offers.

As a spectator, I contrast these N-P/BCP experiences with those I enjoyed at last year's USATF Cross Country Nationals at Boulder's Flatirons Golf Course and 2013's PAC-12 Cross Country Championships at Louisville's Coal Creek Golf Course. Both courses featured grassy, repeated-loop courses that have become the norm at championship meets across all levels of the sport.

At both events, one could comfortably watch much of the races in a relatively passive fashion. More active cross country fans could have a great time while running around to see the majority of the action. Separate from the competitive outcomes, the atmosphere at each meet was one of celebration and a coming together for competitors and fans of the sport. It should also be noted that the host for the PAC-12 championships, the University of Colorado, did not use their normal, significantly more challenging, home course at their Buffalo Ranch/South Campus location.

My daughter starts high school in the fall of 2016. I've been disappointed to read recent reports indicating that on January 28th, CHSAA's Board of Directors is expected to approve N-P/BCP as the state meet venue through at least her senior year (2019). Should my daughter race at the state cross country meet, I'd appreciate the opportunity for my family (including in-state and out-of-state grandparents) to thoroughly watch her compete.

With the current course, her grandparents would be resigned to only watch the start and finish of her races.

Coaches throughout the state struggle with the difficulties in coaching their athletes on the N-P/BCP course. While I appreciate that much coaching takes place in the months, days, and hours prior to the state meet, a great deal of coaching does and should take place during the races. What other high school sports feature a field of competition where coaching access is this limited?

Personally, I think that Cheyenne Mountain (the host school) has put together an interesting, challenging course. It's just not appropriate for a championship meet.

It shouldn't be news to anyone that countless Colorado high school runners, coaches, parents, and fans find the course contains serious flaws as a championship meet site. Especially in the larger races, the early water crossing causes serious problems for the flow of runners, often stacking up the field and bringing athletes to a walk. That's unacceptable for a championship meet at any level. The mid-race hills are too aggressive for a state championship course, especially one held at over 6000 feet and under consideration as a permanent site.

It is well established that flat-to-rolling courses are ideal for championship cross country meets. A hilly course at altitude caters to a particular type of runner, whereas a 5K on a flat-to-rolling course is more neutral.

The regular season offers plenty of opportunities for difficult courses that offer unique geography and even innovative obstacles. Back in August, the New Balance Valmont Cross Country Invitational was contested on a three-loop, up-and-down course at Boulder's Valmont Bike Park that offered hay bale jumps, banked turns, a stair-climb section, and more. Fantastic! My daughter has competed in the last two Littleton Runners Roost Invitationals at DeKoevend Park. What separates it from most meets are the multiple water crossings that provide an interesting challenge to the runners. Bill Stahl and his crew put on a well-organized, popular event for middle and high schools alike.

There's a time and a place for these types of events, but I wouldn't propose either course for a championship meet.

What should we look for in an ideal championship course in Colorado? While parking and access are important attributes, the priorities should be the experience for athletes, spectators, and coaches. A great place to start is a grassy site that allows runners to comfortably race in spikes (whether individuals choose to do so is a personal preference). A wide starting area with a long, uninterrupted straightaway is crucial. Flat-to-rolling terrain caters to all athletes. A repeated-loop course allows optimal viewing for spectators and coaches, while potentially limiting the space required. The higher the altitude the slower the race times, so we should also avoid higher-altitude locations (the N-P/BCP course is touted as the highest state championship course in the country).

When I first started following Colorado high school cross country, I didn't understand why a mostly road course like the Liberty Bell Invitational was so popular. Over time, I learned that numerous college coaches don't take altitude into consideration during the recruiting process, and a number of Colorado high schoolers are unfairly overlooked as a result. Colorado teams and individual runners also face the same problem when trying to gain entry into the Nike Southwest Regional meet.

Obviously, these coaches and meet directors are making mistakes. That's where Liberty Bell comes in: providing an opportunity to run fast at altitude. At the end of the Colorado high school season, when (ideally) our kids are at peak fitness, we need to provide them an opportunity to run at least relatively fast at the state meet.

Our runners should also have a relatively safe course that leaves them healthy and ready to represent Colorado on the national level the way we know they can. Numerous high school coaches have complained about injuries sustained on the N-P/BCP course due to the early creek crossing and the downhill following the course's high point.

While we can't remove all risk of injury from cross country running, the health and safety of our high school runners should trump parking concerns.

When we find an ideal championship course (N-P/BCP is not it), then we can discuss using that site for a permanent course location.

I grew up and became a runner in Illinois, where Peoria's Detweiller Park has served as their permanent high school state meet site for decades. This all-grass course features some mild inclines/declines and a varied, three-loop route. It boasts a wide, long, unobstructed start and plenty of running room throughout to comfortably handle fields of 200-plus runners. The loop-course layout allows the throngs of fans who show up every year to view the majority of the race. And this permanent course is well known nationally, with a long history of top runners (Craig Virgin, Chris Derrick, Lukas Verzbicas, Jim Spivey, Jorge Torres, and Evan Jager, to name several) testing themselves against their competitors and history.

Why do we require individual schools to host the championships? A neutral committee could be formed to host the meet at a neutral site, thus opening up many more possible sites. As it stands right now, most programs would prefer to spend their time and energy focusing on their teams all season.

Cheyenne Mountain's staff deserves enormous credit for the sacrifices and preparations they've made over the past three seasons to host both the pre-state Cheyenne Mountain Stampede and the state meet on the N-P/BCP course.

Unless something is done, this clearly flawed Colorado Springs course will be approved on January 28th for the next several years, and potentially as a permanent site. Like many fans, parents, coaches, and athletic directors around the state, I'm extremely frustrated with CHSAA's decisions and their decision-making process.

CHSAA's Assistant Commissioner in charge of cross country, Jenn Roberts-Uhlig, has stated, “We'll be looking at everything in order to make sure it's the best race possible for our student-athletes." That statement stands in stark contrast to CHSAA's actions. They're placing far more emphasis on the logistics (access, parking, stadium viewing, and hotels) than a logical course.

So what can you do? Here are some ideas for what can be done before CHSAA's board of directors meet on January 28th:

Contact your local high school coach and athletic director. Politely explain your concerns with the state meet course and the course selection process. Ask them if you can help in any way.

Contact State Representative Jim Wilson, Colorado's legislative liaison to CHSAA's Board of Directors. Again, explain your issues with the course and the process. Keep it short, courteous, and to the point.

Capitol phone: 303.866.2747

Email: james.wilson.house@state.co.us

Spread the word with others in the running community. Let your friends and colleagues know through social media, blogs, email, phone, etc.