Colorado Indoor Track & Field: A Victim of Its Own Success (updated)

Even with as many as a dozen runners per heat, there were still five heats of the boys 800 at the 2015 Martin Luther King Mile-Hi Classic. Photo by Alan Versaw.

As I anticipate the posting of results from yesterday's Martin Luther King Mile Hi Classic to post a coverage article for the meet, maybe the next best thing is to cast a few thoughts in the direction of the success of the meet and the implications of that for the future.

It might be best to start with some numbers. I've taken six indoor events for the MLK Mile-Hi and posted the number of high school age participants in each event from 2009 through 2014 (2015 is left blank for now, but I will add those numbers when I see them):

Event 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Boys 60 50 57 60 44 72 76 75
Girls 60 35 47 53 46 68 64 94
Boys 400 49 63 53 34 61 44 62
Girls 400 28 37 56 42 49 35 66
Boys Mile 39 56 36 34 48 29 42
Girls Mile 17 10 10 10 22 17 26
Boys 60H 18 13 17 17 22 20 29
Girls 60H 12 13 25 19 25 33 35
Boys High Jump 5 4 7 6 15 14 15
Girls High Jump 5 6 10 9 11 12 15
Boys Long Jump 20 18 22 17 30 14 30
Girls Long Jump 10 14 18 11 35 32 28

Clearly, numbers fluctuate a little from year to year (and some of this may have to do with things like weather/travel conditions, Denver Bronco playoff dates, and the change of the meet date from the last Sunday of the month to the Sunday of Martin Luther King Day weekend), but the overall trend is unmistakable. All events are at least stable in terms of participant numbers. Girls events, particularly the 60 and 60 hurdles, have grown sharply. The high jump, though still not a high-participation event, has seen a sharp increase in participation across both genders.

Expect robust numbers for 2015. If you were there, you know already know what I mean.

The meet was run with considerably greater efficiency in 2015 than 2014, yet the girls 200s were just beginning at 5:15 PM when I had to leave. I'm guessing the meet ran until at least 7 PM. There was a bundle of remaining heats of 200s still to work through, plus a couple more remaining events.

What it all means is that even the Cadet Field House, the largest indoor venue for a few hundred miles in any direction, is bursting at the seams with the popularity of indoor high school track and field here in Colorado. Indoor track and field meets here in Colorado are now lasting as long as our biggest outdoor invitationals.

That is good news, and it is bad news.

The good news is that the sport is taking root, grabbing the attention of more and more people, and kids are sharpening their skills at an unprecedented rate.

It's bad news in the sense that we have to ask, "Where do we go from here?"

There are three brand-new indoor facilities either newly on line or coming on line across the state. And, there is another recently remodeled local indoor facility. Yet, it's still not clear that there's much of a relief valve to let off the pressure coming from these facilities. Adams State has, to date, indicated no interest in hosting a high school meet. Western State represents great potential for Western Slope meets, but Gunnison is far enough away from the Front Range that it is always going to be of limited appeal for the bulk of Colorado's indoor track and field set. It is unclear at this moment what opportunities might come available at the new University of Colorado facility when it opens. And, Steinhauer Field House at Colorado School of Mines is still severely limited by the fact that it is a three-lane oval.

If the University of Colorado chooses not to open its new facility to USATF-Colorado use, the situation becomes even more problematic. Balch Field House has hosted most high school indoor meets here in Colorado for time out of memory. It's difficult to imagine that the University of Colorado will choose to maintain that facility when the new 300-meter indoor track comes on line.

But, without Balch, where do the meets move? Will USATF-Colorado be renting the Cadet Field House for a month of Sundays in January and February? Would the Air Force Academy even approve of that?

Will Adams, Western, Mines, Air Force, and CU take to hosting more of their own events? Will USATF-Colorado, an organization already strapped for volunteer help at events, take a huge risk and start doubling up meet offerings on some weekends? To that last question, I'm almost certain the answer is no.

But, USATF-Colorado might be quietly a little relieved that Western State is hosting a meet on January 31 so that maybe--just maybe--the line of athletes waiting their turns in heats isn't quite as long as it might otherwise be at their meet on February 1.

Welcome to the new normal!