Colorado HS XC needs a new State course

co hs cross country is blowing up lots of really good kids sad to hear they can't get their act together for a showcase race!! our states is at a park, all the coaches seem to agree its a great course

COXCFan wrote:

Right now, its held at some horse stables. The course is narrow and dangerous, not spectator friendly, and hurts kids.

Curious: how did your State's XC course get decided? Would love some perspective here, as our State's governing body probably couldn't tell you how many runners score, let alone host a meet.

PA is just a bunch of hills one after the other. Notoriously hard course, not a place to put down times, but good for testing the best of the best.

Thanks for the reply. CO doesn't necessarily need something fast. Times don't matter in Championship season. But I'm sick of inhaling horse manure, dust, and tripping through weeds and bushes all over the course trying to watch my kid race. His freshman year he rolled an ankle and this year he ran into a group of spectators. There was no flagging, no marking, and a huge lack of officials. It was really unprofessional, especially for such a great State for XC.

Sounds like at least in PA, the "spectacle" is the competition among the athletes, as opposed to some stupid gimicks on the course and the slogan "THE HIGHEST STATE CHAMPIONSHIP XC COURSE IN USA!" (

http://www.cmstampede.com/course-map

). Give me a break. I'm thankful my kids' coach isn't taking the team to the Pre-State XC meet next year (the money-making meet). Maybe other schools will follow suit.

CHSAA (CO HS XC's governing body) just doesn't understand XC. State should be difficult because of the mutual competition between exceptional athletes. The course should be challenging, of course, but not downright dangerous.

Would love to hear some other State course descriptions. How did you end up at those places?

New York changes where they have it from year to year. Good in some instances, bad in others.

Thanks. How often do they rotate? Sounds like a logical system. Guessing Van Cortlandt Park is one of them?

Ohio has there meet on an abomination of a course. Ran down NHRA drag strip, where everything is roped of and a mile of going back and forth on itself.

COXCFan wrote:

Right now, its held at some horse stables. The course is narrow and dangerous, not spectator friendly, and hurts kids.

Curious: how did your State's XC course get decided? Would love some perspective here, as our State's governing body probably couldn't tell you how many runners score, let alone host a meet.

I agree 100%. CO is arguably the most beautiful state in the country and The state XC showpiece is on a stupid

horse stable.

The probable selection criteria: cost, parking, availability. Quality and aesthetics of the course are likely not even considered.

True. I raced there a few years ago. Not as exciting as a state championship should be. Lame course

Our course winds around a bit, but I still like it! Since it's state, that makes it exciting!

http://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/state-cross-country/5K_XC_Map.pdf

COXCFan wrote:

Right now, its held at some horse stables. The course is narrow and dangerous, not spectator friendly, and hurts kids.

Curious: how did your State's XC course get decided? Would love some perspective here, as our State's governing body probably couldn't tell you how many runners score, let alone host a meet.

I live in Washington an the state meet there is on a beautiful golf course. It is really well done and having it on a golf course is pretty good. Not a super fast course but can be if run right. Give Colorado coaches association or whoever set up the meet the idea of doing it at a big park with fields or a golf course.

not flagpole wrote:

Ohio has there meet on an abomination of a course. Ran down NHRA drag strip, where everything is roped of and a mile of going back and forth on itself.

Personally, I enjoy the drag strip. It's a good course from a spectators perspective and I've never felt like it was more challenging than some of the other courses in Ohio.

There are plenty of reasons people can give for not liking the course, but I have a hard time listening to those who say it is dangerous. Having run both it and the previous Arapahoe county fairgrounds course, neither was more dangerous than the other and both just fall into the challenging category. The fossil course before that was less challenging. No one I have talked to who has run the course has said that it is dangerous. A lot of this dangerous talk started on CO milesplit back in the day and from my perspective has always been a vocal minority.

Also, the course is a big improvement over the fairgrounds course. Making the course a fingered or looped course in a park with hills would be a great improvement. However, in CO, there has always been a problem finding a course like that which will host the race, is capable of hosting that big of an event, and has a willing school to help set it up.

Alabama has state in the same course every year. Been that way over a decade. I hope they never move it. Great course.

Mtn Dew wrote:

Alabama has state in the same course every year. Been that way over a decade. I hope they never move it. Great course.

I agree, it's a pretty great course has a lot of changes to it as well, not really fast but it's fun

I have to say that I disagree! I'd be so sad if the state course wasn't at Norris Penrose, I love the creek crossing and I think it has the perfect amount of hills to be challenging but not impossibly difficult. That's my opinion as someone who's competed multiple times on the course and sees no problem with it. Might be different from a spectator's point of view. Also, you can't beat how fun it is to finish in that stadium, regardless of the horse poop smell.

In the late 70s-early 80s it was at the Pueblo Golf Course. Nice course--rolling. Good Logistics and Pueblo has more reliable weather than points north. Golf courses are kind of lame, but they are fair, and fast.

DeKoevand Park, where Arapahoe has held their invitational for the last 50 plus years, is also a great course--spectator friendly. It's got grassy areas, water obstacles, the highline canal trail, and some short steep dirt climbs up to the canal path. It was my favorite course in the state.

A mountain meet would be great, but that's dicy with the weather.

Rolling grassy courses, with some technical challenges--but not "slogs" are the best X-C courses

Bob Washington wrote:

I live in Washington an the state meet there is on a beautiful golf course. It is really well done and having it on a golf course is pretty good. Not a super fast course but can be if run right. Give Colorado coaches association or whoever set up the meet the idea of doing it at a big park with fields or a golf course.

I don't like Washington's State course at all. It is nice as a runner, having run on it myself, and having had athletes run on it. However, it is NOT in the slightest bit spectator friendly. Having all of the fans for all of the races either along the 300 meter stretch along the 1 mile mark and the finish line, or up against a fence where you get to fight with all of the other fans, often 3 or 4 deep, to watch the runners on the other side of the golf course from where you are standing, for much of the race.

I have been to a couple of other state's championship meets (admittedly only a couple), NCAA regional and national meets, and USA national championships meets, and I haven't seen a championship course as spectator unfriendly for fans and coaches as the Washington State meet course.

The Pueblo course is nice and fast. My favorite course for cross was the Kent Denver Course that went along the highline canal for quite a bit. That being said, everyone runs the same course, so there is really no advantage. That being said, the Springs has a number of running venues that are better than Norris Penrose / Bear Creek park.

OhioBuff wrote:

not flagpole wrote:

Ohio has there meet on an abomination of a course. Ran down NHRA drag strip, where everything is roped of and a mile of going back and forth on itself.

Personally, I enjoy the drag strip. It's a good course from a spectators perspective and I've never felt like it was more challenging than some of the other courses in Ohio.

You have to be joking, right? Let me list the problems.

1. The start is so far away from the stands, you can't hear the gun go off and don't know when the race started.

2. If you watch the start, you now have to run 3/8ths of a mile to see them at the beginning of the dragstrip.

3. When the runners get there, they are still bunched up and have to make a 180 turn with some runners tripping over the padding they put on the concrete dragstrip divider.

4. The mile mark is behind the fence behind the opposing grandstand. You have to run another 1/4 mile and then watch them run the back loop. The fans in the regular stands can't see that.

5. Once they complete this and head for the 2 mile mark, EVERYBODY would need binoculars to see them because they don't allow anybody in that area.

6. If you are following the race, you now have to run 5/8ths of a mile back to where you started to see the runners coming out of the woods

7. COMING OUT OF THE FREAKING WOODS? Why would ANY meet run runners through the woods at a critical time and NOT ALLOW ANY FANS to be able to see them?

8. When the runners are running the last half mile, no fans are allowed within 50 yards of them. You now have to sprint toward the grandstand to see the finish. If you were sitting in the stands, you dont see the runners for the last mile until the sprint beside the dragstrip.

What pi55es me off is how easy this would be to fix so they had a much more fan friendly course and the fans (especially the kids) could be closer to the runners cheering for them instead of having to yell a football field away.