I'd be interested to hear what people think makes for a great course, from a runner's or spectator's perspective, and some examples of great courses. I'm surprised at how few great courses there are. Of prominent courses I don't consider Franklin Park or VCP great, but they aren't horrible, just have lots of room for improvement. There are only two I've run that I would call truly great from a runner's perspective:
Holmdel, NJ (NJ state champs) - I'm talking about the layout from the 80's, I don't know how much it has changed since then. For those of you who think the difficulty of Holmdel is overrated, I won't disagree - I'm not saying it is the most difficult course. What makes it great: variety of challenging terrain and footing, some narrow treed sections (especially welcome on cold windy November days), significant uphill start, significant downhill close to finish, only pavement is at crossings, no repeated sections (good for runners IMO but not for spectators). What makes it not great: spectators can only see start and finish w/o moving a lot.
Stone Mtn Georgia (site of D3 nationals in 1985, hosted by Emory U but I don't know if this is their regular course). What makes it great: all grass (golf course), variety of challenging terrain, scenery, good for spectators, 2 loops (not exactly identical) - I agree with MPS that any more than 2 loops indicates poor design. Room for improvement: no narrow sections, golf course feel, tread is all grass and could benefit from some variety.