My brief thoughts:
Mr Rappmund, I agree with much of your analysis and, while I've never met you, I really appreciate that you care about Colorado policy as an event and as a community. I too think the differing priorities of coaches, judges and debaters makes CX harder to sustain and less appealing but I don't believe the event will die. While LD and PF have their own appeals most of us would agree CX is something different. In my opinion the type of argumentation CX encourages, and the critical thinking required to be successful, can't be found to the same degree in other events. I know personally this has sustained my interest at times when I was tempted to slip into other events and I think that CXs identity will continue to be appealing to kids coming into high school.
I also agree with Patrick that the community isn't dead. While I rarely post on this forum I still count myself a member of the CX community; I just engage with the community in ways other then this forum. While that's different from how it used to be done, (which admittedly sounds like a lot of fun) it's not inherently a bad thing.
Also ROFL inherency. At Emory, Westminster's primary inherency card was: Obama only has plans to fund ITAR for 2009, and yes they CA this to the ptx flow to prove that it is part of his focus now. BA