Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Forgive me if there's already a thread for this, but I want us to have a good discussion on it before we do registration again in the Fall of 2015. Why is FIRST not more transparent with the waitlists? I don't even care who is on it. Just tell me where I am on it. I want to know my chances of getting in. What's the secret all about? What am I missing here? Debate away....

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

They don't take teams in order they get on.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I think the biggest problem here is that the waitlist isn't a first-come, first-serve list. They can't tell you where you are on the list, because there isn't a set algorithm for determining the order of who gets in.

For example, is this a rookie team that just didn't sign up for the event in time and hasn't registered for any other events? If so, they will probably be the first ones off the waitlist.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

The wait list should NOT be public knowledge. It's not first come first served. It would give some folks a sense of entitlement to a slot no matter how it was listed.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Perhaps this is the problem in general. If FIRST was transparent with the criteria for selecting teams off the waitlist (which they may be, I just can't find a centralized document explaining the process), I think teams in Sanddrag's situation would be a lot happier.

For example, here's a potential ordered list of criteria to bring a team into an event off a wait list.

1. Rookie team with 0 registered events (in order by date of registration for the waitlist)
2. Veteran team with 0 registered events (in order by date of registration for the waitlist)
3. Rookie team with 1 registered event (in order by date of registration for the waitlist)
4. Veteran team with 1 registered event (in order by date of registration for the waitlist)
5. Rookie team with 2+ registered events (in order by date of registration for the waitlist)
6. Veteran team with 2+ registered events (in order by date of registration for the waitlist)

I'm sure there may be other criteria that FIRST has, but this is just sample concept. If there was a published set of criteria like this, then there would be no problem with publishing the waitlist. If the number of reserved spots was also known, teams could then make educated decisions on choosing whether or not to sign up for a waitlist. For example if a team saw that their local event had 12 rookies with 0 registered event on the waitlist and only 10 reserved spots, they would know that there was no point signing up for that waitlist, and might choose to register for an event with open capacity that's 750 miles away. However if the waitlist only had 3 teams on it with 10 reserved spots, this might lead them to wait it out for their local event.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I would email the regional director and ask what your chances are for getting off the waitlist. It should give you an idea of whether you should stay on the waitlist or find another event that hasn't filled yet. We were in a similar situation last year and after talking with the regional director of the event we were waitlisted for, we decided the best action was to sign up for a farther away event that hadn't filled.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

In additional to Karthik's points above, I would like to see a scheduled date in which waitlists will be cleared and an actual cutoff date for rookie team registration (likely both of those things would be the same date). This would give teams/parents/schools a definite date that they will know one way or the other, and give event coordinators a date when they can stop holding spots for rookies that may or may not show up (as holding those spots is at the expense of veteran teams that are left in limbo wondering).

Fortunately my team isn't on a waitlist this year (only because a number of factors worked out in our favor to make that possible), but I estimate just in Michigan there are 138 teams on a waitlist without any clear idea of when they will be accepted or declined or reassigned. At least with districts waitlisted teams know they will get into an event somewhere, even if they don't know when or where, so it's not as bad here as other areas (but still frustrating for team leaders).

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Regional waitlist selection is completely up to the discretion of the RD, with the general rule of thumb being that rookies and very local teams will get in before veterans and teams traveling from a distance.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

FIRST is not able to give much information about the waitlists because "FIRST" doesn't have a lot to do with them. It's up to the event organizers to manage the event's waitlist. If you want to know your chances of getting in, talk to the Regional Director. You can provide extra information that might influence how your team is assessed.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

It's more than 138. There are several teams who are waitlisted at multiple districts, so they're not even counted as part of the 296 total registered Michigan teams.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

It would be nice if the wait list was cleared via some sort of priority system as Karthik suggests. Unfortunately, proximity, team size, what the team can "bring to the event" (spirit, support, etc.) and even team sponsors are all taken into account. The RDs are trying to create a good event, which means that some times teams that are first to sign up on a wait list are bypassed by others - often for reasons that are not immediately clear and reasons that FIRST might not want to publish.

I've mixed feelings about this. Having been been in the "wait list limbo", I think that some sort of idea about their chances should be communicated to teams. On the other hand, I want to have the overall event be as good as possible.

The best thing to alleviate this "fastest fingers" registration would be to have a registration period and a lottery at the end of it.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

This is exactly what I was told by an RD I spoke with earlier this week.

Waitlists should be more transparent, but not public. A public waitlist count would be a good start.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I agree with you, but what would you have in mind for additional transparency that doesn't involve a public wait list? Different RDs in different regions (reasonably) probably have different ideas/values when clearing waitlists.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Being wait listed most of the time means you probably won't get in. Teams do not usually pull out

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

That's now how the waitlist works, it's actually a reserve capacity.

All events this year have 15 spots reserved, that's what teams are waitlisted for.