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.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

To elaborate, I think the waitlist information should be public, just not the specific team information.

First, more transparency in the number of spots being held or maximum event capacity. Event capacity could easily be added to each event page. While most of us already know the capacity of our chosen events those numbers can change (such as a 58 team event creeping up to 60, 62, or 64). This would in turn let everyone know how many slots are being held for waitlist teams without such a mystery.

Additionally, like I already said a count of total teams on the waitlist for an event would be a great addition. Joining the waitlist with two other teams is a lot different than joining the waitlist with 15 other teams.

Like you said, the waitlist is entirely at the discretion of the RD. I don't have a good answer for how to get away from that model. Karthik's flowchart would be great but it's just not that simple.

I would like to see something like this as well but it could hurt the growth of the program. We need to do everything we can to make sure rookie teams can get into their local events, but there is a fine balance that needs to be found between supporting rookies and making the registration decision process easier for veterans. Maybe a firm deadline that veteran waitlist slots would be released while still reserving a couple rookie spots?

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I don't see any big reason to not move towards some sort of standardized waitlist system. The advantages gained by giving the individual RDs discretion over the waitlist seem minimal.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

And therein lies the core of the problem with the existing system.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I agree that the advantages do seem minimal to those of us who do not have that discretion today. Having seen a similar process at work with an offseason competition, however, I believe the autonomy given to the individual event organizers is worth the potential heartburn for some teams.

If you want more information on the waitlist for a particular event, the advice to contact the Regional Director is still good. You probably won't get complete transparency about the process, but you will get something, and what you get will usually be good enough to help you make appropriate decisions.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Oops. You're correct. We (Michigan) also have 29 missing teams, at least a few of which are hidden away on two waitlists. Additionally, those 138+ teams are waiting for 129 available spots at closed events, so somebody is going to end up at an event that isn't their preference (which isn't entirely terrible as all the districts are pretty nice, but not knowing is nerve wracking).

That seems like a reasonable compromise. How many rookie teams usually end up registering in November/December anyway? (This is an actual question, not just a rhetorical food for thought kind of thing)

As far as program growth, I would be interested in seeing some sort of data on how well rookie teams perform and if they return the next year based on when in the fall they registered (September/October vs. November/December). I feel like there probably comes a point when it would be responsible to suggest waiting a year and starting a prepared and sustainable program rather than rushing at the last minute to throw a team together, especially if there are high numbers of veterans in limbo waiting for theoretical rookie teams. I know there are teams each year that get an extension on the payment deadline, but that's a bit different than not having anything started until November or later. In my spreadsheet of Michigan teams (not representative everywhere, but the only data I keep track of), 14 of our 29 current missing teams from 2014 were rookies last season. The highest concentration of those 14 missing teams is at the higher end of the range of 2014 rookie numbers, suggesting that perhaps rushing teams in at the last minute isn't a particularly favorable scenario for sustainability anyway.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I'm normally all for transparency, but this is one of the few times where I feel it is just not possible. Qualitative judgement is a huge part of clearing reserved slots, and there is no way to make a metric to take that into account. Reserved slots are typically meant for local teams, and the RD is normally the person with the best pulse on who in the local community needs to be taken care of.

For me, I'd love to see the number of teams on the wait list public. Beyond that, I don't see what else could or should be shown.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I miss the days when FIRST had the waitlist available for the public to view.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Last season

• 297 were registered by October 31 (264 stayed to play)
• 121 in November (97 stayed to play)
• 26 in December (19 stayed to play)
• 3 in January (2 stayed to play)

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Some optimization problems include too much noise/uncertainty and too much complexity to be solved by a predetermined algorithm. A subset of those can be solved using a more sophisticated algorithm that is allowed enough time/iteration to adapt, while others are too demanding even for that. I think FRC event planning is one of those others.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Does this mean that a team that is "local" (and perhaps desirable for some reason) is free to try to get into a different regional knowing that their space at the local regional is "saved" for them?

[I'm just speculating, I'm sure this never happens...]

I'm liking more and more the idea of having a published criteria and opening this all up.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

In percents that's:
88.8% before end of October
80.2% in November
73.1% in December
66.7% in January

It would also be interesting to graph sustainability one or two years out, as a function of time registered. E.g. x% teams that registered before end of october continued in FRC for at least two seasons and y% continued for at least three seasons.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I would say the RD should deny a team trying to game the system like this.

If you know your home regional will fill up round 1, it's on you to sign up for that in my opinion.

Most CA teams near LA, SD, and SVR know their home event will fill up, and wouldn't be foolish enough to try to do this.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Oh, it happens. Replace the word "knowing" above with "assuming" and it's slightly reasonable. But it's not guaranteed, and it usually takes only one time with that assumption turning out to be wrong for that team never to try it again.

In our case, we actually did make it off the wait list the one year we decided to risk it. It was a very close thing, though, and we don't want to repeat that gamble.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I've had this discussion with others from my team, unfortunately. It usually goes like this: "since your the LRI at North Star, we should sign up elsewhere first since we'll get into the local one because of you.". To which I reply "we sign up for the local one first, our I'll tell the RD not to pull us off the waitlist. Gaming the system like that just isn't GP". I'be never had anyone try to argue past that.

All that said, one of the big concerns we have is volunteers for an event. If we look at the waitlist and we know team A brings us a dozen volunteers and team B brings none, it makes having team A more attractive to the planners. Likewise, sometimes you have key volunteers you just can't do without that are needed at multiple events, and you have to try to make accommodations for their team sometimes. Trust me, we try to avoid it... But sometimes there just aren't any options.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I'm sure this happens, especially as CA gets more and more impacted.

Not to say this is the intent, but 1717 is signed up for two events that are not Ventura, and will no doubt bank on getting a waitlist spot for their home event. frclinks.com/t/1717

We were explicitly told by our RDs that we could not do that or they wouldn't let us into the Sacramento Regional.

Not sure where we can go for a third play now...

-Mike

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Fwiw I've heard 1717 isn't going to Ventura.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

1717's only ever signed up for two regionals. Unless they've decided to add another due to proximity, nothing's out of order at the moment.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Except for Rookie teams, everyone must be on first come first served basis! It makes no sense to get penalized for being proactive and getting in line before others. If a system allows humans to make decision then we will have emotions and other reasons taking over and someone being at the losing end.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Everyone should be served based on:

Number of Events Registered For
Team Age
Travel Distance to Event


Makes about as much sense no? It's a complicated problem with more than one viable solution. And reducing it to a simple queue is bad for everyone.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Welcome to Earth, where humans made decisions. FIRST has allowed the RD's to pull from the wait list and I think that's the best way to go. The Directors are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the success of the event.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Isn't the event already successful (from the aspect of having teams attend the event) if the waitlist is being used? We need teams to be successful, not just the events.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Reward incompetency/tardiness? Fairness? Those who are wait-listed or lost a spot of their preference due to such reason know how it feels! Now questioning anyone's integrity will open the ugly can of worms.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Whelp, this is what happens when you assume...

Surprised they wont be going though, it's only 45 minutes away.

Any advice on a Week 6 event we could get in?

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I think this is actually an argument in favor of letting the RDs control the waitlist.

When someone says that some spots are reserved for local teams, what they really mean is that those spots are reserved for local teams that couldn't get in for some reason. As an example, if a team from Michigan gets on the waitlist and a team from a Minneapolis suburb is on the waitlist because simply didn't register early enough, the Minneapolis team will almost certainly get off the waitlist first.

If the RD sees that the Minneapolis team registered for the Milwaukee regional first and seems to have made Minneapolis a second priority, that team might not get off the waitlist.

There are a very large number of reasons that a team can end up on a waitlist for an event, and incompetency/tardiness is one of the least common (unless you consider registering for events at 1pm when it opened ad noon "tardy").

As Jon Stratis pointed out earlier, one factor an RD might look at when choosing which team to take off the waitlist first is how many volunteers that team will provide to the event. If team A could provide 10 volunteers but registered an hour after team B (who can't provide any volunteers), doesn't it make sense to pick team A first?

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

The problem we found last year is that by the time we found out we didn't have a slot at our 2nd regional, there were very few regionals available with open slots.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

success is not measured by the number of teams at an event. It is measured by how well the event is managed and flows (think volunteers and staff). A healthy bottom line is also a top priority. Without the +$100k required to hold one of these events, all the teams are out of luck no matter how full the event is.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

That's the chance we take sitting on a wait list. We traveled 8 hours last year because I didn't feel comfortable waiting on the list. The wait listed event was begging folks to fill their event right up to end. If I had known that, we would have sat on the list. Sometimes, you can't win for losing.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

That's scheduling for you. We have three events within 15, 30, and 50 minutes of Windham respectively but consider UNH as our unofficial "home" event and its an hour away (50 miles) that we plan to commute daily. We are in the district system but even in regionals there were teams who preferred to travel instead of staying close.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I agree- that is a problem and I would love to see a better solution for communicating to teams whether or not it is likely they will get in off the waitlist. I just don't think that publishing the waitlist and/or trying to use a set algorithm is a good solution.

Right now the best solution is to contact the RD and ask. Maybe a better solution would be to have the RDs contact the teams with a simple "Hey, I saw you are on the waitlist for _____, but I know that 14 of the 15 reserved slots are already earmarked for other teams so you may want to consider trying another regional."

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

In theory, there shouldn't be an issue with publishing the waitlist just like how they publish officially registered teams. That way you see a waitlist that
1) tells you how many teams are on the waitlist
2) what teams are on the waitlist
but it doesn't tell you when or in what order the team registered. We can still keep the implicit criteria and discretion of the RD, but I don't see why the data has to be behind a wall.

In reality, you would just need a few people who wouldn't understand that kind of process and get upset with FIRST for not explaining it to them properly.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

FYI,
Our good friends from 1717 have decided once again to join us at LVR. Sometimes it's worth traveling extra miles for the opportunity to attend a great regional:D

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

A big problem I see with making it publicly available is that regionals can have unique problems requiring a RD to put his/her judgement to use. Priority tends to go towards local teams rather than away teams, many regionals have a good amount of rookies, some like Pittsburgh only has 1 (and a very good one at that). RDs are able to sort things out that a standard formula will get wrong. If a team is trying to scrape together money for registration, they're likely not able to travel very far. They can let the RD of a local regional know that that regional may be the team's only option. Certainly the RD will give them priority over a team from outside the region known to have a huge amount of resources. Things like this happen more often than you think.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Are those the only reasons a team might register late?

I hear Houston is nice in April...

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Just stating the number of people currently assigned to the wait list would help, even if it doesn't correspond to the position on the wait list. Like it was said earlier, knowing there are a total of 5 people on the wait list compared to 20 helps make decisions on if it is safer to wait or sign up for another event.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

<Insert Peer Pressure>

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I am usually enthusiastic about sharing as much information as possible, but the wait list process could suffer if it were made more open. Keeping it behind the curtain protects the ones making the decisions from a lot of unnecessary pressure from outside, and lets them concentrate on what they believe to be the important factors.

Even just making the numbers available could be problematic. I worry about the case where there are N+1 teams on the wait list but only room for N. That "+1" team currently does not know how many others were not able to attend the event. If you were the only team to fail to make it off the wait list, would you want to know it? Would you want that fact to be published for everybody to see?

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Houston will probably have space. There are several local regulars who won't be there this season. A couple teams not competing this season at all (1429, 2936), and we can't compete because of Easter. We'd love to have you come down to Texas.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I would be okay with this, and would greatly prefer it to sitting on a waitlist with 20 teams and only 5 spots, and missing my chance to sign up for a wait list with just 5 teams and 20 spots. I can understand the arguments of keeping things private to allow the RD to make subjective decisions based on extenuating circumstances, but I think that showing the number waitlisted teams and reserved spots is a very good compromise.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

In response to your second question, I don't understand what anyone else would be "seeing" under that system that they don't "see" already under the current system. Nobody knows which teams on the wait list are not accepted under the current system unless that team publicly says that they were denied. If the number of wait listed teams and the number of available slots were published, no one would ever know which teams were not accepted unless that team publicly says that they were denied. These seem the same to me.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

The only potential issue I can see with publishing reserve spots and a count of waitlist teams is if RDs which to change the number of reserve spots available. I'm sure RDs have found a bit of pit space to add a team here or there and they may not want that to be public. I don't think that is a very good reason to keep it private but I can see the argument.

I'm all for transparency, we all know that teams get in for various reasons and we know it's not first come first serve, so I don't see who it benefits to keep teams in the dark. Are teams going to feel any more slighted by knowing for sure they signed up before a team that did get in? The system as we have it makes some sense, there are teams that are needed for events like others have said. With a more open system we can better provide feedback to RDs about how they each might improve their process.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I doubt that this will ever be a totally transparent process, and I am okay with that. Publishing aggregate information like anticipated total # of spots vs. # of waiting teams seems relatively non-controversial, though.

Even with these numbers, teams should understand that seeing # spots == # waitlisted teams is NOT a firm guarantee one way or another. I have seen plenty of regionals squeeze in an extra team or two at the last minute...and I've also seen late rookie registrations snatch up the last remaining spot.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

This is one instance of a fallacy in FIRST. While FIRST publishes a lot of necessary information, stuff that the >10% of the highly connected community would like to see public mean nothing and in some cases can negatively affect the 90% of the community who doesn't. That group has people who wouldn't understand what matters and what doesn't with regards to a published waitlist of any degree and could cause enough headaches to bury the data again.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Since there are still valid concerns with posting the amount of teams on a waitlist and the amount of open spots, how about something even simpler and a bit more subjective. There could be a simple solution of a "waitlist status" that is updated by the RD.
Red waitlist status = long waitlist, unlikely to get in
Yellow waitlist status = waitlist larger than expected capacity
Green waitlist status = Most/all teams from waitlist will get into event

Events don't take place on the date of registration. There is still a ton of work that has to happen before an event takes place successfully, even if teams are on the "waitlist" (which is almost assured at most regionals, given the 15+ reserve spots after initial registration). It's already been noted that certain teams bring a volunteer base, including key volunteers, with them. Others are known for their preparedness and ability to aid other teams at the event.


If I check that waitlist on Date X and see team A on the list, and then check the same waitlist on Date X+1 and see teams A and B on the waitlist I know that team A registered before team B.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I like this. It allows the RD the same amount of discretion, while still telling teams what their odds of making it into the event are. The only thing I'd add would be a HQ-level requirement for the RDs to update no less often than X time (let's just call it every time a new block of registration opens, and then every 2-3 weeks after unrestricted registration opens, just to keep things reasonably current).

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

What happens if you sign up at the end of october when the waitlist status is green, and then two weeks later a half dozen rookies sign up (and for the sake of argument the RD didn't think all of them would go for it, since the RD's usually have a pretty good idea of who the new rookies are going to be) , overfilling the waitlist and forcing the RD to make choices?

It's an extreme case, I know... but I know of at least one team that had decided to just "check things out" one year by attending kickoff as guests, then somehow managed to register before leaving kickoff and got their kit a week late.

There are all sorts of situations that can cause an unexpectedly high number of rookies to register for an event, and rookies are pretty well known for registering late. I'd hate to give a team false optimism about being on the waitlist, or to deny a rookie a spot just because they signed up late.

Frankly, I think the "contact your RD and ask" option is probably the best. The RD can give you a good idea if you'll get in or not, and they can even elaborate - something like "there's a 50/50 chance you'll get in looking at the waitlist right now. We're waiting on some rookies to make a decision before we can move teams off." The RD can even give you an idea of when teams will be moved off the waitlist in some cases.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Not to fork the excellent discussion occurring in this thread, but on this note, perhaps the line does need to be drawn on rookies registering late (and I suggest drawing that line in the month of October). November and December is too late for a school to just begin to decide that they want to participate in FRC in January.

With a Rookie drop-out rate of nearly 45%, and data to show that later-registering rookies are more likey to not return the following year, we really do need to question whether it's worth it to allow these last-minute registrations by unprepared schools. FRC is a big kid's game, and it's not for everybody. Perhaps these late-registering teams need to take a year to attend some events, fund raise, and gather mentors before jumping into this, bankrupting themselves, and folding. What's the point in putting all the effort into starting new teams if nearly half of them are not managed well and/or have a poor experience and do not return the next year?

Typically late rookie registration happens because they're often waiting on hearing back on grants before they sign up. I know RDs and FSMs working with rookies try to prevent late registration as much as possible, including encouraging them to register anyway since there is no penalty to drop out. I'm not sure if that's something to avoid though.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Jon Stratis,

For starters, I'm assuming the RD would be aware of at least a good chunk of those rookies before they actually register, and would set the waitlist status accordingly. However, that's the risk you take with any waitlist, and why the waitlist exists in the first place rather than just putting teams right onto the roster of attending teams. The RD would simply have the ability to publicly show a status to teams curious about the event.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

I agree in principal but don't most rookie grants insist that you compete as a condition of the grant. I know the NASA grants do.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

You don't need a grant to show up at an event and talk to teams. You do need some guidance personnel and teams would be happy to provide, and permission from the sponsoring organization to attend, but those are both easier than building a robot as a rookie with no bearings and less time.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Karthik,
I read a few comments here. Your's sounds like the most sensible one.
While our program has been fortunate to have participated in multiple regional events over the years, not every team has the same circumstances when signing up for an event. As regionals have saved spots for newer and rookie teams, there are still a bunch of veterans that are faced with similar financial/organizational challenges that make it difficult to get into events.

Knowing how many are on the waitlist, gives teams a better perspective on how to plan the rest of their FRC season accordingly, in case they cant get in.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

1717 has just registered for the Ventura regional. Do you know if they will still be attending LVR as a third?

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

They're the same weekend ;)

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Ah. For some reason I was thinking LVR was week 6.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Can I get that secret registration link too? ....

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Have you spoke with the RD?

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

Good Point Adam.
Perhaps FIRST should note to teams that if you need more info on the status of your pending registration at an event, talk to the RD.
We definitely talk to RD's prior to signing up for any event. I'm not so sure everyone knows that they are the best source of information about event capacity.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

When there is online registration system, there is no need to contact RD by phone or e-mail. It doesn't make sense! As teams are put on wait list just give them a number or something, so they can make decision.

Re: Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency
 

When you're trying to make a decision, and the information is NOT AVAILABLE online, then you SHOULD contact the RD. Particularly when the list--and coming off of it--is mainly in the RD's hands.