Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanis
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.
|
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.