Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency

[sanddrag]

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....

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

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....

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

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

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....

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.

[wilsonmw04]

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.

[Karthik]

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.

[Electronica1]

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.

[Allison K]

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).

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Allison K

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).

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.

[Mr. Van]

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

[Cory]

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.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

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.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by nukemknight

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.

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.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Allison K

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).

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?

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by nukemknight

Joining the waitlist with two other teams is a lot different than joining the waitlist with 15 other teams.

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

[Allison K]

Originally Posted by Basel A

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.

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).

Originally Posted by nukemknight

...
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?

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.