Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency

[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?

[Maldridge422]

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.

[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.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Maldridge422

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.

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.

[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.

[dag0620]

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.

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.

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.

[Koko Ed]

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

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by Allison K

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)

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)

[Richard Wallace]

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.

[Mr. Van]

Originally Posted by dag0620

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.

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

[AlexD744]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

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)

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.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

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

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.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

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...]

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.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

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

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.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

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

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