Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency

[Cory]

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

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

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

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.

[Tungrus]

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.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Tungrus

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.

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.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Tungrus

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.

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.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

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.

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.

[Tungrus]

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.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Cory

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

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?

[Bryan Herbst]

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 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.

Originally Posted by Tungrus

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.

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?

[mgydesen02]

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.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by nukemknight

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.

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.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by mgydesen02

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.

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.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

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?

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.

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by mgydesen02

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.

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."

[PayneTrain]

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.