Event Waitlist and Capacity Transparency

[JB987]

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

[Michael Hill]

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.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Tungrus

Reward incompetency/tardiness?

Are those the only reasons a team might register late?

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

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

I hear Houston is nice in April...

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

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.

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.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

I hear Houston is nice in April...

<Insert Peer Pressure>

[Alan Anderson]

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?

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

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

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.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

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?

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.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

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?

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.

[AllenGregoryIV]

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.

[Jared Russell]

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.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

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.

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.

[Lil' Lavery]

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

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

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).

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

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

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.