Championship Waitlist

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

We still are at 599.

http://frc.divisions.co/

FIRST's site shows 600 and all divisions have 75 teams.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

FIRST's site shows 600 and all divisions have 75 teams.

The secret team appears to be 5326

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

The secret team appears to be 5326

Another local team.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I know it only affects a small number of teams but FIRST should be ashamed of how they have run the Championship Invite List this year. ...

You would think by Monday after the last weekend of competition, FIRST could publish a list of the order of the teams to be invited.

Teams could then figure out their likelihood of clearing the waitlist, and watch the acceptances/declines. Teams could even pre-decline.

[Sperkowsky]

Call me crazy but the admin manual mentions nothing about First being allowed to specially invite local teams off the waitlist. I understand the idea but then there should be something in writing.

I wish the waitlist process was just entirely more open and know. It's this weird hidden thing throughout manual and everything about it seems vague.

But all in all its better then nothing. My team may not have gotten invited this year but we will either make it next year or have 8 entries and hope for the best.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Another local team.

Added.

• 5326 St. Louis, MO

It is unclear why but they have not been added to this list which has been the most "live" list FIRST was publishing (and is now showing division assignments so someone has updated that data but just not the last team they added).

5326 is listed on this list which had been updating episodically (once day or so),

The freshness date disclaimer says "Participant list last modified Apr 22, 2016 14:55 event time."

For what it is worth, that freshness date seems to correspond to when they removed 894 from the live list and were only showing 599 teams (and still are only showing that number actually).

Strange.

Dr. Joe J.

[forbes]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Added.

• 5326 St. Louis, MO

It is unclear why but they have not been added to this list which has been the most "live" list FIRST was publishing (and is now showing division assignments so someone has updated that data but just not the last team they added).

5326 is listed on this list which had been updating episodically (once day or so),

The freshness date disclaimer says "Participant list last modified Apr 22, 2016 14:55 event time."

For what it is worth, that freshness date seems to correspond to when they removed 894 from the live list and were only showing 599 teams (and still are only showing that number actually).

Strange.

Dr. Joe J.

This disparity has been concerning me as well. Either FIRST should publish consistent data within a reasonable time frame or they should take any sites they don't want to update offline.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by forbes

This disparity has been concerning me as well. Either FIRST should publish consistent data within a reasonable time frame or they should take any sites they don't want to update offline.

If you want to REALLY get your undies in a bunch try comparing these official "FRC District Ranking System" lists which purport to show who is "qualified" or "D.I." (Declined Invitation) or "---" (Did Not Qualify / Not Yet Qualified) to that actual CMP List. There are dependencies at every level for every district.

It is this crazy quilt system that FIRST presents to the world and declines to explain.

When there are discrepancies that seem to point to errors or disparate treatment of teams between districts, FIRST doesn't respond to repeated inquiries by e-mail. And when questioned by phone hides behind an algorithm and explains by saying they don't have to explain.

Not FIRST's brightest hour.

Dr. Joe J.

[forbes]

It looks like 1625 replaced 5931 in Carson.

Can anyone confirm?

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by forbes

Accounting for the other districts as well, here is an updated total:
-Peachtree: 11 of 12
-Michigan: 74 of 76
-MAR: 19 of 22
-NE: 33 of 34
-IN: 8 of 9
Total left to send: 145
Total spots taken: 565
Total spots remaining: 35

Michigan ended up with 86 spots after it was all said and done.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I know it only affects a small number of teams but FIRST should be ashamed of how they have run the Championship Invite List this year.

I don't speak for 246, but I can speak for my own experience as a mentor on a team that was on the bubble. FIRST has been completely opaque. We've gotten basically no explanation of the process or how things would work or when we would know something or not.

Part of our team is convinced that a mistake was made and that we should have been invited based on our rank at the end of the NEF-DCMP. We brought it up with NEF folks only to be told it is out of their hands. We have brought it up with FIRST. No answer. Not a yes, not a no, nothing. When we finally called to get to a live body they didn't seem interested in hearing the argument yet alone explaining why we were mistaken. All they could say was that it is done by an algorithm and they don't explain their algorithms to teams. Repeated request for more info resulted in no response whatever.

Earlier in the week, when some seniors where getting worked up about a potential mistake being made, I assured my team that they'd be treated fairly. I can't say that now. Maybe they were treated fairly. Maybe they were cheated out of an invite to St. Louis. Who can say? It is done by Algorithm and FIRST doesn't explain its Algorithms to teams.

I believe that FIRST owes the community more transparency (any transparency would an improvement). One quote I heard from another mentor, "FIRST is a black box about their CMP list. They make their decisions and explain nothing."

I'll close as I started: FIRST should be ashamed of how they have run the Championship Invite List this year.

Dr. Joe J.

For what it is worth, someone NE FIRST finally sent me a table with some data that has convinced me that we were treated fairly, there was not a mistake in the invitation list at least as far as our team is concerned. So... that's good.

Still doesn't clear up the issues of transparency and timely responses but at least I did get something to reassure the team that a mistake didn't keep them from St. Louis.

FWIW.

Dr. Joe J.