This is an appeal to FIRST to let our team and others to waitlist for more than 1 event in a given competition week. 6045 is currently waitlisted for 5 events, and I’m not confident we’ll get into any of them. I would waitlist for every event within 1,000 miles, but the system currently only allows me to waitlist for one event per week.
Often times there is a specific week or two that fit a team’s schedule. Those teams should be able to waitlist for multiple events in those weeks.
Given how difficult it is for many teams to get into a second event, the least FIRST could do is let teams maximize their odds of hitting the waitlist lottery.
I agree that this should be an option allowed by the registration system (as should the ability to accept a waitlist space without needing to reply by email…), but for your specific predicament, you could try contacting the PDP for the event and explaining your hardship. I wouldn’t suggest it for a team looking to get into their 4th event for the season, but trying to get into your first (or second if it’s the only option that doesn’t require a multi-day drive, for example) might be worth a try. Waitlist spots are generally reserved for local teams with undue hardship and for late-registering rookies, but might be worth a shot.
I was thinking about how this would be for the RD’s responsible for deciding who gets into their event - can you imagine seeing a list of 100+ waitlisted teams for your event, knowing that half of them are 8+ hours away, and trying to figure out how to prioritize them?
I think if FIRST did open it up wider, it might be best to do it with a priority list of waitlist events for each team. Let the RD’s know which events you really want to get into, and which ones you’ll take but aren’t as desirable (Some teams like to travel, so proximity isn’t always the best indicator, and some weeks may not be as desirable due to back-to-back event considerations, or other school commitments, etc - a general shotgun approach to waitlisting doesn’t provide the RD’s with that sort of context). Give the RD’s a chance to sort their waitlists by the priority each team puts on it, in addition to whatever other metrics they’re already sorting on (like proximity to the event, number of events the team is already registered for, etc). When you have RD’s overseeing multiple events, knowing both the team’s preference and willingness for different events can help them assemble the jigsaw puzzle to get as many teams as happy as possible. I can still see them getting overwhelmed with the size of the waitlist, but maybe additional sorting metrics can help them get through it.
Agree with the sentiment and hope wholeheartedly. Every event should be full, and all teams should be able to attend at least two events if they desire.
Devil’s advocate: logistically how do you handle a system in which teams would be much less likely to accept a waitlist spot? For example, a team might waitlist for 20 events, get off the waitlist for one far away, and decide they’re willing to gamble on getting another event, delaying the process for the next in line team, and potentially leading to events trying to fill many slots at the last minute.
Possible solution: Perhaps there is some leniency and then a penalty (e.g. a team can decline one waitlist invite, but after they decline a second waitlist invite, they’re removed from the waitlist process for the rest of the season or otherwise de).
I think Jon’s approach of having a prioritized waitlist goes a long ways towards addressing this concern. The more information we can communicate to the RD’s through the portal the better. The more flexibility teams have the better. The current system can absolutely be improved for both the team experience and the RD experience.