Is Anybody Happy with the Registration Process?

FIRST General Forum
1

With round 2 of registration complete, I’ve had tons of conversations with mentors who are sharing their sentiments about the registration process…

I’m asking whether you’re happy with the current system as a whole, not just if you’re happy the RNG was in your favor (or not) this season.

Here are some features/bugs of the current system for discussion:

  • Event sizes seem to have been reduced at many larger events, giving Regional teams more matches per event but less event slots to sign up for

  • There is virtually no transparency into the selection process for the waitlist slots

  • Connected teams have historically leveraged their connections to get into preferred events

  • 10-15 spots are reserved for Regional Director discretion as to who gets into an event

Rate your opinion of the current registration system (1=worst, 10=Best)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
0 voters
Would you prefer more transparency in the event registration process?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
1 Like
2

I think this is the biggest one right now. 6 regional events with available slots after Round 2? Uncool.

I’d specifically like to see number of withheld slots, either directly or indirectly, before Round 1. Possibly waitlist length as well.

That said: It’s better than the race for F5 and pay that was a thing for many years.

18 Likes
3

This is another one of those things that districts (at least our district) seem to be better at than regionals. Making the number of “reserve spots” public would be an improvement sure.

Good luck to teams sitting on wait lists, especially if there’s no where else reasonably close for you to travel.

16 Likes
4

I wonder if this is a regional type thing. I believe there were events in the middle of the US that had ~10 opens spots last season. Just anecdotally, there seems to be much less stress signing up for events in Missouri than I recall signing up for events in Wisconsin as events are less likely to fill.

1 Like
5

I actually think less transparency would be a good thing. As you mention, well connected teams are able to get spots in regionals that other teams might not. I’d like this practice to end. Teams should be creating full preference lists of possible events, submitting them, and RDs should allocate teams based on location and first event (so as not to give a team 2 travel events).

I don’t think it’s trivial to make this process better or well-documented without creating significantly poor side effects. That said, priority should be given to teams that need two “home” events before allocating slots to travelling teams.

The lack of open slots this year is really concerning.

9 Likes
6

As a team in a district with relative capacity of events, I have very few qualms with this registration system. Far better than the F5-spamming era where you had to plan your whole day around being available to sign up for events within seconds of the system opening. I feel sympathy towards those in areas where wait listing is a more common practice (and even those in my area who fight for week 1 slots, which seem to be of the most demand in FMA).

5 Likes
7

I think if you broke down the poll above by who was in a district system vs who attends regionals, you’d probably find that those in districts were much happier on average. I know that in our district, everyone (except rookies) is very aware of the process and knows pretty well how things will go. We all have our “home” events that we’re pretty much guaranteed for round 1 and we know the capacities and likely distribution of teams to have a pretty good idea of what we can get in round 2 and can adjust our preferences accordingly. It generally works out pretty well for everyone, especially since our district leadership is pretty good at communicating what’s going on.

9 Likes
8

I’m not sure how you fix it. I think having a few less reserved spots so that you aren’t starting a wait list quickly. And maybe more importantly would be to clear the wait list quicker, by having whatever bottlenecks resolved sooner. I don’t know whether that is working with teams that are still trying to secure funding (veterans) or late-registering rookies. Last year, we didn’t clear the wait list for our second selection until later in January (3 months) which was a little stressful. The previous year we agreed to go to another nearby regional instead, which we wouldn’t always be able to afford to make two travel regionals. As to the transparency and fairness issue, at least in our area I feel like we’ve received enough transparency and that the teams have been treated fairly, but it doesn’t exactly remove the problem when too many want to go to one regional.

I’d like to see maybe 8 instead of 10 reserved spots. Getting put into your second preference when you are likely to clear the wait list at your first shouldn’t happen as often. And I’d like to see potential additions be resolved quickly enough that teams on wait lists can be given a decision. This one I know can be harder just because you have the other deadlines to consider.

1 Like
9

I think that one of the problems is that more teams want to attend 2 or 3 regionals, but there aren’t more spots available.

Especially in NY this year, since 2 of the regionals are on the same day, so many teams are trying to get into 2 or 3 of the 4 regionals, and there isn’t enough space. Not sure if there is a solution besides having more regionals and trying not to overlap.

9 Likes
10

What would bother me is if a team gets a third regional spot because they have an inside connection and another team that wants a second one only gets one because of the other team.

3 Likes
11

Way back in the day (about 20 years ago now) I swear FIRST actually did publish waitlist slots that were still open. I don’t know why they changed this, except maybe to help prevent teams from spamming RDs to get into events?

1 Like
12

I’ll have you know our RD gives 0 preference to anyone. I know, I’ve tried. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

As for registration, I still like the lottery system and automatic assignment wayyyyy more than the previous “everyone sit at their computers and rush through TIMS as fast as they can the moment noon eastern hits” system. I don’t like the fact that California is completely full with many teams struggling for a second play, but I wouldn’t say that has anything to do with the registration process itself.

18 Likes
13

Sorry, Andrew. That’s just proof you’re not part of a “connected” team. :wink:

In CA we gained a regional, but I can only find 13 new teams (still more placeholder numbers). Maybe they’re reducing spaces to force people to not all sit on waitlists for the most desirable events?

5 Likes
14

It is possible to be coached in all things. Composing my chatty email with the Regional Director I had my dog by my side. He’s always wanting something. And…just look at that face. I usually give in. So…“Hank…good stuff. Mind if I use that?”

image
image719×540 43.9 KB

6 Likes
15

Speaking only for NE, there are definitely more reserve spots being held back this season despite having an additional event. It’s a bit annoying but not a huge deal. We don’t seem to have much issue with misusing reserve slots, but it sucks to hear that’s happening in other regions.

16

Florida finally had an offseason this weekend where I was able to talk to a decent number of teams. I like to stick my nose where it doesn’t belong and love to talk about current goings on, teams opinions of them as well as some of the big questions (transitioning to districts, would they support the return of 2 champs if it meant the return of automatic qualification for RAS, and a guaranteed wildcard, etc.) Of the currently 57 non-rookie teams I have now spoken to representatives of about half of them and only 1 expressed dislike for the current system/the reserve slots and it is strictly because they chose to register for their travel event round 1 and are now waitlisted for their home event. I consider this a feature of the system not a bug and personally would be very upset if teams were forced to sign up for their geographically closest event.

Right now the average regional event capacity when compared to last year (ignoring mexico 3rd and china which would throw this off) is 10 less. This is consistent with the average number of waitlist spots held by events in my experience. I imagine by the time we get to competition season the capacities will be equal or greater than they were last year as a few events I know are holding more than 10 waitlist spots for reasons I will get into below

I do not think there should be a standardized process for waitlist spots, as not all areas are the same. The Regional Director/Program Delivery Partner holds their discretion on the number of waitlist spots and who/how teams are pulled from it because they are more connected (in theory) with the local area and teams in it. If FIRST put down an edict on the exact number of slots or the exact process used to pull said slots that is more likely to lead to disaster than it is to success.

Lets go with a simple rule: Teams are pulled off the waitlist in the order they signed up.

Right now the Orlando Regional is at capacity I assume there is at least 1 team on the waitlist for said event. I also assume this is a team looking for their 2nd event as the regional was not at capacity during initial sign up.

I know of 5 Florida teams who are currently not signed up for any event, these are single event teams who Orlando has always been their single event. These teams also always sign up late and a few are nearly or over 20 years old. Should they be put behind a team on the list who signed up before them but are already registered for an event? Most would agree they shouldn’t so lets change the rule.

All teams looking for a first play should be pulled before teams looking for a second, and all second plays should be pulled before teams looking for a third play. These should be pulled in the order they signed up.

Lets start with pulling in the order they signed up within the play:

The Regional Director was just informed one of their prerookie teams has decided not to participate this year so this opens up a slot to pull someone off of the waitlist. The RD is looking at the waitlist first on the list is team 1YYY they are from the next state over, always attend the event, and signed up for it during initial registration but just missed making it on the list. They are now signed up for the event geographically closest to them thanks to second event registration.

Second on the list is team 1ZZZ. They are an international team and were the first team added during second event registration. They do have a regional in their country and signed up for it during initial registration. After getting on the waitlist you received an email from the lead mentor of team 1ZZZ letting you know they are excited to possibly attend your event for the first time however in order to ensure they can attend the event they need to know by November 15th if they are going to be pulled (the reason doesn’t matter but it could be paper work or that is the last date to get a refund on their deposit for some part of the trip)

Now you know that team 1YYY has attended your event multiple times when you have pulled them off the waitlist post kick off, but as stated above team 1ZZZ has a hard date that they need to know if they are attending by.

I think once again most of us would agree that pulling team 1ZZZ first is a reasonable thing to do since you also believe you should have the ability later in the season to pull team 1YYY.

Now on to teams with 3rd plays being pulled before teams looking for a second play.

Once again you are a Regional Director. Team 1AAA is not a “local” team since they have an event closer to them but always attends your event as it is still very close to them. Team 1AAA also provides a lot of volunteers for the event: Inspectors, Refs, Queuing, Safety Glasses Table you need it they fill it. During initial signups they signed up for an event across the country, then during second event registration your event reached capacity before their slot was called so they got their second choice, their local event.

They have now signed up for your event as their 3rd. Without their help you are not certain you can pull many more teams and not overwhelm the current volunteers you have signed up, or even have enough to fill all the roles you need, you have sent emails asking for volunteers but none are coming in. So you decide to pull them off the waitlist alongside 9 other teams who are looking for their second play. However Team 1BBB were not pulled and are now upset because you pulled 1AAA who now gets three plays and 1BBB is stuck at one unless their third choice pulls them off their list.

In an ideal world 1BBB would get their second play over 1AAA getting their third however 1AAA being in attendance gives the RD the comfort to pull 9 other teams off alongside them and most of us would agree that even if 1AAA gives them the comfort of just 1 additional team getting off the list then it is a worthy trade off.

This is why anything that makes the waitlist open or have to follow a specific set of rules can create more harm than good as teams do not always have the whole picture of what is going on at event or even in their area.

Now all that being said I thought the waitlist gives teams some sort of indication of their likelihood to get off it or I might be misremembering someones suggestion or something on the previous version of the system that is no longer in place.

16 Likes
17

A few years back when the San Fransisco Regional was first announced, my team had already been registered for SVR. Our RD at the time contacted us and said that she would be able to open up more rookie slots at SFR if she could switch our event registration because we have a long history of providing significant support to rookie teams at events, as well as pit admin, spare parts attendant, and a few inspectors. We told her no problem, and got bumped onto the waitlist at SVR, which would now be our 2nd event. We did manage to get back into SVR, and I later learned that the RD and events committee had shuffled some things around to make sure we did for the same reason - they wanted us there to provide support for the rookie teams.

All this to say, I agree that it’s very important for the RDs to have some wiggle room to make sure that events have the resources they need to run smoothly and provide a good experience to the teams.

I do think that there needs to be some improvements to the process, but I unfortunately don’t have any brilliant ideas to solve what is a pretty complicated issue.

It is, however, frustrating that they aren’t more clear on actual event capacity. The fact that EBR this year has an advertised registration of 36 teams, but we know from the host team that the planned capacity is 54. Maybe if they listed it as “Available Slots”, “Witheld Slots”, and “Waitlist”? Or something? It would be good information to have.

6 Likes
18

Back in 2015 there was color coding when registering: [FRC Blog] Today's the Day! And New Waitlist Color Coding!
You saw red/yellow/green based on how likely it was that you would get in (calculated by the number of available slots and number of teams already on the waitlist).

I suspect it was done away with for a lot of the same reasons that make the current waitlist process frustrating:

  • The waitlist isn’t purely first-in, first-out. Factors that can bump you up the list a bit include being: a late registering rookie, a team that provides a significant number of volunteers, a team that has consistently provided assistance to teams that need help (e.g. those that show up without a robot), a team that doesn’t have the resources to travel but didn’t get good RNG
  • Because of the late registering team problem, RDs have to hold back slots until relatively late in the year. You may be the only team on the waitlist and there may be 5 slots available, but if there are 5 teams that haven’t registered yet that can’t afford to travel the RD may be holding on to those slots to ensure that those teams can compete.

Those things are difficult to color code.

19

The RD in Minnesota at least let teams know some details about the waitlist process before round 2 preferencing closed:

  • What is this wait list business? When will I find out if I am accepted off the wait list? - All of our events have open registration up to 44 teams. Again, Ken and I typically l do not get involved in these first 44 slots at each event. Once that limit is reached, teams are placed on the event wait list. Teams will be added to the event from the wait list for a number of reasons, some of which may include
    • The team can only compete at one event, so that team will get preference over a team asking for a 2nd event at the same location.
    • There is a school schedule conflict that the team needs to work around.
    • There is a student on a team that requires accommodations that are only available at a specific event.
    • The team brings a small army of volunteers to the event, especially key volunteers.

https://mailchi.mp/43b28aa8d634/monthly-newsletter-frc-in-northland-9139472?e=2a2e2cbeaf

What I would personally like to see stop is teams waiting until the second round to preference their local event. I know quite a few teams this year that preferenced a travel event in the first round, assuming that there would either still be room in their local event for second round or that they would be bumped to the top of the waitlist for “reasons”. This leads to two undesirable outcomes: Either everyone see’s a team get in and thinks “that only happened because their mentor is on the planning committee” or “of course, their main sponsor also sponsors the event”, or they sit back and complain because their team isn’t getting into the local event just down the street, meaning they have to pay more (increased travel costs) to do two events than they wanted.

Sadly, I know people in both those camps - either banking on getting into their local event because of “reasons”, or thinking they won’t get in because other teams will be picked for “reasons” - and I know it’s generating discussion and bad feelings, which sucks.

For us here in MN, the 5 events last year had 272 total spots taken. The 5 events this year each had 44 initial spots showing (a total of 220), with an assumed 10 each in reserve, giving us a total of 270 spots - about the same as last year. All the events are at waitlist only right now, giving us 50 spots to place teams in. The problem we have with teams worried about the waitlist right now is that there are 19 teams from last year that have yet to register/be placed in an event, so the expectation is that we’re down to about 30 spots for second plays.

When it comes to those second plays, 39 MN teams have already secured a second play spot, without relying on the waitlist (and yes, this includes my team - we registered locally in the first round, during which it filled, and then went to Grand Forks for the second round, when it showed 22 open spots before filling in that round). Add another ~30 MN teams to that list, and you end up with a total of about 70 MN teams that get 2 plays (It’s not nearly that simple, some teams will go elsewhere, teams from out of state came in and aren’t included in that total, etc… but it’s a good way to get a ballpark number). But last year we had 80 MN teams with second plays, so ignoring outside events, we’re down 10 spots - rookies and out of state teams “took” those spots. Add to that the fact that we currently have 13 teams with a registered second play who did not have a second play last year, and that’s at least 23 teams who played two last year, and presumably want to again this year, who won’t get in locally. That’s going to lead to a fair amount of disappointment.

The big question to ask - is there a better system for registration? The preference system is loads better than the race to click on a site that’s not built for that much traffic. I think we need the reserve spots, as there are teams who just aren’t ready to register when registration opens, and we need to get them into an event. It’s also important for the RD and VC to ensure they have event volunteers, and it’s hard to tell a team to look elsewhere, if doing so takes 20 volunteers away from your event, especially key volunteers. I just don’t know what we do to change the system to better meet the needs of every team and the event itself.

3 Likes
20

Is there a formal process for teams to indicate reasons like these? I think there are all pretty valid reasons and kudos to Minnesota for being more transparent than other regions, but unless there is an established process for all teams to share more information about their situation, well connected or teams ‘in the know’ will benefit.

I think the registration process is generally fine, but think a simple text box at registration time would be a simple improvement to increase equity.

1 Like