This is going to sound crass, but if a founder can't make the sacrifice to spend 3 months in SV for YC, are they really prepared to build the next billion dollar company?
However as Sam said he doesn't feel they are underrepresented, and that they can use the fellowship which sounds great :)
You are also forgetting that it isn't just your sacrifice in terms of the time you are giving up with your wife and children for three months, but also that you are forcibly restricting them from being able to see you too. They didn't choose that.
Once you have a family you have a bunch of responsibilities and you've signed up for life. You can't just pick and choose when it suits you.
I realise that there are a lot of young folks on HN and probably not so many parents, so I'm expecting a barrage of down votes, but maybe in ten years time when you've reached my perspective you'll come back and upvote me!
But I think for you it is clear that family comes before business. Which is a fine personal choice for you, but is it the kind of choice people putting their money in your business want to see you making?
(And yes I don't have kids or a wife.)
“He who would accomplish little need sacrifice little; he who would achieve much must sacrifice much. He who would attain highly must sacrifice greatly.”
My point was that in this scenario, you are forcing sacrifices on other people whether they like it or not through your actions.
Taking risks is building a COMPANY while having obligations such as a family, and mortgage.
I could be building the next most profitable company in the world for all you know. The bay area isn't the be all end all for internet based companies. It's foolish to require that they be there. That's like requiring your staff to be in-house when you run a software company.
I will tell you this right now, my obligations mean I can't leave my small town in Iowa. I don't care if you write a check for $10M on the spot for me to move to the bay area. My family is worth more than anybody can ever offer me.
To your point: >> The reality is that there are tons of other people who are as qualified as this person
I think this is where industry veteran may have an edge compared to "other qualified people" as you put it. Yes 20 years old founders are great for many reasons, but experienced veteran that know the system inside-out may have competitive advantages and know-how that younger ones don't have. And if that's right, I think it would be silly for YC to not invest in them because they can't move for 3 months. Actually, some people just travel a lot during those three months (I.e. going to dinner and stuff), but still run their company in their city. Keep in mind that not all companies in YC are two guys in a garage.. some of them have 50+ employees, you can't just leave for 3 months.
If it has happened before, that's evidence that it can happen again, but if it's never happened before, that's evidence that it may be harder or impossible to form a high-growth startup under obligations like those.
(Disclaimer: high-growth startups are not the only kind of business worth forming. The director of engineering of a slow-growth enterprise software company may have a higher quality of life than a co-founder at an unprofitable unicorn.)
Elon Musk had wealth but rolled the dice while married and nearly ran out of cash funding his 3 companies.
But more seriously, some examples: http://priceonomics.com/founders-with-kids/
Just to clarify my statement - for some companies, it makes complete sense to stay in their local territory (think a young Alibaba). For some others, it doesn't. It's case by case.