After the algorithm of doom* (2007), FIRST did a few things.
They provided a list of requirements for a scheduling algorithm.
Quote:
a. Maximum time (in number of matches) between each match played for all teams
b. Minimum possible number of times a team plays opposite any team
c. Minimum possible number of times a team is allied with any team
d. Minimize the use of surrogates.
e. Even distribution of matches played on Blue and Red Alliance (without sacrificing a, b, c and d)
|
FIRST also solicited comments on additional requirements, but did not incorporate any. Most of the comments I remember related to the minimum time between matches, either taking into account natural breaks (end of day and lunch) or allowing a single long break, for things like judge interviews. I don't remember any proposals for incorporating team rankings or age into the schedule.
Third, they provided a program that would provide rate a schedule based on the requirements. This way, any other algorithm could be evaluated objectively.
Finally, they provided a reference program, Idleloop Software's
MatchMaker (Written by Tom and Cathy Saxton of team 1318) and challenged people to beat it. I only know of one other scheduler that was submitted, and it was marginally worse then MatchMaker. The challenge was issued in September, so there was about 3 months, however, it seemed like all activity died out within 2 weeks or so.
Even though the MatchMaker software was available for months, just having it available didn't catch all the initial bugs. It was only a week before the championship that people started noticing a clumping problem with large events.
*One thing to remember was that while the Algorithm of Doom did group teams by team number the main reason it was hated is that it did a horrible job at creating a schedule with varied opponents and partners. If the algorithm had done a better job at giving teams different partners and opponents, it might still be used.