[gblake]

Originally Posted by Ether

...
Meaning what, exactly?
...
something else?

From memory, and it was a while ago...

Compute all possible (2-team) alliances.
Use a simple arbitrary scheme for pairing alliances in 1st round matches
For 2nd round and beyond matches:

Disregard possible alliances that were used in previous matches
Assign each possible alliance the shortest off-the-field time associated with the two teams in that alliance.
Pick the possible alliance that has been off the field for the longest (break ties arbitrarily).
Pick an opponent from among the remaining alliances. Choose one that:

Doesn't include a team that was allied before with the teams of the already selected alliance
Doesn't include a team that previously opposed the teams of the already selected alliance
Has been off the field the longest

Continue

Continue

I also think that, in order to preserve a minimum inter-match time interval, I put in a heuristic that would permit the first alliance put into a match to face opponents who had been allies earlier.
[Edit] Thanks to Joe I was reminded of this long post that I wrote a while ago - It contains a better description of the heuristics I used - Look near the bottom of it.Link [/Edit]

Originally Posted by Ether

Finding an acceptable solution isn't that hard. Finding the solution that best fits your selection criteria can be quite difficult if the search space is large.

As you know, looking for the "best" of solution to problems in algorithmic domains like one is often fraught with confusion, peril, and frustration. Looking for "good enough" often is the best choice

I should have been more clear. I was willing to accept minor separation between my results and perfection. Creating a good enough scheduling implementation isn't all that hard.

Blake
PS: Joe's info surprised me - Either I totally forgot or totally missed the solicitation and evaluation process he described, so I sent him a PM asking if has any still-valid links or other info I can look at to learn about it.