[d.courtney]

These results are no different then the findings I had from Waterloo last year, mind you Waterloo is a very small regional, making it harder to mix up teams while still giving them a good enough break in between matches (was the reason given when I approached the issue). After approaching FIRST about this at a debriefing, I had the chance to see the code they used for Waterloo, it was in fact very well written. There was however a problem, this was that this program didn't "reset" the algorithm after breaks such as the end of day or lunches causing teams to almost stay in a loop of teams they play with every match introducing one team into those they last played with as it ranked having a longer break for the team more important then who they were playing against. I changed this in that code adding a set number of resets, and saw a far more "random" selection between the days, and even better adding 2 more breaks. These two extra breaks are very accomplishable, if FIRST was to say add two 10 min breaks in the day one before and one after lunch, these breaks would also be logical as to allow the volunteers a much needed short break, allow any syncing problems with scoring to be worked out, and a multitude of other practical reasons. I relayed back my solution to the one that made the software, hoping these minor changes could be made.

It could very well be that this "looping" effect where you see teams play with or against others many times, is simply because they don't have resets for the algorithm, or it could be because the algorithm was poorly designed, either way it is a problem FIRST knows about and I find it unfortunate for those teams who have been effected that they haven't solved it yet.

edit: mind you there never was a problem with teams playing against a team all the time... say if they were stuck in the "loop" with said team, a few would be with a few against