|
Re: "Random" match Schedules
People keep asking about FIRST's intent with the programming change. In 2005 (at smaller regionals), situations arose in which teams would have to play matches that would be only 2 apart from one another. If everyone looks at their match schedules from week 1, it is apparent that FIRST has done everything they could to maximize the time between matches where the same teams are involved (hence giving teams more time to repair and prepare). The repeated comments of people having match schedules of #9, #19, #29, #39.... etc. tells us that they have succeeded in this optimization.
Unfortunately, we have a second equally important constraint in which teams do not want to have to play with or against the same teams for every match. So now we have 2 separate constraints. First is the time between matches and second is the number of common partners. From this, we want to minimize the following:
Min: (time between matches) + (number of common teams from previous matches)
To successfully complete this, we have to apply weights to either side (to use the weighted sum method).
So the equation becomes:
Min: a*(time between matches) + b*(number of common teams from previous matches)
where "a" and "b" are weights and where a+b=1.
In 2005, it seems that a higher value was set for "b" than "a." Conversely, it seems that "a" was maximized for the week 1 2007 match schedules. The solution would involve finding appropriate values for "a" and "b" that bring the solution to somewhere more reasonable.
Unfortunately, this analysis is just that... and analysis. I have absolutely no understanding of how to set up team schedules based on this method, only how to evaluate how good a given match schedule is.
Also, Lucas. That idea sounds amazing. If generic schedules were made for every possible number of teams attending a regional (say from 24 to 80), then these could be used based on how many teams register. For people who are afraid that this would eliminate randomness and that you'd play the same teams every year at the same original... have no fear. At the drivers meeting, teams could have a representative pull a number from a hat held by the head referee to determine their seeding into the "optimized pairing matrix."
Just my 2 cents.
__________________
'03 - FRC 365 - Driver
'04 - FRC 1370 - Mentor
'05 - FRC 1493 - Mentor
'09-'11 - FRC 2975 - Mentor
'12-'13 - FRC 4029 - Mentor
'15 - FRC 1319 - Mentor
'07-'10 - Judge
|