"Random" match Schedules

Every team in the pits is paired against the team directly next to them (not across the isle).

It is very ironic, because when 401 first got there, we helped repair what turned out to be our perpetual opponent.

I am glad that we could help out their team, but would appreciate more variation in the matching.

A little birdie from the higher ups told me they are working to fix it for the other regionals.

Same problem at the Pacific Northwest regional. 948 vs 949 in every match. 272 vs 360 in every match. And several others whose numbers I’ve forgotten.

Several of the teams reported the problem to the staff as soon as the pairings were distributed. They said they were looking into it and might be redoing the pairings. We checked back a bit later, and they said that the official word from FIRST was that nothing could be changed.

We are very disappointed, even though this mess-up gave our team an advantage.

Today at BAE, team 549 played team 562 all 7 matches of the day. Also, we played with a team, and then would play against them the next match, then pair with them later again.

Also, this terrible pairing system left teams wondering the capabilities of our robot, because they never got to even TRY and play. We practiced yesterday with many of the teams we played with today…

It was no fun to play with/against the same teams all day.Strategy turned to mush, because we were with and against the same teams all day. :frowning:

From Richard’s post in this thread, it seems that FIRST has spec’d out an algorithm that places similarly numbered teams in matches together. I suppose it could be an attempt to even the playing field for rookies. Sorry to spread around your post Richard, but this is an interesting and, I think, rather unfortunate change in direction.

We’ll be against 291 for two entire regionals…:frowning:

EDIT: Well, I think Richard’s information is correct, based on the ten’s of posts on here, from every regional, saying that they’re paired up with the same people throughout. The question is, is there anything good about it, and if not, should we do anything to change it? Can we even change it?

We’ve played Team 1089 all 5 matches today and we also have the problem with playin in match 9, 19, 29, etc.

One more fun fact. At BAE we have 2 teams which need to play another round to get to 8 rounds per team. As such, 4 (or at least 3) extra rounds have been scheduled, giving 22 (or 16) teams an extra round of practice.

Yea, we have noticed this in the past 2 days. Team have been playing either with against each other for 2 or more matches. I feel it just doesnt show how you will compete with others. It’s still a lot of fun though. :yikes:

I don’t mind you spreading it around.

I’d like to repeat here that the new field management system worked flawlessly in St. Louis today. Credit for that should go to FIRST engineering staff and the new contractors for great attention to the details, to Mark Koors of FRC45 (technical advisor) and Jerry Budd of FRC461 (scoring lead), and to several members of the local St. Louis volunteer corps for tirelessly testing and retesting the system on Wednesday and Thursday, before the fun started this morning. This system is a major improvement over last year.

As I said earlier, I will add my concurrence to the communication being prepared for FIRST regarding the match generation algorithm; however, to me it seems clear that this is a policy issue and not a defect in the field management system. Let’s keep the discussion on this topic focussed on what can/should be done to improve match generation.

I-- can’t believe this is how they WANTED the match schedule to be!


Oh boy…

I hope this just gets redone, rather than rationalized into a “good thing.”

I see this as a good and a bad thing. Although I do not like the fact that you are against the same people over and over, I bet FIRST or someone can create an algorithm that can at least make the first half of the teams compete with only first half teams and second half teams only second half with a few inter lapped but I think that Rookies vs Rookies rather than Veterans vs Rookies is a great idea because Vets, no matter if they are rookies on the team, have a higher chance of winning because the team has had the experience compared to the Rookie teams.

I’m not 100% for it, but im not 100% against it either. I guess its a step in the right direction…Maybe a diagonal step, but forward nonetheless.

How to improve it? A few thoughts:

-Make sure the cycles are flipped around after each period of play (Friday AM, Friday PM, Saturday AM). Being the last match before lunch and the first one after is a little tight, but the Friday-Saturday interlude is the perfect time to shuffle the deck.
-d.courtney’s notion of a ten-minute break (a little under two match cycles) may also aid in shuffling things nicely, if doing it at the existing breaks doesn’t cut it.
-If you absolutely must stick the same two teams in a second match, make sure they don’t end up on the same side again.
-Above all else, remain fully aware that a low number (or lack thereof) is by no means a sure measure of a great robot.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

The fact that some teams are always against each other worries me. Forget the fact that its the same general group of teams playing each round, but the fact that 190 has played 4 matches AGAINST 175 and NONE with them is a problem. It shouldn’t be that hard to make a way to manually swap two of the teams in a match to make that happen.

I also agree that there is an issue with the grouping effect. In years past it has happened to some degree (an effect of the attempt to space matches evenly), but never to this extreme. I have no problem with teams not getting to play in a match with 2 or 3 of the teams, but more than 10 is a little obscene. I have heard good news that FIRST has gotten the message and that they will fix it for the next regionals.

On that note, week 1 regionals have always been the proving grounds for the game and all the associated software. I’m glad that this is the only issue i’ve seen so far

Ok, I did a random selection of teams from different regionals, and just checked how often they played against a particular team. Results may not be complete, but they give a pretty good spread.

St. Louis:

148- 4/7 matches against 45, 3/7 against 217

829- 4/7 matches against 547

1502- 7/7 matches against 1472

2177- 4/7 against 2167, 3/7 against 2219


116- 7/7 matches against 122

401- 6/6 matches against 405

900- 3/6 matches against 843

2028- 6/6 matches against 2021

You could go into far greater detail, analyzing alliance partners, ratio of matches with vs. against , whatever, but there really isn’t much point. The scoring algorithm, as has been stated, is grouping particular team number together, and is doing so consistently. There wasn’t a team I found that wasn’t playing with the same team (for or against), at least half the time. To be honest, and nothing bad directed or intended, but it kinda explains why there are so may rookies in the top 8 this year.

St. Louis:

#4- 2177


#7- 2068
#8- 2028


**#1- 2122


#5- 2180

There are always really good rookies, but there seems to be a disproportionate amount this year, IMHO. I can’t say I’m right here though.

We were with or against 663 at BAE for every match today… and seemed to play with the same group of team the whole day. I call not so random…

One way to argue this is as follows: seeding is meaningless, scouting should determine your alliance selection for eliminations. So the purpose of qualifying matches is not to generate seedings that accurately reflect team strength (major league baseball uses 162 games to do that, and still creates lopsided playoff match-ups); qualifying matches give scouts information about what each team can do, and for that purpose the match-ups are not a significant factor.

Are you on 118? :smiley:

I’d love to look at it this way, but unfortunately, it doesn’t really work out well. If you are constantly playing a powerhouse team, your strategy, in order to try and win, must adapt into, likely, a defensive stance, even though you may be an amazing offensive robot.

Teams scout, but match standing can lend alot of weight to whether or not a team gets picked. Unfortunate, but real. That may be FIRST’s argument though, you are right Richard.

Add to your VCU list that 435 played against 510 every round. I could probably double your list of reasons that the current matching system is a bad idea, but if FIRST is already planning a change then I won’t bother.

Can anyone confirm that FIRST is changing this for the next round of regionals and for nationals?

Nobody has posted a similiar situation to the one on my team (2108 in VCU); we face off against 2186 every match, but also, our ally in one match is one of our competitors in the next.

For instance: Match number #11, our allies were 617 and 1413 (I believe). Match #21, we went up against 1413.

It’s a cascading cycle where we basically only see three new robots on the field at any given match: 2 new allies, and 2 familiar on the opposition.

Has anybody else seen or have had this happen with other teams?


For once I have to disagree with you. Yes, scouting should determine your alliance section, but seeding is not meaningless. The reason qualifying matches need to reflect team strength is to ensure that the teams who earn the right to select, are deserving to do so. No one wants to see a below average team seed #1, by virtue of constantly playing even weaker teams, or being paired with excellent teams. This unfairly rewards them, and punishes the team they select. (Provided that this below average team scouts well, and picks a top team)