> I think I have it all figured out.
> Federer is the new #1 IF Ferrero loses to Hewitt in the QF's AND
> doesn't reach the final AND Roddick doesn't reach the final AND Coria
> doesn't win the championship.
Are you talking entry or Champions' race? I assume entry...
> Ferrero is the new #1 IF he makes the final OR if he makes the semis
> AND neither Agassi or Roddick win the championship.
> Agassi retains #1 IF he wins the championship OR if he loses the final
> to anyone but Roddick AND Ferrero loses to Hewitt in the QF's.
> Roddick is the new #1 IF he wins the championship AND Ferrero doesn't
> make the final OR if he loses the final to Coria or Hewitt.
> Coria is the new #1 IF he wins the championship AND a)Ferrero loses to
> Hewitt b)Roddick doesn't make the final.
> I might have WAAAY too much time on my hands:-)
Yes, but you gave it a good go. The better thing to do is to warn the
lurkers that this analysis is about the "official ATP computer" rankings,
which sometimes don't accord with reality.
But in this case it pretty much does, because the "reality" of the situation
is that a) if Agassi or Ferrero win the title they deserve to be #1, and b)
if neither guy wins it, then the new #1 should be either be one of the three
slam winners *or* Coria or Roddick, who pretty much have to win the title to
get to #1, and then the #1 for the end of the year will be decided by the
fall indoor season.
Your analysis shows that (a) is true, so give the computer a pat on the
back. (b) is pretty much true as well. So the computer once again seems to
have its screws in place.
The ATP computer is functioning alot better than the WTA computer is these
days. The WTA computer appears to be infested with at least 2 worms and a
"Under the proper standard, there is no pressing public necessity
in maintaining a public law school at all and, it follows,
certainly not an elite law school. Likewise, marginal improvements
in legal education do not qualify as a compelling state interest."
- Justice Clarence Thomas, Grutter v. Bollinger