You know what would have been a funny experiment?
Lot's of tennis media were quick to bash the WTA's ranking system this year. Not because they cared about it and wanted it to improve. Simply because they only follow 4 tournaments a year and the rankings didn't match the results of those 4 events exactly, plus they wanted to bash the women in any way possible.
The WTA announced a revised rankings points chart almost immediately after the season. But you know what would have been funny? If the WTA would have said that they were giving more points to the slams, then either:<br />(a) not changed anything, or<br />(b) bumped up the round points for all tournaments, but kept the proportions exactly the same (essentially taking the 2001 system, and just multiplying it), and adjusted the quality points accordingly.
Then, just sit back and see if anyone notices. If someone has the consistent success of a Venus or Lindsay, with a slam title or two, and plays a full schedule, they would earn the #1 spot. Then we'd see some articles about how much better the "new" system was. And the tour could turn around and show it was the same system they had criticized the prior year. That would expose how little the tennis media knows about/ pays attention to the women's tour, and the real motivation behind the criticisms.
Now THAT would be funny!