I am saying that small schools as a group should not expect to have 25% of the qualifiers when they have 13% of the enrollment and presumably 13% of the people who have the talent to be a state qualifier. And I was trying to counter your earlier point that going to a big school causes an individual to be 4x as likely to become a state qualifier.
As I said before, I think you are confusing the probability of a state qualifier coming from a big school with the impact that going to a big school has on an individual being able to qualify for state. They aren't the same thing.
I used this example earlier to try to explain better what I am saying:
"As an example, take 1000 people and randomly put 10% of them in Group 1, 25% in Group 2, 25% in Group 3, and 40% in Group 4. Then tell each group they can select their 100 fastest people and time them in a 100 meter dash. I would guess that of the top 100 finishers, 10 would come from Group 1, 25 would come from Group 2, 25 would come from Group 3, and 40 would come from Group 4. I wouldn't expect each group to have 25 simply because they had the same number of entrants. And being in a particular group didn't cause any individual to be more or less likely to be in the top 100."
Because the numbers we are seeing for state qualifiers don't seem to be drastically out of line from what we would expect based on probability, it doesn't seem inequitable to me when speaking only about the individual competing in the one class individual tournament.
So that's the point I am trying to make.
On the other hand, you seem to be trying to make a case that classing the individual tournament would have benefits to small schools and we need to do that in order to save them.
Since we are talking about two different things we are talking past each other.