The analysis is perfectly valid. It is Cokely's initial comment that qualifying 16/32 diminishes the glory of making it to state that is flawed. The denominator should be the talent pool from which those 16 are drawn. Frankly I was shocked to find out that 6a draws form a talent pool almost 4 times as large as 321a. The argument about more winning records in 4a and 321a is also meaningless because those records are largely (not exclusively) compiled within the class and therefore do not answer any questions about the relative quality of the qualifiers. As for there being so many more activities for kids from larger schools, the only Varsity sport in the winter in the state of Kansas that many large schools have that the small schools do not is boys swimming and diving. My whole point for these responses was to refute an absurd statement by Cokeley and others about the larger classes. The arguments they make about qualifying 16/32 vs 16/64 do not make sense, period.