None of the math in this Answer is rigorous, since neither sheets or rounds are continuous variables. However, I'm using this weird continuous model to try to align with what the OP is asking... Hope this helps as opposed to confuses even further!
Let $s(r)$ be the number of sheets in round $r$. Let $R =$ total no. of rounds, i.e. the value we're seeking. We have:
So far so far... Now we know total no. of sheets is $180$, which in this weird continuous model would be:
$$180 = \int_0^R s(r) dr = [r + r^2/2R]^R_0 = R + R/2 = \frac32 R \implies R = 120$$
which is the correct answer. At this point the OP seems confused. Option #1 is to consider:
$dr/ds = {1 \over ds/dr} = R = constant$, which is true as far as it goes...
- Note: $dr/ds$ is not the no. of rounds covers by a sheet! That is Option #2 below.
Anyway, integrating we have $r = sR + C$. Again we find the integration constant via the boundary conditions, giving: $r = sR - R = R(s-1)$
- Sanity check: this is the same as $s = 1 + r/R$.
The next step is the big question. What is the integral? Since $s$ is number of sheets in a specific round, all we have is $180 = \int_0^R s(r) dr$. In particular both of the following integrals are wrong:
$$\int_0^{180} r(s) ds$$
is wrong because the variable $s$ does not go from $0$ to $180$, and
$$\int_1^2 r(s) ds$$
is also wrong because it's measuring a different area in the $(s,r)$ plane! If you draw the $(s,r)$ plane, the relation between $s$ and $r$ is the line segment connecting $(1, 0)$ to $(2, R)$. The "correct" integral $\int_0^R s(r) dr$ measures the area from the line segment to the $r$-axis, which is a trapezoid, whose area we relate to $180$. This last "wrong" integral measures the area from the line segment to the $s$-axis, which is a triangle, whose area cannot be related to $180$, nor to $R$. In fact, since it is a triangle of base $2-1 = 1$ and height $R$, its area is indeed $R/2$:
$$\int_1^2 r(s) ds = R[s^2/2 - s]_1^2 = R/2$$
The point, however, is that it cannot be related to $180$.
Option #2 is to consider the number of rounds covered by a sheet. However, this option requires totally different variables than the $s, r$ defined above! In this kind of model, the "independent" variable is $\hat{s}$ which goes from $0$ (or $1$) to $180$, and the "dependent" variable is $\hat{r}(\hat{s})$ which is the number of rounds covered by sheet $\hat{s}$, and which goes from $1$ to $1/2$. However, these are very different variables from $s, r$ and in particular
$$d \hat{r} / d \hat{s} \neq {1 \over ds/ dr}$$
and indeed we have no reason to believe $d\hat{r} / d \hat{s}$ is a constant. And if it isn't a constant, then $\hat{r}$'s unweighted average (also median) value of $3/4$ hardly matters.