(Re)Coding the “Black Quarterback”: A 20-Year Critical Quantitative Analysis of Racial Stacking and the Mediated Dichotomy Between “Pro-Style” and “Dual-Threat”

Racial Stacking

Racial stacking illustrates a disproportionate and discriminatory distribution of athletes by race across playing positions (Bell & Rosado, 2023; Pitts & Yost, 2013). Stacking studies originated based on the centrality of playing position to the ball (e.g., quarterback, pitcher) in a given sport to consider whether an overrepresentation of players by race was present in intellectual leadership positions (Eitzen & Sanford, 1975). The first such studies considered professional baseball and found that White players were overrepresented as pitchers and catchers (Loy & Elvogue, 1970). Studies of professional football generally identify consensus patterns whereby quarterback and center are historically White positions compared to speed-based positions (e.g., receivers, cornerbacks) occupied more significantly by Black players (Buffington, 2005; Eitzen & Sanford, 1975; Murrell & Curtis, 1994).

Marquez-Velarde and others (2023) produced the most in-depth analysis of stacking by studying more than 20,000 NFL players from 1960 to 2020. They identified three patterns of integration and segregation. First, cumulative integration suggested equal racial representation for offensive lineman and tight ends over time. Second, cumulative hyper-segregation saw a shift over time from White-dominated to Black-dominated distribution in all defensive positions and two offensive positions (running back and wide receiver). Third, durable segregation identified quarterback and kicking positions remained White-dominated for 60 years.

Studies of stacking extend beyond positional distribution to the way they are interpreted and understood by coaches, media, and audiences (Ferrucci & Tandoc, 2017, 2018; Markowitz, 2024; Thomas et al., 2015). Research identified bias from coaches when evaluating athletes by race, which is critical given that they primarily decide which athletes play which positions (Coleman & Scott, 2018; Thomas et al., 2015). Media studies indicated racially-stereotyped language, suggesting repeated patterns of athletic attention for Black players and intellectual hype for White players (Buffington, 2005; Ferrucci & Tandoc, 2017, 2018; Murrell & Curtis, 1994). Implications of stacking reflect Black players switching positions at a greater rate (primarily quarterbacks and running backs, see Pitts & Yost, 2013) or having almost no long-term probability of playing quarterback in the NFL (Marquez-Velarde et al., 2023).

Stacking studies focus heavily on professional and collegiate sports, leaving a dearth of understanding at the high school level, which is critical since that is when highly-recruited athletes start gaining public recognition of their sporting success. This study targets the origin of stacking in the recruiting space, where coaches inform journalists who report on an athlete’s playing position, attributes, and future potential. These relationships and the construction of content illustrate a unique feature of the sports/media complex.

Sports/Media Complex

Jhally (1984) traces the sports/media complex as a symbiotic relationship between media companies and sport institutions rooted in capitalism that targets consumption. This research explores the sports/media nexus through the relationship of professional sports and television, ultimately grounded as a form of cultural materialism fueled by commodification. Jhally’s work is foundational for understanding the complicated, interconnected, and expanding sports/media relationship. Wenner (1998) dubbed this intersection as “mediasport” to consider media and sport as institutions, texts, and audiences. Online spaces and digital media provide further complexity by integrating the “contestation of competing narratives” (McDonald, 2010, p. 154). Recruiting websites were constructed as discursive spaces of mobilizing media practice that serve as centralized digital hubs of recruiting profiles marked by differentiated character traits driven by an audience’s desire for consumption (Bell & Rosado, 2023).

Sport provides ample mediated spaces that exemplify covert production of bias and prejudice in favor of White athletes, especially when competing against a racial or ethnic minority. Racial stereotypes are present across all media types when considering sport, including print (Buffington, 2005; Murrell & Curtis, 1994), broadcast (Billings, 2004; Lewis et al., 2020; Rada & Wulfemeyer, 2005), and online sources (Markowitz, 2024; Mercurio & Filak, 2010). This imbalance of representation fuels a racist ideology embedded within mass media culture masked as a colorblind, post-racial vehicle of social progress (Billings, 2004; Buffington, 2005; Hartmann, 2007). This deeply rooted colorblindness highlights the on-field successes of minoritized athletes while deemphasizing leadership capabilities that support differential patterns of racial participation and mediated imagery in specific sports and positions (Rada & Wulfemeyer, 2005; Rhodes & Butler, 1975).

“Black Quarterback” Codes

This is evident in the socially constructed and highly-racialized identity of the “Black quarterback” that has a lasting impact for on-field opportunities (Bigler & Jeffries, 2008; Hawkins, 2010), earning potential and playing time (Berri & Simmons, 2009; Volz, 2017), and public perception of racial stereotypes (Ferrucci & Tandoc, 2017, 2018). A brief history of the Black quarterback traces to college football when William Clarence Mathews was the first “negro quarterback” who played at Harvard from 1903-1905 (Lindholm, 1997). In professional football, Willie Thrower (first Black quarterback in 1953), Marlin Briscoe (first Black quarterback to start a game in 1968), and Eldridge Dickey (first Black quarterback drafted in the first round in 1968) are recognized for their historical significance (Berri & Simmons, 2009; Bigler & Jeffries, 2008; Reid, 2019). In 1978, Doug Williams was the second Black quarterback drafted in the first round and the first to win a Super Bowl with the Washington football team in 1988. Warren Moon was the first (and remains the only) Black quarterback elected to the pro football hall of fame after a record-setting career that started in the Canadian Football League before playing primarily for the Houston Oilers. Moon and Williams would have seemingly fit under the pro-style label. Randall Cunningham set NFL quarterback rushing records with the Philadelphia Eagles and earned the league’s Most Valuable Player award in 1990 from the Pro Football Writers of America.

Black quarterbacks gained prominence in college and the NFL through on-field accomplishments across the 1990s and the early 2000s with three first-round picks in 1999, Michael Vick selected first overall in 2001, and Steve McNair (drafted first round in 1995) won co-MVP in 2003 from the Associated Press. So, stereotypical labels of the quarterback position started shifting away from direct naming of race (i.e., “Black quarterback”) (Buffington, 2005). Instead, media started categorizing by non-passing abilities (i.e., “running” quarterback) or through biologically, yet racially, rooted emphasis (i.e., “naturally athletic” quarterback) (Grano, 2010). The focus on athleticism over passing ability began to skew social understanding with an “overemphasis on athletic skills [that] re-marks race in a more nuanced and subtle manner” (Buffington, 2005, p. 33). Race is not overtly differentiated through these new categories. It is embodied across shifting rhetorical codes that typecast what a “Black” quarterback can—and cannot—do within this historically developed White football system (Bigler & Jeffries, 2008).

Code words are subtle and implicit cues that function to differentiate within and across groups through systematic implementation that can represent strong racial—often negative—connotations (Hurwitz & Peffley, 2005). Code words become more evident in their discursive function to understand and interpret the narratives surrounding their use. Rhoden (2006) suggested recruiting websites helped re-construct racially-designated quarterback categories and hypothesized that “dual-threat” served as a code word that sold a quarterback’s potential short of how it could be realized through this categorized system of control. The rationale behind the “dual-threat” code was that Black athletes lacked equivalent “intangibles” such as leadership, intellect, and focus compared to their white counterparts. Hence, recruiting websites started coding the position differently to appear racially sensitive (i.e., “dual threat” instead of Black), yet still categorically segregated those players as different from “pro-style” (Bell, 2021).

The re-coding of “Black quarterbacks” illustrates “new struggles” (Buffington, 2005, p. 28) embedded within sports media that produces skepticism. Specific to this research, high school sports provide an underrepresented gap in research within the “mediasport” relationship yet provide an important site that calls for closer scrutiny (Hardin & Corrigan, 2008) of the intersectional concerns evident in collegiate and professional sport. Specifically, football recruiting generates millions of dollars in media coverage largely facilitated through recruiting websites (Bell, 2020). Therefore, racialized quarterback codes starting at the high school level through recruiting rankings become a critical site of public contestation.

Theoretical Framework

Critical race theory (CRT) emerged in the mid-1970s, post-Civil Rights Movement era, from the early work of Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, and Alan Freeman, legal scholars who were deeply troubled by constitutional contradictions and the slow pace of racial reform in the United States (Delgado & Stefancic, 2013; Hiraldo, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1998). As such, CRT seeks to analyze the role of race, as being endemic to American society, and racism in perpetuating social disparities between dominant and racially subordinated groups (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Hiraldo, 2010). CRT examines central psychological and sociological concerns, such as the relationship between interlocking forms of oppression, institutionalized discrimination, organizational practices, and White privilege (Bonilla-Silva et al., 2004; Ray et al., 2017). Detractors since the inception of CRT have sought to misrepresent the approach and framework as a whole (Crenshaw et al., 1995; Gillborn et al., 2018) instead of acknowledging CRT’s position to challenge racial subjugation through the centering of race and anti-racism.

CRT helps examine those racializing customs and consists of six core tenets: (1) a focus on the permanence of racism, (2) interest convergence, (3) whiteness as a valued property interest that only white people can possess, (4) recognition of experiential knowledge (counter-storytelling), (5) intersectionality (i.e., CRT rejects simplistic conceptions of subordinated identities and societal oppressions), and (6) critique of liberalism (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Hiraldo, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1998). All six tenets address interconnected themes that unearth ways that institutions reinforce racism (Hiraldo, 2010). CRT challenges traditional claims of objectivity, meritocracy, colorblindness, race neutrality, and equal opportunity (Delgado & Stefancic, 2013). Thus, CRT scholars articulate the need to move beyond theorizing and analyzing to active intervening through dismantling policies and practices that support racism (Stovall, 2004).

Hylton (2009) highlights CRT as a “hybrid discipline” for its versatility and flexibility in the context of sport to “explore and examine the racism in society that privileges whiteness as it disadvantages others because of their ‘blackness’” (p. 22). CRT has been used to critique youth development initiatives to offer improvements to coaching praxis (Kochanek & Erickson, 2020) and identify and challenge racial stereotypes toward Black male college athletes (Hodge et al., 2008). Howe et al. (2023) encouraged sport studies scholars to utilize CRT for its utility, especially when considering data for its origin and capacity to often be oversimplified. So, CRT helps to position “race as the central starting point of critique” (Bell, 2020, p. 205) in sport.

For this study, CRT allows for a focus on racial identity in relation to interlocking systems of power, oppression, and privilege produced by sports media as a powerful social institution through coded language. In the case of recruiting discourse, CRT helps to consider the rhetorical impact of such coded language in shaping expectations and limitations for athletes marked by implicit racialized codes.

QuantCrit, short for quantitative critique, is a research framework derived from CRT that integrates quantitative methods with critical theory perspectives when interpreting quantitative data and statistical techniques. QuantCrit completements CRT by providing five quantitative tenets for this approach that (1) centers racism for its analysis, (2) acknowledges a lack of neutrality in numbers, (3) interrogates the defining of categories, (4) recognizes data cannot speak for itself, and (5) produces work with social justice as a goal (Gillborn et al., 2018). This approach encourages more refined data categorization and analysis, particularly concerning social identities like race, ethnicity, and gender. It critically evaluates the selection and operationalization of variables, acknowledging that these decisions can perpetuate societal biases. QuantCrit researchers frequently revisit and reanalyze existing datasets with a critical perspective, revealing new insights or questioning earlier conclusions.

Given the reliance on quantitative data for this study, it is crucial to acknowledge the inherent subjectivity that can accompany statistical analysis that can often “ignore the discussions about the meaning of race” (Zuberi, 2001, p. 123) when developing studies. Scholars have worked toward a critical quantitative approach to add demonstrative value to understanding how numbers may perpetuate color-blind racial ideologies (Covarrubias & Vélez, 2013; Gillborn et al., 2018). Gillborn and others (2018) observe that “numbers are neither objective nor colorblind,” (p. 159) and they can be strategically deployed to present color-blindness as a normative framework. While they emphasize that qualitative methodologies are more often used for CRT-related inquiries, Gillborn et al. (2018) proposed a QuantCrit approach to acknowledge how quantitative approaches can offer broader structural insights into systemic barriers and inequalities faced by racialized groups.

Guided by the extant literature on the racialization of the quarterback position, two hypotheses and two research questions guide this study.

H₁: The 247sports recruiting website will disproportionately assign position codes based on the race of the quarterback.

H₂: The 247sports recruiting website will disproportionately assign star values based on the race of the quarterback.

RQ₁: What is the relationship between position code and star value based on the race of the quarterback?

RQ₂: Does the 247sports recruiting website rank a player differently within a position code based on the race of the quarterback?

Coding Procedures

A total of 3474 quarterbacks received at least a two-star value from 247sports in the years examined for this study. Each quarterback was coded across the following categories: (1) race, (2) star value, (3) position code, (4) overall quarterback ranking, and (5) position code ranking. Race was coded: (1) Black, (2) White, or (3) Other. It is acknowledged by the research team that race was limited to the interpretation of a single photograph and that visible marking does not signify how a player might self-identify (e.g., mixed race, geographic ethnic identity). However, this study aimed to illuminate how coded labels are applied primarily across seemingly visible racial lines without consideration for context. Players coded as Other (n = 134) were largely Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander, Samoan, or Polynesian. These identities were also restricted to the interpretation of the research team. They were included to provide a racial overview but excluded from statistical comparisons because of the small comparative sample and to avoid conflating racialization to a composite non-White identity.

The photograph associated with a quarterback’s player profile page on 247sports was used for coding. However, all recruiting profiles did not include a photo. Verified secondary photo sources were used to code for race to include as many quarterbacks as possible. For example, photos provided in news stories, media guides, and high school yearbooks were considered. If accurate attribution was in question, additional data (e.g., listed hometown, high school) was used to validate an athlete’s identity and cross-referenced by another member of the research team. Twenty-six quarterbacks were excluded because no photo could be found and/or associated with that individual. A total of 3448 quarterbacks were included for data analysis.

Athletes are rated with a star-value ranging from two-star to five-star, with five considered elite (Silva et al., 2018). 247sports suggests they are not projecting NFL potential, yet their rankings align with NFL draft structure and vocabulary when describing an athlete and predicting their future potential. Thus, a five-star ranking aligns with a first-round draft pick (e.g., “franchise player”). Four-star players “are the most likely to produce college careers that get them drafted” (”247sports rating,” 2012). Three-star players are considered impactful college players, and two-star players fill out college rosters. Therefore, star value projects professional potential that must be considered alongside the position code category to mark a quarterback’s value. In this way, recruiting websites are at the forefront of supplying the language used within football circles (e.g., coaches, media) to make distinctions between players and their attributes.

Star value was coded based on the 247sports five-star rating system. Only quarterbacks with a two-star value or higher were included because anyone else could not be categorized beyond basic inclusion in the 247sports database. Within the quarterback category, the position code was either (1) “dual-threat” or (2) “pro-style.” Overall ranking was recorded for where the quarterback ranked among all quarterbacks in a given year. Position ranking was recorded for where the quarterback was ranked in his respective position code category.

Interrater Reliability

Three members of the research team coded one randomly selected year (2003) of the data to ensure all categories were present for reliability testing. The results were compared using Krippendorff’s (2004) alpha. Reliability was achieved for race [a = .80] between the three coders, and all other categories had perfect agreement using ReCal3 (Freelon, 2013). Riffe et al. (2005) identified .80 is good for intercoder reliability. The remaining years were divided among the three coders. Statistical analysis was completed using the SPSS software.

Centrality of Racism

The glaring concern revealed in the data situates the centering of race to maintaining the quarterback position, through the coded category of “pro-style,” as a predominately white space that reinforces the role of mediated racism in constructing and producing control. This is evident in two structural ways. First, White quarterbacks are clearly overrepresented, occupying more than four-fifths of that positional category. Second, since “pro-style” accounts for more than two-thirds of the total quarterbacks in the recruiting database, this produces a racial stratification and hierarchy of the quarterback position dominated by the whiteness of the “pro-style” category. The lack of a critical race consciousness obscured by these rankings works to normalize and reinforce existing racial inequalities. Considered alongside the historical context of marking “Black” as “dual-threat” (i.e., outside the boundary of the quarterback position) (Bigler & Jeffries, 2008), the ideologies of media and sport institutions co-construct a sense of ownership of the quarterback position for White athletes.

Numbers are not Neutral

The statistical findings illustrate clearly that when denominating quarterbacks by race into presumably colorblind position codes that they are devoid of neutral distribution. 247sports created a mediated extension of racial stacking first dictated by coaches during racial integration (Eitzen & Sanford, 1975) and (re)presented those race constructs through historically “racist logics that may have shaped conclusions” (Gillborn et al., 2018, p. 170). Important to understand is this example of stacking is not just an organizational mode of categorizing athletes, but rather an evaluative process guided by human interpretation and bias shared by coaches who inform the rankings and the journalists who produce them (Coleman & Scott, 2018; Thomas et al., 2015). This media enterprise creates an ideological reservoir of racial understanding of football players enmeshed in the historical and fundamental stacking process (Bell, 2020). Ultimately, the racial stacking evident in the 247sports database “disguise and even normalize race inequity” (Gillborn et al., 2018, p. 170) in the rankings as reflected through mostly white decision makers (e.g., coaches, journalists).

Categories are Neither “Natural” nor Given

A critical race approach highlights how these rhetorically coded labels create a structure where Black quarterbacks are unnaturally marginalized. Illustrated by sheer volume of White “pro-style” quarterbacks evident in the content analysis, the “dual threat” position code is marked as secondary. This builds a quarterback category limited to fewer points of access for Black quarterbacks. That access to the “dual-threat” space is further delimited in the lower-profile, two-star opportunities as White quarterbacks outnumber their Black counterparts. This revelation in the data must be considered alongside the 247sports explanation regarding the role of two-star players who help fill college rosters. In this case, it is less about being coded as a White “dual-threat” quarterback and more about maintaining racialized ownership of roster opportunities (Harris, 1995). Any perceived progress must be contextualized against a historically marginalized backdrop that has witnessed Black quarterbacks across all levels of football face limited access, higher rates of position switching, and an overall experience uniquely different than White quarterbacks (Pitts & Yost, 2013). The uneven rhetorical distribution to “dual-threat” and away from “pro-style,” statistically identified by race, produces a “racialization of ability differences” (Artiles, 2011, p. 440) marked through coded language. These categories become rooted in a racialized dialectic facilitated through positions coded as contested terms of ability that act as lines of demarcation and normalization through labeling (Gillborn et al., 2018).

Voice and Insight

Since the data cannot “speak for itself,” the greatest concern embedded in the data is the cyclical predictability of recruiting rankings that illustrate the centrality of race that permeates through the duality of two quarterback codes. The fidelity of these labels is situated in the narratives of race and the permanence of racism that define the United States (Bell, 1991). Inevitably, the rhetoric of “pro-style” incorporates a prototype narrative of a quarterback who possesses the passing ability and “unseen” intangible qualities historically associated with the position (Bopp & Sagas, 2014; Buffington, 2005). These “numbers speak for White racial interests; their presentation, as objective and factual, merely adds to the danger of racist stereotyping where uncritical taken-for-granted understandings lay at the heart of analyses” (Gillborn et al., 2018, p. 173). Comparatively, the socially constructed “dual threat” distinction possesses historically rooted qualities of athleticism and includes an implication that these majority “Black” players have some sort of deficit that becomes a justification for racial stratification as atypical quarterbacks (Covarrubias & Vélez, 2013).

Equity Orientation

A QuantCrit approach engages data through a social justice framework to highlight how race is made and racism is legitimated, and where and how equity can be achieved (Gillborn et al., 2018). As Hylton (2009) suggests in sports, acts like racial stacking through coded quarterback categories “tend to be as a result of the convergence of interests for both those in power and those who have been subjugated” (p. 345). It can be inferred that this new coded language offered a “color-blind” label aimed at masking the historical and structural constraints that have limited access for Blacks to leadership position in sports (Grano, 2010). This disassociation funnels Black quarterbacks in a process of “othering” them as “dual-threat” where they barely represent a simple majority (Said, 2003).

The quantitative findings showcase a fundamental relationship between recruiting websites and the discriminatory language drawn on by media, coaches, and others (Bell & Rosado, 2023) to demarcate quarterbacks by race beginning in high school that asserts how “pro-style” and “dual-threat” are inherently prescriptive for White and Black quarterbacks, respectively. The repeated and frequent use of these terms by websites like 247sports creates a formal system of authorization that validates their use through a seemingly (objective) colorblind institutional and journalistic logic. This study signals a need for “anti-oppressive praxis” (Gillborn et al., 2018, p. 174) in the media reporting, ranking, and categorization of the quarterback position.

Theoretical and Journalistic Implications

QuantCrit integrates quantitative methods and statistical analysis with the core principles of CRT, extending the critique of neutrality to the realm of quantitative data. It challenges assumptions that numbers are inherently objective and devoid of bias, emphasizing the need to interrogate underlying assumptions of race and power within quantitative research methods. By incorporating historical and social context, QuantCrit provides a framework to “work simultaneously with and against race” to illustrate “the sometimes murderous power of the fiction and seek to engage, resist, and ultimately destroy race/racism” (Gillborn et al., 2018, p. 174). A critical quantitative approach translates CRT concepts into forms that are more accessible statistical evidence of systemic inequalities that CRT traditionally identifies through qualitative means. In doing so, QuantCrit questions claims of objectivity often associated with quantitative research and uses these methods to highlight and address social injustices.

In statistical analysis, numbers are used for justification and labeling in an effort to measure success and failure, sometimes without consideration for the social strata in relation to race (Gillborn et al., 2018). In the context of football recruiting, justification comes through in quarterback rankings and the labeling of those quarterbacks in context through a position code that is racialized. However, as Zuberi (2001) identified, “[b]efore the data can be deracialized, we must deracialize the social circumstances that have created racial stratification” (p. 102). Thus, consideration for how data is coded and racialized must be considered as an important association when considering a critical quantitative approach.

Illuminating how power works through mediated practice is an important journalistic implication for this study whereby recruiting websites operate rhetorically through the utility of coded language to create sub-categories of difference that get solidified through public display and journalistic use (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Hiraldo, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1998). Simply put, the quarterback is defined as one position (relationally) on the football field. So, to divide that singular position using two distinct linguistic codes becomes a rhetorical act of division for demarcating an “alternative” style of quarterback play, whereby “dual-threat” descends from a stigmatized discourse imbued with racial implications (Grano, 2010; Hurwitz & Peffley, 2005). These perceived styles align with media studies of athletic success for White and Black athletes, whereby White success historically has been attributed to intellectual capacity and hard work, while Black success was depicted as athletic superiority and associated with physical gifts (Billings, 2004; Buffington, 2005; Hartmann, 2007).

The quantitative indicators identified in this study, such as those reflected in star value and rankings, are embedded with human biases, including racism (Gillborn et al., 2018). These biases become more insidious when numerical rankings and racial stratification are used to legitimize racist ideologies under the guise of objectivity. This process, in turn, reinforces the legitimacy of racializing practices that disproportionately harm marginalized communities. Our findings suggest that the labels “pro-style” and “dual-threat” are inherently prescriptive based on the race of quarterbacks that produce rhetorical privilege for White quarterbacks (Bell & Rosado, 2023). This discrepancy is largely attributable to the perpetuation of stereotypical media narratives, which often delineate leadership qualities and athleticism in quarterbacks based on race (Ferrucci & Tandoc, 2017, 2018; Markowitz, 2024).

It is worth noting that 247sports do not provide clarity to the “proprietary algorithm” used to create their “comprehensive and unbiased” composite player ratings (”247sports,” 2012). They do offer that it “compiles prospect ‘rankings’ and ‘ratings’ listed in the public domain by the major media recruiting services” (”247sports,” 2012) that are equally distributed in the equation. This suggests that quarterback codes are not defined strictly by measurable data (i.e., how often a player throws vs. runs, completion percentage), but rather draw on subjective media rankings to present a seemingly objective numeric ranking system. These prescribed labels fail to account for the simple fact that high school quarterbacks are doing what their coaches tell them to do. Thus, how much a quarterback runs versus throws is largely dependent on the standard set forth by the coaching staff, who tend to be disproportionally White. The guarded explanation of the algorithm without context lacks journalistic transparency or accountability toward this interplay between subjective media accounts of high school athletes to produce an “unbiased” public record. Rather than creating an online space that could allow for competing narratives to emerge toward these racializing processes (McDonald, 2010), these prescribed practices and repeated use work to reify and normalize these coded labels as positive rhetorical maneuvers in a post-race society that have real racial implications for the modes through which Black quarterbacks can exist in the mediated recruiting process (Leonardo, 2005).