2024 NFL Team Demographics

Freethinker

Freethinker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
7,936
Location
Suffolk County, NY
Now that we have the data*, here are the teams from best to worst in terms of giving White athletes the opportunity to make a living playing football. To rank them, I'm assigning 2 points for each starter and 1 point per reserve, as I feel a starter should be weighted more heavily than a seldom used backup. The league average came to 20 points for a benchmark number. The average in 2023 was 19 for reference:

The Cream of the Crop

Denver Broncos#, 23 (11): 34 [+4.5]
Los Angeles Rams#, 21.5 (9): 30.5 [+2.5]
Detroit Lions, 20 (9): 29 [+6]
Minnesota Vikings#, 20 (9): 29 [+4]
Cincinnati Bengals, 20 (8): 28 [+2]
Kansas City Chiefs, 21 (6): 27 [+6]
Las Vegas Raiders, 18 (8): 26 [+4]
Indianapolis Colts#, 19 (6): 25 [-1]
Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 19 (6): 25 [+3]
Los Angeles Chargers#, 17 (7): 24 [+6]

Run of the Mill Caste Squads

New Orleans Saints, 16 (7): 23 [+4]
San Francisco 49ers#, 16 (7): 23 [---]
Washington Redskins#, 16 (6): 22 [+2]
Atlanta Falcons, 14 (7): 21 [+1]
Buffalo Bills, 16 (5): 21 [-1.5]
Philadelphia Eagles#, 16 (5): 21 [+1.5]
New York Giants, 13 (6): 19 [+3]
Baltimore Ravens, 13 (5): 18 [+3]
Jacksonville Jaguars, 14 (4): 18 [-3]
Dallas Cowboys, 13 (4): 17 [---]
Arizona Cardinals, 11.5 (5): 16.5 [+2.5]
Pittsburgh Steelers, 13 (3): 16 [-1]
Tennessee Titans, 13 (3): 16 [-2]
Miami Dolphins, 12 (3): 15 [-1]

Worst of the Worst ("Ultra Black")

New York Jets, 11.5 (3): 14.5 [-2]
Carolina Panthers#, 10 (4): 14 [---]
Chicago Bears, 10 (2): 12 [-3]
Seattle Seahawks, 11 (1): 12 [-3]
Cleveland Browns, 7 (4): 11 [+1]
Green Bay Packers, 9 (2): 11 [-7]
New England Patriots, 9 (2): 11 [-6]
Houston Texans, 8 (2): 10 [-8]

*rosters and starters subject to change since their write-ups
[___] indicates their increase or decrease from last year
# indicates a team with a starting White RB, WR, S or CB due to rarity
 
Last edited:
My quick analysis. The league did trend a little Whiter, which I can tell from the league average benchmark going up from 19 to 20. So a few extra starters or overall players here and there. The other interesting trend, which we picked up on before having all this data is the divergence from the mean.

Starting with the good news, the teams that were already the Whitest almost all improved even further for the better. The Colts were the only team to buck that trend. Also, more teams moved into the Cream of the Crop, so San Fran dropped into the middle category without changing their totals from last year. The Broncos, Rams, Vikings and Lions have all moved steps closer to the glass ceiling of a 50% White roster or starter count.

Now the bad. More teams have moved into the Ultra Black basement. Cleveland was in uncharted (or rarely visited) territory with their pitiful numbers of Whites and starters. This year, 3 teams have joined or passed them; The Packers, Patriots and Texans. This is notable as these 3 teams used to be among the Whitest not too long ago. Pats many times in the Brady years, the Packers peaking with their Super Bowl win and the Texans in the Kubiak days. Sad times, unlike the other cellar dwellers like the Jets, Panthers, Bears, Seahawks and Browns who always field very dark teams over the course of Caste Football's existence.

So this seems to be mirroring the country, where the center cannot hold. We are seeing "radicalizing" in each direction. Speaking purely football, this will make for more Caste matchups this season. I wonder if the starker differences will become more noticeable to the average DWF?
 
Good work and lots of it, Freethinker, to organize and compile the write-ups. The slight uptick is certainly better than a downtick. My guess is that the college write-ups this year reflect even more of an uptick. Would be great if someone could compile it like you did with the NFL but it would take lots of time and I'm not volunteering to do it :)

So an uptick in the NFL and likely more of one in the college ranks, plus the early drafting of McConkey, Pearsall, DeJean and Bishop. A "staggering" four rookie White RBs also found their way onto NFL rosters, though Laube is going through a racial apprenticeship and Schrader may never get a shot, Steele may have blown his (let's remain optimistic this isn't the case), and Shipley should eventually start to get playing time and if Barkley is injured he could see starter's snaps.

Not sure I agree with you about the "center not holding." I don't think we're there yet, not even close. The NFL is still a wildly pro-Black enterprise, with the "Whitest" team still 55% Black. The whole league remains a "center" in that every franchise still adheres to the unwritten rules of the Caste System. The big change will come when/if White high school players are ever treated fairly by the scouting services, recruited fairly at all positions, and then drafted on a much more objective basis by the NFL than currently exists. And the regime's media will have to change as well. But I've seen a noticeable decrease in Caste-speak by announcers and analysts in recent years, though it still exists of course. And where comments are allowed after articles and videos, the "Caste Football Effect" has made its mark with far more people now aware of the Caste System and the ways the media enforce the false stereotypes.

And if the center doesn't hold in the U.S. as a whole, then the Caste System could crumble quickly under certain scenarios.
 
Don Wassall said:
Good work and lots of it, Freethinker, to organize and compile the write-ups. The slight uptick is certainly better than a downtick. My guess is that the college write-ups this year reflect even more of an uptick. Would be great if someone could compile it like you did with the NFL but it would take lots of time and I'm not volunteering to do it :)

So an uptick in the NFL and likely more of one in the college ranks, plus the early drafting of McConkey, Pearsall, DeJean and Bishop. A "staggering" four rookie White RBs also found their way onto NFL rosters, though Laube is going through a racial apprenticeship and Schrader may never get a shot, Steele may have blown his (let's remain optimistic this isn't the case), and Shipley should eventually start to get playing time and if Barkley is injured he could see starter's snaps.

Not sure I agree with you about the "center not holding." I don't think we're there yet, not even close. The NFL is still a wildly pro-Black enterprise, with the "Whitest" team still 55% Black. The whole league remains a "center" in that every franchise still adheres to the unwritten rules of the Caste System. The big change will come when/if White high school players are ever treated fairly by the scouting services, recruited fairly at all positions, and then drafted on a much more objective basis by the NFL than currently exists. And the regime's media will have to change as well. But I've seen a noticeable decrease in Caste-speak by announcers and analysts in recent years, though it still exists of course. And where comments are allowed after articles and videos, the "Caste Football Effect" has made its mark with far more people now aware of the Caste System and the ways the media enforce the false stereotypes.

And if the center doesn't hold in the U.S. as a whole, then the Caste System could crumble quickly under certain scenarios.
Click to expand...
Don. You are right. What I should have said is that teams are moving to either extreme within the parameters of the Caste System. 45% seems to be the extreme positive side of the spectrum. You are right that we’re “not there yet”. If a team were to really break the mold, and field a team that is say 75% White, then they would be immediately attacked by the enemy media and all their lapdogs. The shrieking of “White Supremacy” would be unrelentingly and the coach or GM responsible would be drummed out of the league. Meanwhile in our current reality, I am unaware of any writer or DWF blog that is critical of the racial composition of the Texans, Packers, Browns or Patriots. These teams being 85-87% Black (non-White) doesn’t seem odd or artificial to them.
 
An accurate college football roster breakdown would be a huge project. I do plan on doing a half year position overview of the top 10 guys statistically after this weeks college games just to give us something to reference. It seems to be much more fluid than NFL rosters, not to mention the 134 teams that need to be tracked. The write-ups are a very good effort by a dedicated group of volunteers to get the projections as best we can. The NFL draft is probably the best predictor we have in terms of what's going on in the NFL. As it stands White outlier syndrome rules the day and trickles down into college. We can only hope that guys like McCaffrey, Kupp etc. are breaking stereotypes in lower levels of football and a positive bump is noticed in a few years.

It is interesting that a team we nicknamed the blackos only a few years ago is now one of the best teams to root for though. It's odd how the league seems to shift around which team is allowed a large number of Whites - the Texans, Pats, Eagles were all at one time CF favorites only to trend black.

Thanks to everyone that contributed to the NFL write-ups and @Freethinker for organizing the project.
 
Dropping a kudos to you Freethinker. I used to do similar posts on an older lost account, but should really get into it again when i have time. Good to see others with the drive.
 
CeltMogger said:
Dropping a kudos to you Freethinker. I used to do similar posts on an older lost account, but should really get into it again when i have time. Good to see others with the drive.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Just curious, what name did you used to post under?
 
This is interesting and not too surprising but the “ultra black” teams have an awful combined record. 41 wins vs 63 loses. The Seahawks, Packers and Texans buoy the win total, but as I’ve shown in their team thread, the Texans are a paper tiger. The Seahawks and Packers are not really Super Bowl contenders either. In fact neither are not guaranteed a playoff spot and the loser of their Sunday night matchup will see the Rams breathing down their neck.
 
Freethinker said:
This is interesting and not too surprising but the “ultra black” teams have an awful combined record. 41 wins vs 63 loses. The Seahawks, Packers and Texans buoy the win total, but as I’ve shown in their team thread, the Texans are a paper tiger. The Seahawks and Packers are not really Super Bowl contenders either. In fact neither are not guaranteed a playoff spot and the loser of their Sunday night matchup will see the Rams breathing down their neck.
Click to expand...
And now we have more evidence of this correlation you pointed out.

7/10 Cream of the Crop teams in playoffs = 70%
5/14 Run of the Mill teams in playoffs = 35.7%
2/8 Worst of the Worst in playoffs = 25%

The blueprint for success for GMs and coaches is obvious; join the Cream of the Crop teams. If you actually want your team to succeed, that's all you need to do. It really is that simple.
 
Riggins44 said:
And now we have more evidence of this correlation you pointed out.

7/10 Cream of the Crop teams in playoffs = 70%
5/14 Run of the Mill teams in playoffs = 35.7%
2/8 Worst of the Worst in playoffs = 25%

The blueprint for success for GMs and coaches is obvious; join the Cream of the Crop teams. If you actually want your team to succeed, that's all you need to do. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
Thanks for tabulating that for us! Glad my early season number crunching is still coming in handy as a means to analyze White player percentage vs team success. When looking at the “Cream Teams” it’s pretty incredible that they make up 50% of all the playoff teams. Even out of the 3 that missed, the Bengals were playing for a spot final weekend and the Colts were close to .500 and likely would have been a winner without Richardson torpedoing their year. The only true stinker was the Raiders and that could be attributed to not having a true franchise QB and a “diverse” HC who’s in over his head. Very good results from our athletes.
 
I've plotted the "White scores" from OP against win totals:

output.png

I've also plotted scores against Vegas win total differential (games above or below expected Vegas win total), which correlates the Whiteness of a team to how much it's "overachieved":

output (1).png
Some rudimentary analysis, all of which should be taken with a grain of salt:

- For each 1 unit increase in "White score", the number of team wins increases by approximately 0.241
- The correlation is statistically significant in both comparisons (p < 0.05)
- Approximately 22% of variance in team wins can be explained by "White score" (r = 0.475). To contextualize this, rush yards allowed per game has a -0.45 r-value (r^2 = 20%) meaning that roster Whiteness score correlates more strongly to wins than a team's rush defense. Of course, metrics like turnover margin and red zone % still have the greatest impact.

The black teams are being buoyed by Green Bay, Houston, Pittsburgh and Seattle - none of which are considered great teams but all of which managed to rack up some wins. Thus, I'd argue the data is actually more forgiving than reality. In any case, this should paint a pretty clear picture to anyone who doubts our message.
 
jimmyjerapolo said:
I've plotted the "White scores" from OP against win totals:

View attachment 4686

I've also plotted scores against Vegas win total differential (games above or below expected Vegas win total), which correlates the Whiteness of a team to how much it's "overachieved":

View attachment 4687
Some rudimentary analysis, all of which should be taken with a grain of salt:

- For each 1 unit increase in "White score", the number of team wins increases by approximately 0.241
- The correlation is statistically significant in both comparisons (p < 0.05)
- Approximately 22% of variance in team wins can be explained by "White score" (r = 0.475). To contextualize this, rush yards allowed per game has a -0.45 r-value (r^2 = 20%) meaning that roster Whiteness score correlates more strongly to wins than a team's rush defense. Of course, metrics like turnover margin and red zone % still have the greatest impact.

The black teams are being buoyed by Green Bay, Houston, Pittsburgh and Seattle - none of which are considered great teams but all of which managed to rack up some wins. Thus, I'd argue the data is actually more forgiving than reality. In any case, this should paint a pretty clear picture to anyone who doubts our
Click to expand...
Great stuff man! As a midwit I had to read the post 3 to 4 times to fully comprehend it.
 
Haha, glad that image conveyed the point. Meme generators are easy and fun to use. Maybe I’ll make more to get the message out.
 
jimmyjerapolo said:
I've plotted the "White scores" from OP against win totals:

View attachment 4686

I've also plotted scores against Vegas win total differential (games above or below expected Vegas win total), which correlates the Whiteness of a team to how much it's "overachieved":

View attachment 4687
Some rudimentary analysis, all of which should be taken with a grain of salt:

- For each 1 unit increase in "White score", the number of team wins increases by approximately 0.241
- The correlation is statistically significant in both comparisons (p < 0.05)
- Approximately 22% of variance in team wins can be explained by "White score" (r = 0.475). To contextualize this, rush yards allowed per game has a -0.45 r-value (r^2 = 20%) meaning that roster Whiteness score correlates more strongly to wins than a team's rush defense. Of course, metrics like turnover margin and red zone % still have the greatest impact.

The black teams are being buoyed by Green Bay, Houston, Pittsburgh and Seattle - none of which are considered great teams but all of which managed to rack up some wins. Thus, I'd argue the data is actually more forgiving than reality. In any case, this should paint a pretty clear picture to anyone who doubts our message.
Click to expand...
Good stuff. Brainiac in the room...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
American Freedom News
Back
Top