Posts

The Changing Landscape of Massillon Football – Part 5:…

The Changing Landscape of Massillon Football – Part 5: Roster Size

Keith Jarvis, Gary Vogt, Bill Porrini and Coach Dan Studer contributed to this story.

This is the fifth of a 7-part series, which includes the following installments:

• Part 1: Offensive Formations
• Part 2: Defensive Formations
• Part 3: Passing Frequency
• Part 4: Scheduling
• Part 5: Roster Size
• Part 6: Stadiums
• Part 7: Game Attendance

Introduction

Part 5 of the series presents the evolution of Massillon’s football team roster size plus the overall school enrollment over the past 130+ years.  Then, it uses the two sets of data to calculate the changes in player participation rate.  Of particular interest is relationships among just the senior classes.

Varsity Roster Count

The first Massillon football team was fielded in 1891.  Based on a photo from that year, it appears that the squad was very minimal, consisting of only twelve players.  Since that time roster sizes have grown slowly, but to a much greater number, presently around eighty.  But there were a few modifications that occurred along the way that impacted the number in both directions.  Chief among those were the years during which sophomores did or did not dress on Friday night.

In the years following that 1891 team, roster sizes remained in the teens up until 1916, when Coach John Snavely enjoyed the benefit of twenty players.  He also finished 10-0 that year and captured the Tigers’ second ever state title.  From thereafter, roster sizes grew meagerly until Chuck Mather became the head coach.  Suddenly, football was a big deal in Massillon, as reflected by the number of players.  In 1948, his first year at the helm, the roster size was 65, a 30-player increase from the previous year.   In fact, his six teams varied little from that number.  Of course, Mather compiled a record of 57-3 and captured the state title each year.

During the four years after Mather left, the total number of varsity players remained at the larger value.  But then came Leo Strang in 1958.  He removed the sophomores from Friday night games and the average number dipped to 43.  However, his senior classes did grow on average, from 20 to 26.

The next big jump came at the time of Coach Mike Currence, who came to Massillon in 1976.  With his wide-open run-and-shoot offense, he told the boys in the school that football was going to be fun again and there was now a place for a player who had a smaller frame.  So, the boys responded, increasing the sizes of the rosters to as high as 92 players, with just juniors and seniors on varsity.  In fact, his 1979 team, which finished unbeaten during the regular season, fielded the largest-ever senior class: 47 players on an 88-man roster.  Currence also used a 2-platoon starting lineup in order to promote specialization within positions and thereby enhance performance.  This necessarily required a larger roster.  The coach stayed in Massillon for nine years and was very successful, producing an overall record of 79-16-2 and participating in two Division 1 state playoff finals.

1979 Varsity Football Team

In 1999 Coach Rick Shepas was hired as coach.  Experiencing a decline in school enrollment, Shepas reinstated the sophomores to the varsity squads.  But he also discouraged marginal players from participating, believing them to be distractions.  Nevertheless, his roster counts averaged around 75.

At present, with current head coach Nate Moore at the helm, sophomores have remained on the varsity roster and team sizes are in the 80s.  Like Currence, he also promote a 2-platoon starting lineup.  And that concept even stretches into special teams.  Moore, given the success he has brought to the Tiger program, has also been the beneficiary of several high-caliber players who have relocated to Massillon in order to enhance their skills with top-quality coaches and prepare for football at the next level.

The chart below shows the progression of the roster count over time by decade.  The blue bars represent all of the varsity players (total), whereas the orange bars represent only the seniors.  As expected, the “total” data displays a steady progression from the early days to the present.  But a different story is apparent with the seniors.  Their count increased through the 1980s, but then steadily declined by about a third into the 2000s.  This was certainly a reflection of the declining enrollment Massillon experienced, starting in the 1970s.  Fortunately, the number of seniors has remained relatively constant over the past thirty years.  Keep in mind when viewing the chart that sophomores were removed in 1958 (note the decline in the 1960s) and then reinstated in 1998.

School Enrollment

The second presentation of this story involves school enrollment, specifically the changing number of boys in grades 10 through 12.  It also includes the values for just the seniors.  The data gathered for this segment is shown in the chart below and is averaged by decade.  The chart shows that the total enrollment (blue bars) peaked in the 1960s and then rapidly declined by 29% until the 1990s, after which it steadied out.  The school’s senior enrollment (orange bars) also saw a related drop, but of a much higher amount, of 45%.

It was also after the enrollment drop that the Massillon sports administration began to shy away from scheduling the larger parochial schools.  Concurrently, in 2013, following restructuring of the OHSAA playoff divisions, and on account of the decreased enrollment, the Tigers were reassigned from Division 1 to Division 2.

The decreased enrollment, coupled with having fewer senior players on the roster, has certainly had had an effect on Massillon’s winning percentage.  During the 1950s and 1960s, prior to the enrollment drop, the winning percentage was .866.  Subsequent to that time and up until the present, the winning percentage has fallen to .732.  Fortunately, it has been a very fine .895 during the last six years of Moore’s tenure, even with the large parochial schools now returning to the schedule.

Percent of Students Playing Football

Across the country the number of high school boys playing football has declined, by as much as 3% per year, according to several national publications.  The most mentioned reason for this is the potential for concussion due to the physical nature of the sport.  In addition, during these days of instant gratification among teenagers, if a starting position on the team isn’t available, then the interest in participating is lacking.  Conversely, the media also notes that lower-income students are more prone to participate, in spite of the safety concerns.

In Massillon the participation rate among all boys in the top three grades has constantly increased over time until the 2000s, when it steadied itself at around 18%.  The senior class rate is also around 18% at this time, but it did see a surge up to 25% in the 1980s before settling back.

For many years Massillon students embraced the privilege of wearing the orange and black, in spite of whether or not they possessed athletic talent.  However, today that seems to have changed, as

the vast majority of seniors on the team tend to contribute when the game is on the line.  So, some of what the media proclaims may be also be true for Massillon, but the Tigers have still managed to maintain a high level of participation.  For comparison, the rates for several local schools are much lower, as shown below in the Federal League:

• Lake – 20%
• North Canton – 14%
• Green – 12%
• Jackson – 11%
• Perry – 11%
• Canton GlenOak – 9%
• Canton McKinley – 6%

Physical Stature of Players

Finally, a mention should be made of the changes in the physical sizes of the players.  Fifty years ago, a high school offensive line would average around 185-200 lbs.  But today, with the pass blocking demands of the spread offense, the average has ballooned to around 250 lbs. or more.  Would this have discouraged the smaller student from participating?  Perhaps.  But the Tigers have a top-of-the-line strength and conditioning program coupled with enhanced nutrition guidance that allows players to gain the needed strength and weight that is now necessary to get onto the field.

But it goes even beyond that.  Here is how Massillon Strength and Conditioning Coach Dan Studer describes his program:

“Nutrient supplementation is relatively new and has seen some pretty significant advances over the past 30 years.  Athletes can supplement a large variety of macronutrients, vitamins, and minerals that are necessary for building muscle and enhance recovery from training.  In addition to that, sports science advances have taught us how much and when to take supplementation before, during, and after workouts to stimulate specific adaptations to training.  It’s easier for us to pack on size and muscle.

“Training looks completely different than it did 10 years ago, let alone 20, 30, or 40 years ago.  Strength training is still relatively new to all of athletics when we look at the big picture.  In the early 90s strength coaches were mostly non-existent at the high school level and even at most colleges.  When I played division 2 college from 2000-2005 our strength coach was just a D-line coach who had played some professional football; he knew very little about strength training at all.  They didn’t even have a paid position for a strength coach.  If you were lucky enough to have a strength coach who ran a program, they were very basic and not based on sound principles or practices.  Today almost every high school has some form of a weight room and top tier programs have dedicated strength and conditioning specialists with a Master’s Degrees and national certification.

“How we train has come a long way as well.  Most of the exercises we do today were not even invented 20 years ago.  We have a much better understanding of how to develop muscle by manipulating the reps, weight, and rest in every workout that we do.  With technological advances in just the last 4 or 5 years we can now easily customize workouts to fit the needs of individual athletes to optimize training for size, strength, power, and speed.  We have a really good idea about what to do, when to do it, how hard to do it, and also when to do nothing at all. We monitor volume, intensity, rest, and effort to optimize training and enhance recovery to build the best athletes possible.”

The Massillon physical training program has certainly helped maintain a healthy participation rate of 18% over the past thirty years.

Conclusion

Massillon enjoyed a high level of football performance for a number of years, which was supported by a sound level of participation as reflected by the sizes of the rosters, only to see it suffer when the school’s enrollment began to decrease.  Fortunately, the program has steadied itself over the past thirty years in terms of school enrollment and roster size, unlike what other schools around the area and the nation are experiencing.  Plus, to the delight of the avid Tiger fan base, the previous performance level has begun to return.  And the strength and conditioning program is certainly a large part of that.

The Changing Landscape of Massillon Football – Part 4:…

The Changing Landscape of Massillon Football – Part 4: Scheduling

 This is the fourth of a 7-part series, which includes the following installments:

• Part 1: Offensive Formations
• Part 2: Defensive Formations
• Part 3: Passing Frequency
• Part 4: Scheduling
• Part 5: Roster Size
• Part 6: Stadiums
• Part 7: Game Attendance

Nothing grabs the attention of Tiger fans in the off-season more than the schedule of games for the campaign to come.  In fact, for the massillontigers.com website, the “Future Schedule” page receives more traffic than any other during that time.  And why not?  As an independent school, devoid of any league association, the year-to-year slate constantly changes and lately has encompassed a plethora of out-of-state teams, for a variety of reasons.

Part 4 of this series explores the evolution of the Massillon schedules, focusing particularly on strength-of-schedule aspect from the time of Paul Brown to the present.  It also studies the relationship between the the trend of strength-of-schedule and the trend of winning percentage.

Massillon’s schedules have changed drastically over the years due to a number of factors.  When Paul Brown was the head coach, in the 1930s, travel from city to city was difficult due to the limitations of the vehicles at that time and the lack of an interstate highway system.  So, teams tended to play primarily opponents that were within close proximity.  That changed in the 1950s with better roads and buses.

The sportswriters poll also had an impact, especially since the Tigers were the team to beat in order to win a state title.  There were many instances when good teams from the around the state provided the challenge.  An example was Toledo Waite in 1940.  They finished 9-1 that year, but lost to Paul Brown’s Tigers, 28-0.  Another was Cleveland Cathedral Latin, which played several games.  And let’s not forget Niles McKinley and the 1964 game at the Akron Rubber Bowl, which the Tigers won 14-8.

For a short while, the All-American Conference provided a solid group of teams that would fill half the schedule on an annual basis.  Then, there was the playoff system.  No longer was it necessary to schedule the best teams to win a title.  Conversely, it was now prudent to avoid them in order to improve the odds of qualifying for post-season play.  Titles would be left for the tournament.  Presently, Massillon has become one of the best teams in the country and potential opponents are avoiding them like the plague.  Such is the evolution of the schedule.  In essence, the Tigers have now become victims of their own success.

Strength-of-Schedule

This author has developed a rudimentary calculation that rates a season’s schedule.  Although on an individual opponent basis it lacks the complexity of an algorithm-based method, collectively over an entire season it provides a fairly good rating.

Here’s how it works.  Each opponent receives a numerical rating based on its performance over the season, as follows:

• 3 points for a large parochial school, like Lakewood St. Edward or Cincinnati Moeller
• 2 points for a public school that won at least seven games or participated in the playoffs in the regional quarterfinals or better
• 2 points for a medium-sized parochial school
• 1 point for a public school that won less than seven games
• 0 points for a public school that couldn’t get out of its own way

The points are then added together (adjusted if there were less than ten games) to give a season rating.  For example, if Massillon played ten public school teams and they all won at least seven games, then the schedule would be rated at 20.

The Early Years

Massillon’s first few football seasons were against a hodge-podge of opponents, since there were few schools around at that time also playing the sport.  For example, the locals played three games in 1891 during their first year of competition, two against the Massillon Ex-Highs and one against Beta Theta Pi Fraternity of Wooster College.  Shortly after, teams such as Pumpkin Hill, Massillon Alumni, Massillon Actual Business College, Claytown and Smoky Hollow began to appear.  But it was not until 1903 that the first recognizable football schedule was assembled, one that contained eight games.  From thereafter, several common opponents were scheduled, many of which have appeared even in recent years.

From those initial seasons up until the time of Paul Brown the Tigers compiled a record of 160-102-18 (.608), playing the likes of Canton McKinley, Warren Harding, Alliance, Barberton, Wooster and New Philadelphia.  It was also when many long-time rivalries developed.  Below is a short list of total games played against these teams all-time:

• Canton McKinley – 134
• Warren Harding – 88
• Alliance – 75
• Mansfield – 54
• Steubenville – 49
• Barberton – 46

Paul Brown and prior to the All-American Conference

Paul Brown became the head coach in 1932 and since that time the Tigers have compiled a record of 788-197-18 (804).  But it would surprise many to learn that Brown’s schedules were initially some of Massillon’s worst ever.  His ratings for the first five years averaged just 9.2, including three seasons of 6, 7 and 7.  Within those schedules was a steady diet of teams such as Wooster, Akron East, Akron South, New Philadelphia and Dover.  But once Brown started winning state titles, the schedules did improve a bit with the inclusion of a few of the better teams from around the state.  In his final four years, Brown’s schedules were rated at 14, 14, 12 and 15.

Following Brown, a rating of around 13 seemed to become the norm.  And that continued through the era of the sportswriters’ polls, from 1946 to 1971.

The All-American Conference

One would expect that the schedule would become more difficult during the time of the All-American Conference (1963 to 1979).  The conference had the likes of Canton McKinley, Warren Harding, Niles McKinley, Steubenville and Alliance.  But the schedule rating remained the same, at around 13.  That’s because the members believed that if they went undefeated in the league, there was a great chance of winning the state title and they didn’t want to jeopardize that by playing difficult non-conference teams.

Post-All-American Conference and Into the Playoff Years

After the conference broke up and following the introduction of the playoff system, the advantage of winning the conference was gone.  Now, it was necessary to schedule enough good teams to qualify for the playoffs, since the Harbin computer numbers were now in play, and the system required a sufficient number of opponent wins in order for a team to qualify for post-season play.  And that was exasperated further by the limitation imposed by the OHSAA on the number of qualifying teams, a number that was initially much lower than today.  And, as a school never knew in advance what kind of season an opponent would have, it was necessary to schedule as many good teams as was feasible, but not those where they would be a decided underdog.  For Massillon then, the average schedule rating improved from 13 to 14.

Parochial Schools on the Slate

It didn’t take long for the large parochial schools to begin dominating the playoffs, starting with Cincinnati Moeller in 1975 and then Cleveland St. Ignatius in 1988.  Today, it is Lakewood St. Edward.  Two events occurred around that time.  First, it became more difficult for the Tigers to schedule other public schools, aside from them having locked-in conference games, because those schools did not want to risk a loss and thereby jeopardize their opportunities to qualify for the playoffs.  And second, Massillon was led by this constraint to play the large parochial schools, who were more than willing participants, as they had their own scheduling difficulties.  So, in 1989 the large parochial schools began to appear on the schedule on a regular basis, beginning with Moeller.  The Tigers did take their lumps, but they were also able to learn what needed to improve in order to be competitive in these games.  With those schools now on the schedule, the average rating climbed to 15.6.

From 1989 to present, Massillon’s records against these schools in both the regular season and the playoffs are as follows:

• Cleveland St. Ignatius: 2-8 / 0-3
• Cincinnati Moeller: 2-9 / 0-0
• Lakewood St. Edward: 4-4 / 1-0
• Cincinnati Elder: 1-0 / 0-0
• Cincinnati St. Xavier: 0-0 / 0-1
• TOTAL: 8-21 / 1-4

Nate Moore and the Present

During Moore’s first five years, the schedule averaged 15.0.  But as the Tigers began their climb to national prominence, so did the rating, as scheduling Ohio public schools became that much more difficult and more and more out-of-state opponents began to appear.  Over the last four years the rating has averaged 20.0.  And the schedule for 2024 is looking like it may be even higher, from 22 to 23.

Calpreps.com, a national algorithm ranking system, lists the top programs in the state of Ohio for both the last twenty years and the last five and confirms Massillon’s now prominent position.    For the last twenty years, Massillon is ranked 12^th in the state.  But over the last five, it is ranked 3^rd, as shown below, accompanied by the teams’ win-loss records:

1. Lakewood St. Edward (39-5)
2. Akron Hoban (50-8)
3. Massillon (49-7)
4. Springfield (44-12)
5. Lakota West 43-7)
6. Cincinnati St. Xavier (32-17)
7. Toledo Central Catholic 48-5)
8. Chardon (50-6)
9. Cincinnati Moeller (37-17)
10. Avon (37-17) (48-7)

In addition, the Tigers last year were ranked in the Top 25 nationally by Calpreps.com.

Obviously, the higher rankings within an algorithm-based system are influenced heavily by a strength-of-schedule component (something that is lacking within the Harbin system).

Winning Percentage vs. Strength-of-Schedule

There has been an obvious impact on Massillon’s winning percentage over time as the strength-of-schedule has steadily climbed, from Paul Brown’s overall average rating of 11.2 to Nate Moore’s average of 17.2.  The chart below overlays these two parameters.  Yes, the Tigers don’t win nine or ten games every year anymore, but it’s certain that the increased difficulty of the schedule has something to do with this.  Nevertheless, Massillon still retains one of the best programs in the state, if not the country.

Interestingly, although the winning percentage has declined for some eighty years, it has seen an uptick in the last few years, in spite of the enormous schedule rating.  That is a tribute to Nate Moore and his assistant coaches, who collectively with the players have returned the Tigers to a national level of performance.  It’s no wonder that the other public schools in Ohio are running away and scheduling opponents in Massillon has become that much more difficult.

The Changing Landscape of Massillon Football – Part 3:…

The Changing Landscape of Massillon Football – Part 3: Passing Frequency

 This is the third of a 7-part series, which includes the following installments:

• Part 1: Offensive Formations
• Part 2: Defensive Formations
• Part 3: Passing Frequency
• Part 4: Scheduling
• Part 5: Roster Size
• Part 6: Stadiums
• Part 7: Game Attendance

All offensive football formations over the past 120 years have contained within them an element of the passing game.  But it’s no secret that teams today throw the ball more than those of earlier years.  And they are more effective now when they do.  Perhaps it’s the evolution of the game.  Or it may be the preferences of specific coaches.  Or it might simply be the need to score more points in this era of higher scoring games.  Regardless, the pass has had more impact on revolutionizing the game of football than anything else in its long history.

Football began in the late 1800s as a run-only sport.  But that all changed in 1906 when the forward pass was legalized in an attempt to make the game safer.  Little did the rules-makers know at the time how much the sport would change, particularly when the spread offense was introduced.  Part 3 of this series explores the evolution of the passing game from the Massillon perspective in terms of the frequency of passing the ball; or in football vernacular, the run/pass ratio.

As described in “Part 1 – Offensive Formations,” coaches initially shied away from the run, first on account of the debilitating penalties associated with incompletions and then believing the pass not to be a “manly” activity in such a physical sport.  But it eventually found itself with the Single-Wing offense, which placed a back at the edge of the line to serve as one of the targeted receivers, along with the end.  The Wing-T and the Power-I also used this concept.

Although the forward pass was now becoming an integral part of the game, it was still used at Massillon only 18% of the time through 1975.  Many passes were of the long-distance variety.  For example, the team season record for yards per completion is owned by the 1959 team, at 24.5, followed closely by the 1970 team (22.8) and the 1949 team (22.7).  Only one spread offense team is listed in the Top-10 of the record book: the 2016 team at 19.3, which featured deep receiver Austin Jasinski.

In 1976 Head Coach Mike Currence brought his version of the “Run-and-Shoot” offense to town and suddenly the pass was being used on average 28% of time, a 10% jump in frequency.  And this rate continued up until the time of the spread offense, in spite of a variety of different formations employed by different coaches, including the Power-I and the Run-and-Boot.

But the spread finally took hold in 1998 under Coach Rick Shepas and continued under Tom Stacey, Jason Hall and Nate Moore.  The percentage of plays that utilized the forward pass jumped once again, this time to 37%.  Another step up, of 9%

And the opponents followed the same trend: 23% through 1975, 29% through 1997 and 34% to the present.

At the same time, the efficiency in the passing game improved immensely.  For Massillon, it went from a completion rate of 38% through 1975, to 49% from 1976 to 1997, and to 56% with the spread offense.  For the opponents, it also got better, from 36% to 42% to 47%.  Interestingly, the yards per completion for both the Tigers (14.2) and the opponents (13.0) has not varied much over time, except during Massillon’s early years (prior to 1976) when they focused mostly on deep throws, averaging 18.9 yards per reception.  The charts below summarizes this.

But how effective was the passing game as it evolved?  Did it result in more yards?  Or more points?  For Massillon, there was little difference in total yards when passing made the first jump.  In essence, the Tigers, who were maximizing the potential of the running game, just traded rushing yards for passing yards.  However, an improvement was definitely shown when the spread offense came into effect.  The average total yards jumped from 298 to 350.  The opponents, however, did show some improvement in yards when the pass game made the first jump (168 to 200) and another improvement with the second jump (200 to 264).  It be explained that the opponents struggled with running ball against the stout Massillon defenses, but then found benefit with the pass.  Similar results were also found with “yards per play.”  The charts below illustrates this data.

Just as in yards, Massillon did not improve in the scoring column with the first jump, but did with the second jump (26 to 32), demonstrating the effectiveness of the spread offense as opposed to its predecessors.  In contrast, the opponents saw a modest improvement in scoring with the first jump (8 to 11), but greater improvement with the spread offense (11 to 19).  The chart below illustrates this data.

But there is yet another factor that has influence on this data, particularly the opponent’s: Massillon’s ever-improving strength of schedule.  That will be covered in Part 4 of this series.

The Changing Landscape of Massillon Football – Part 2:…

The Changing Landscape of Massillon Football – Part 2: Defensive Formations

 This is the second of a 7-part series, which includes the following installments:

• Part 1: Offensive Formations
• Part 2: Defensive Formations
• Part 3: Passing Frequency
• Part 4: Scheduling
• Part 5: Roster Size
• Part 6: Stadiums
• Part 7: Game Attendance

Just as offensive formations have evolved throughout the years, so have defensive formations.  Call it a case of the ever-improving designs of guns and armor, as these two concepts have literally chased each other forever.  And they’ve chased each other in football as well.  In the years prior to the spread offense, Massillon’s defenses held opponents to an average of seven points per game.  However, during the 25+ years of spread offense, the defensive output has risen to 18 points per game.  Such is the impact of the spread.  We live in a different world today!

Part 2 of this series presents the defensive formations used by various Massillon coaches from Paul Brown to the present time, with additional discussion of Nate Moore’s Fusion Defense.

Defending the Single-Wing

Once the sport got mass formations out of its system through a series of rule changes (settling on a 7-man line, introducing the passing game, etc.), it was time to get down to serious business of playing football.  What came out of this was the Single-Wing offense, which was designed to trick the defense, rather than overpower it.  Although the pass had been permitted as part of the game for over twenty years by the time Paul Brown arrived in Massillon, it was little-used, as it was effective only around 40% of the time.  Therefore, defenses at that time were focused primarily on stopping the run, while giving modest respect to the pass.  Anywhere from six to eight defenders were positioned on the line, with the remaining players behind.  The chart below shows how Brown defended Canton McKinley’s single-wing offense in 1940, using a 6-man front, 3 linebackers and 2 safeties.  Note the overload of defenders on the side of the ball opposite the wingback.  In the Bulldogs’ single-wing offense, a pass play would involve the wingback as a receiver and normally flow to that side of the ball.  However, most running plays flowed to the opposite side, with the wingback often in motion prior to the play.  It was all about the numbers for Brown and the ability to match or outnumber the offense at the point of attack.  So in essence, Brown geared his defense to stop the run first, particularly around the end.

Thirteen years later, with Chuck Mather as the head coach, Massillon also employed a 6-man line.  But as a change from Brown, he placed his linemen evenly across the line, since opponents were beginning to run more up the middle.  He also backed up the line with four linebackers and a single safety.  Below is his formation against McKinley in 1953.

Defending the Wing-T, the Full House-T, the Power-I and any other run-oriented offense

Eventually, the Single-Wing was replaced by the Wing-T.  Coach Lee Tressel defended the Wing-T with a run-stopping 6-man front.  He called it “62 Games.”  But it was a hybrid of the 5-man to front to come in that a pre-selected lineman would drop back on each play, providing some confusion to the offense, while also providing some additional pass support.  The formation Tressel used against Canton McKinley in the 1957 game is shown below.

As passing performances finally began to improve, it was Leo Strang in 1958 that changed from a 6-man to a 5-man defensive front.  And that 5-man configuration was maintained within the Massillon program for the next 40+ years, until the time of the spread offense.  It was derived from the “5-2 Oklahoma,” which was developed by Coach Bud Wilkinson in 1949, and featured a linebacker over each guard.  By positioning the linebackers as such (as opposed to the earlier 5-2 Eagle, which positioned the linebackers over the tackles and ends), the formation allowed them to key on the movements of the guards, thereby providing better support over the middle.  Completing the formation were four defensive backs, one of which often referred to as the “monster back.”  He normally provided an additional defender on the wide side of the field.  Below is a typical formation used by Massillon.

Defending the Spread Offense

The spread offense was revolutionary and changed everything in regard to defensive formations.  While Tiger Coach Rick Shepas brought the offense to Massillon in 1998, it was Cleveland St. Ignatius that in earlier years put it on display on the opposite side of the ball, forcing the Tigers to figure out how to defend it.  Suddenly, the 5-man defensive front became obsolete.  The Wildcats would often place three wide receivers to one side of the ball.  The furthest one would be covered by the cornerback.  And the next receiver in would be covered by the monster back.  But the inner-most one would demand coverage by the defensive end, who was forced to abandon his assigned position on the line.  Unfortunately, this resulted in a mismatch in that a defensive end was just not equipped athletically to cover a much faster receiver.  Eventually, the Tigers changed to a 4-man front (even front), with an outside linebacker added to the mix.  And then a 3-man (odd front) with a second outside linebacker was utilized as defenses were now challenged to defend the entire field.  The monster back position was also abandoned in favor of two safeties.  The chart below shows a typical defensive alignment against the spread offense.

Massillon, currently integrates both even-front (4-2) and odd-front (3-4) alignments into a scheme Coach Moore refers to as the Fusion Defense.  He believes this modern concept is capable of adapting to any kind of offense his team might face throughout the season.  However, there is still a degree of game-planning involved, depending on the run/pass ratio the opponent tends to employ.  A team that runs the ball a lot may see more 4-2, while a team that passes more may see a heavy dose of 3-4.

Everything that the Tigers do on defense is geared firstly toward toward stopping the run.  The goal is to assure that every gap is accounted for, with a concept of plugging the gap and either tackling the runner or spilling him to the outside.  It starts with the inside linebackers, whose responsibilities it is to properly read the initial movements of the guards and respond accordingly.  How they respond is the unique feature of the Fusion Defense.

Linemen are positioned to play defenders straight up or shade to either side, depending on the call.  Meanwhile, the secondary and outside linebackers are tasked with properly aligning to any receiver formation.  Pass defenders, just like inside linebackers, must read keys.  For example, in defending a formation that has two receivers on one side of the ball, the cornerback aligns over the outside receiver and the safety aligns over the inside receiver.  Both key on the inside receiver.  If the inside receiver cuts his route inside of six yards, then either the cornerback or the inside linebacker picks him up (depending on the route) and the safety picks up the outside receiver.  If he goes beyond six yards, then the cornerback and safety stay with the receivers over which they initially aligned.

Defense of the spread offense went through a painful learning curve in its earlier years and needed to evolve in its own right.  With fewer defenders in the box now as compared to previous years owing to the increased challenges of covering multiple receivers, the edges of the formation suddenly became vulnerable to the run.  Again, it’s all about the numbers.  So, a change in player responsibilities was required.  In this case, at least for Massillon, the two safeties are now incorporated into run defense to a greater extent, particularly at the edges of the formation.  But the change also creates some risk against the pass as defenders may often be left on their own to cover deep receivers.  There is no perfect defense; only those that manage risk effectively.  Nevertheless, this modification coupled with incorporation of the Fusion Defense has had a remarkable impact on the Tigers’ ability over the past five years to control the run, as shown in the graph below.  While for many years Massillon surrendered around four to five yards per run against the spread offense, they over the past years have surrendered just two to three yards per run.  (For additional background on Massillon’s Fusion Defense readers are referred to several YouTube videos that Coach Nate Moore has posted.  These videos are highly recommended to Tiger football fans.  Search on Nate Moore Fusion Defense.)

Although the spread offense will continue to evolve, it is difficult to image a new offense replacing it anytime soon, given its greatly enhanced point production.  But, perhaps there is a new football world to come.