By Jon Moffett

jmoffett@vindy.com

YOUNGSTOWN

It’s not uncommon for high school athletes to toss the pigskin around in their downtime.

But a proposal by the Ohio High School Athletic Association may take those sessions from the playground and put them on the school’s field officially.

The OHSAA may vote today on a proposal to add a two-week timetable for spring football practice sessions. The proposal would give teams 10 hours of field time during the last two weeks of May — which breaks down to two weeks of one-hour practices, or one week of two-hour sessions. Teams would be permitted to participate in individual position drills with coaches, but could not have full-team scrimmages or drills.

The reviews for the proposal have been mixed, as coaches have several factors to consider. Ohio was one of the top five states in producing Division I talent to the NCAA, along with California, Florida, Georgia and Texas. Only Ohio doesn’t have any type of spring sessions.

Those for it, like South Range coach Dan Yeagley, think it’s always a positive to work more with the players.

“I’m excited about it. I think it’s a good deal for everybody all around,” he said. “For us at a small school, our offseason is mainly lifting and trying to get strength and size knowing that in conditioning we’re going to lose a little bit. And we’re getting to the time of year where the kids are getting a little bored and ready for football to start.”

He added that a few more hours of position-specific drills would help develop players who made not get that type of individual attention.

Canfield’s Mike Pavlansky agreed.

“We as coaches are always looking at ways to enhance our players and kind of push them along,” he said. “I think the kids would really benefit from this.”

Not all coaches are for the proposal, though.

Mark Brungard, who coaches at Poland, said why fix what isn’t broken?

“My first reaction is my consistent feeling on it, which is that I am against it completely,” he said. “I don’t think we need more time. In fact, I think we need less. Kids still need time to be kids.”

The major sticking point for those in favor is the chance for athletes who don’t participate in a spring sport to develop in the offseason. Those opposed are concerned about players who do have another sport.

One of the stipulations in the proposal is a student who participates in a spring sport must complete that sport’s season in order to engage in the voluntary spring football sessions, which coaches think is a plus. The negative is those last weeks in May are prime time for district and regional meets or games.

Still, Yeagley thinks the plan can, and will, work.

“Our baseball team is very good. And some of our kids need to stay focused on baseball,” he said. “That’s the season they’ll be in then. So having that come up might be a distraction to them, which really isn’t fair to them or their other sports.”

If Yeagley is an example of a glass-half-full guy, Brungard is more of a this-glass-is-dirty guy.

“In an ideal world, these things aren’t mandatory and the [football] coach isn’t going to make that kid who is still in a regional track meet or baseball game participate or punish him for not showing up,” he said. “But we also all know that if a coach has this opportunity he’s going to take it.”

The belief is Yeagley’s South Range team, and other smaller schools would be hurt more since the talent is more spread out. But the veteran coach said it’s just a reality those schools have to accept.

“Obviously if you go to Boardman, for example, they’re going to have more kids on the football field than we do,” he said. “But they’re going to have more kids on the field than us anyway. I think this is really designed for those kids who don’t have anything to do in the spring to get out and get better.”

Pavlansky said he isn’t sure which way the voting will go. But he said whatever the outcome is, he won’t be surprised.

“I can’t get a good read out of Columbus,” he said. “But I would say not as many coaches are for it as those who are against it.”