COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. _ Federal auditors are demanding controversial changes in the Air Force Academy's athletic program after a sweeping review of the institution's sports-related spending.
The demands _ some of which are being hotly contested by academy athletic officials _ come after a seven-month Department of Defense audit raised numerous questions about the way academy athletic officials spent hundreds of thousands of dollars during the past three years.
At the heart of the issue: When it comes to college sports, should a unique institution like the Air Force Academy follow the spending policies of the military or the civilian schools it competes against?
Most of the disclosures in the audit are linked to the Air Force Academy's Athletic Association, a privately funded organization that supports the Falcons by generating about $6.5 million annually.
After the audit criticized the athletic association for several practices
_ such as buying goods and services without comparing prices or paying unjustified overtime _ academy athletic officials agreed to make several changes.
But academy officials are fighting auditors on other issues, saying their demands would make it too hard for them to compete with regular colleges. Among the disputed demands:
Stop the practice of coaches reaping personal gain when they endorse commercial sports products.
Auditors criticized a deal between football coach Fisher DeBerry and Reebok that promised DeBerry personal rewards if the academy purchased Reebok shoes.
Later, on DeBerry's recommendation, the academy bought 630 pairs of Reeboks for more than
$28,000 without seeking competing bids.
Academy athletic officials say such endorsement deals are common with coaches throughout the country and are among the incentives that attract them.
They also note that academy coaches' contracts have been rewritten to make it clear that they don't have the authority to decide which products the academy buys for its athletes. They say the academy will seek the best deal regardless of which product the coach is endorsing.
Stop housing football players in local hotels one or two nights before a home game.
Auditors said the practice was unnecessary and a waste of money. They also noted that the academy doesn't supply hometown lodging for its other sports teams.
Academy officials say the money comes from sporting events and related fund raising, not from tax dollars.
The practice is common for football teams at NCAA Division I colleges. Academy officials say it's important to keep players away from the distractions of the campus dorms and build ``esprit de corps'' before the game.
Place the athletic association under the rules of the Air Force and the Department of Defense. Auditors say it is associated with the military and should therefore follow military policies.
Academy officials say that would make fund raising more difficult. For example, they would no longer be able to open the sports gift shop to the public or mail gift-shop catalogs to sports fans.
Academy athletic director Col. Randy Spetman said nothing ``in violation of (NCAA) rules'' was disclosed by the audit, conducted at the request of a congressional subcommittee seeking cost savings at military academies.
But NCAA officials said the academy may have violated an NCAA rule forbidding extra benefits when its football players in recent seasons were given meal money.
The audit revealed that players were given $10 to $15 to buy game-day meals even though some of those meals were provided by the academy.
``Member institutions are bound by our financial regulations as to what they can and can't provide,'' Athena Yiamouyiannis, the NCAA's director of legislative services, said Monday from Overland Park, Kan. ``They're not supposed to double dip as far as providing the meal and then giving the meal money.''
The academy has already changed that practice.
``We're aware of the audit, and we're going to fix the problems that were found,'' said Spetman, a former academy football player who replaced Col. Ken Schweitzer on March 1. ``We're doing the right things here, and we'll continue to do the right things.''
Spetman said the academy is waiting for a response to items in the report that they have not agreed with.
It may take a long time for the remaining disputes to be resolved because both parties are standing firm in their arguments. The disputes could eventually reach the deputy secretary of defense for resolution although that's rare.
Most of the audit disputes boil down to a philosophical issue: What exactly is the Air Force Academy when intercollegiate sports are involved _ an elite college like Stanford, with high standards but subject to NCAA rules, or a military institution under the regulatory eye of the Department of Defense?
``The bottom line is: there's no other institution in the Air Force like the Air Force Academy,'' said Col. Joe Purka, the academy's top spokesman. ``It's just inappropriate to put the Air Force Academy athletics under the same guidelines as would be enforced at any other air base, considering the two are just not comparable.''
Auditors don't see how placing the athletic association under military rules would do anything to hurt its ability to compete. They say that the Army follows such policies and is able to compete.
Indeed, similar audits were performed at the Army and Naval academies, where far fewer questions were raised about athletic spending practices, said Harlan Geyer, audit program director for the Department of Defense's Office of Inspector General.
``This isn't a collegiate institution; it's a military operation,'' said Geyer, the audit supervisor. ``If they need to attract a top-rate coach, they should do it another way _ like a salary increase or bonus _ than a way that just doesn't look right.''
(c) 1996, Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
