Part of the NCAA's attempt to be more responsive requires it to be less bureaucratic. That's not easy for an organization historically depicted as wrapped in red tape.

Yet the Association has untangled its bureaucratic knot to some degree, from federating its governance in 1997 to using technology to better communicate with constituents. Division I's move to a single annual legislative cycle last year was an effort both to reduce the legislative bureaucracy and reconnect the membership with the process, two issues that had frustrated Division I members for several years. In addition, the Legislative Services Database (LSDBi) has cut bureaucratic corners for all three divisions with online looks at the Manuals, interpretations and legislative proposals.

All three divisions also have undertaken deregulation initiatives, with Division II in particular paring down its legislation annually.

If less bureaucratic means more responsive, the NCAA is at least giving it the old college try.

"A lot of people have misperceptions about the way the NCAA functions," said Indiana State University Athletics Director Andrea Myers. "I think the NCAA already is less bureaucratic and more responsive than many people believe. The Division I move to the single legislative cycle is a good example. That may be the smartest thing Division I has done in years. The proposal to streamline certification is another example. Certification often is seen as a product of our bureaucracy, but the NCAA is taking steps to make it less bureaucratic."

Myers is no stranger to the NCAA "bureaucracy," having served on several committees, including the Division I Management Council and its Administrative Review Subcommittee. She currently is a member of the Committee on Infractions.

"Not many people know what bureaucracy means -- we tend to throw that word around almost like 'hello,' " she said. "I'm always a little hesitant when people say the NCAA is so bureaucratic. You ask them what they mean by that and they can't tell you. Any time you have a large organization, whether it's a corporation or a volunteer organization like the NCAA, the larger it is there has to be bureaucracy, there has to be a way to control what the organization is about."

Myers also is a member of a recently created group called the Division I Regulatory Culture Working Group. Though the name sounds bureaucratic, the group's mission is actually to break through some of the red tape and confusion regarding the legislative process, interpretations, certification, reinstatement and enforcement.

At its latest meeting in July, the working group agreed on several recommendations that encourage the Division I membership to take greater "ownership" in the adoption, interpretation, application and enforcement of legislation. Interestingly, one of the areas that group is studying is the highly competitive nature of Division I athletics and the diversity among institutional missions that contributes to a perception that the level playing field must be created through regulation.

Some believe that has produced an "us vs. them" environment, even though the "us" and the "them" may be different depending on the situation. For example, the relationship may be conference vs. conference, coaches vs. administrators, institutions vs. NCAA staff, et cetera. That adds to the perception of the NCAA being overly bureaucratic.

Myers said that even though the Association has done some things to reduce the bureaucracy, such as beef up the LSDBi into not only an information source but a communication vehicle, the competitive-equity issues keep the NCAA from being as streamlined as it could be.

"The fact that compliance people can get to the LSDBi and see how situations have been handled in the past -- that shows that the NCAA is attempting to be less bureaucratic and help people get answers for themselves," she said. "Yet, campus people are still reluctant to make those decisions, which then fuels the regulatory culture. People need to relax a little bit and understand that the NCAA ax isn't going to come down on their heads for trying to do the right thing. The hammer falls only when something is totally out of control. But that perception has people afraid to make a decision that could be wrong."

Myers believes, though, that the membership will embrace the "more responsive" NCAA, despite the competitive-equity concern. She said there might be people who complain about a decision that favors one school -- perhaps a rival school -- but that they can't snap to judgment without knowing the mitigating circumstances the decision-making committee is privy to.

"I hear that a lot," Myers said. "People say, 'It's not just me; everybody does it.' Or, 'What do you mean I can't do that? Everybody else does.' Yet when you ask them who's doing it, they can't really say. It's the same thing with the more-responsive effort. People say, 'What do you mean we can't get this person reinstated? They did.' Well, wait a minute, do you really know all the details about the other case? I've been on the ARS, and I know what goes into those deliberations."

-- Gary T. Brown