Understanding 'rogue boosters'

In defense of "rogue boosters" ...
Yeah, I know. This is crazy, right? Me? Defending "rogue boosters?"
But not the way you think.
For those who might read this who aren't up on their college sports, "rogue boosters' is the name the NCAA gave to fans of a particular school who - by NCAA standards - cross the line by getting too close to college players.
But this is how college sports - particularly college football - works if you're a fan: you want season tickets? you have to pay for the privilege. You have to make a "donation'' of a prescribed amount (or higher) to have a chance at buying tickets (that's right, the donation doesn't get you the tickets, it only gets you the right to buy the tickets). The more you donate, the better your chances of getting better tickets.
Or you can "rent'' a skybox for, oh, $40,000 - but then, you still have to buy season tickets, even though you have exclusive access to a skybox inside the home team's stadium.
Then, the more you donate, the more money you give, the higher your level of support, the more access you get to the program: acess to the press box (not really nearly as much of a thrill as you'd imagine), maybe access to the athletic director's private box, access to the university president's box; access to the AD's office, maybe dinner with the head coach, certainly you can buy dinner with the university president, AD and coach at something like the National Football Foundation's annual awards dinner in New York City. ...
You get the idea? The more you invest, the more access you have, the more you are made to feel like you're part of the 'team.'
Only you're not.
We'll get to that in a minute.
What you don't get is anything tangible in return for your investment. At least, not according to NCAA rules. But quite frankly, if I was donating that much money to my favorite college team, I'd expect some of the top players to come by my place of business and pose for pictures; I'd expect to be able to invite those players to go on deep-sea fishing trips with me, and if they wanted a few souviners, so what?
But the NCAA has such a one-sided relationship with its fans that it's ridiculous.
Fans: give money to the school; are expected to buy only officially licensed products of that school; can't  create any merchandise that might demonstrate their affection for that school without paying a licensing fee so the school's athletic department gets a piece of the business; buy tickets to sporting events that you may not even want to go to (some schools have a program where you can earn 'points' toward better season tickets by buying season tickets to non-revenue sports that have a hard time selling any tickets, much less season tickets).
School: take the money and loyalty all the benefit, but if the NCAA accuses a fan of being too close to the player, the university president, athletic director, coach, even the players disavow any knowledge or relationship with those fans.
So much for being part of the 'team.'
I've said it before and I"ll say it again: the problem is not with the NCAA. The NCAA doesn't make a rule that the majority of schools haven't voted on and agreed to, because somebody somewhere gained an unfair advantage by doing whatever this ridiculous rule is designed to address.
And quite honestly, I don't think most coaches or ADs are overtly involved in breaking rules any more (other than so-called 'secondary' rules that usually have to do with simple contact with a prospect).
Most of the major violations these days are because of fans. And fans violate those rules because they think they should get more for their money than they do.
And the athletic departments feed this by every year demanding more and more from its fan base.
When fans have so much invested financially in a team - and we're measuring that investment by percentage of fan income, not always in thousand or millions of dollars - well, as the verse says, "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."