Really, the lists of people that Universities have as boosters are ridiculous. I donated money to the University of Iowa in 2008 for flood recovery efforts, as a result I am now listed as a booster and get an e-mail from Iowa every year with the rules for boosters. That's asinine. But it follows the NCAA paradigm to lump all possible sources of "corruption" into one grouping and legislate against the whole category.
The problem the NCAA has is that it cannot possibly generate a "fair" list of rules, so it tries to throw everything under the same category and ban it. That's never a good approach, but it's an understandable one - having rules open to interpretation invites politics and inequity. In regards to boosters contacting recruits, Twitter is really a game changer - I don't think the NCAA even has the capability to address a Twitter world. It's going to require the NCAA to start drawing distinctions and making judgements that the rules currently in place were designed to prevent them from having to make. I don't have any idea what the new rules will look like, but there's going to need to be a completely new organizational paradigm before they can even start to develop them.
Generally organizations and people are really resistant to change, so I will predict the shift will occur when the NCAA tries to sanction a school based on twitter posts from fans and gets hit with a media backlash they weren't expecting.
