Years and years ago, numbers were changed like this, and the numbering exception rules probably came in to make that unnecessary (I’m guessing there, it’s actually before my time.)
I’m currently in Oregon (so beautiful), so, I can’t check the year things changed, but (in my time) it seems like it was in the mid-80s.
At the time, strictly for scrimmage kick formations, they allowed players to wear slip-on jerseys with numbers 50-79, without having to ‘report’ or anything like that. They could just change numbers and run in to the game. But, they became a nuisance to the players, and, instead of slipping them fully on, they would just pull them over their heads, and let them hang down in their front. The numbers were anywhere from hard, to impossible, to see/read. And, like virtually every other uniform rule, this rule, eventually, was ignored by players/coaches/officials. As hard as is it was for me to believe, it wasn’t so much the inability to see/read the number - it was the ‘cosmetics’ of the issue - it just LOOKED bad - that prompted the NCAA to find some way to solve this problem. So, under John Adams’ leadership, they developed the concept of the numbering exceptions we have now. But, as always, unscrupulous actors (coaches - especially ‘special teams’ coaches) do anything they can think of to circumvent the rule, and conceal their eligible linemen.
I believe this modification to the mandatory numbering rule has the potential to fix the problem, but they simply have to fully vet the change with all other rules, and consider all possible scenarios that could affect the rule. We are glad the help - aren’t we?
Recent Posts
the NFHS felt using word 'illegal' might cause some of us to think a 
should follow 
.
of the prom queen might be his last touching IF her boyfriend was nearby 
..