College coaches are almost unanimously against a new punt rule. Do they have a good reason to be?

Put enough Division I football coaches together, and they’ll find something to talk about that draws their ire. But in the case of a rule change passed this past spring, the disdain for an addition to the game in 2026 is almost unanimous.

Here was the rule change that was passed that has coaches, including all 18 of the Big 10’s coaches, up in arms.

On punts where jersey number exceptions (players who do not wear numbers 50-79) are used, the snapper and two adjacent linemen on either side who are lined up in (or touching) the tackle box are ineligible receivers by position and become exceptions to the numbering rule when the snapper takes his position. This clarifies which players are eligible receivers in the formation.

That means that on punts, no matter what number a player is wearing, if a player is lined up in a spot most would equivocate to “offensive guard” and “offensive tackle,” that player is an ineligible receiver on a punt play.

In college, every player can immediately release upfield on a punt. That won’t change, but now two players will be required to be on either side of the long snapper in the formation, and all of them will be ineligible receivers. They can still line up as ends on the line of scrimmage, but they cannot catch a pass even though they are lining up in an eligible position. Basically, this takes standard down downfield eligibility rules and applies them to scrimmage kicks.

This also is meant to maintain the spirit of the regulation that prevents players wearing Nos. 50-79 in college from catching a forward pass. So a player at “left tackle” on punt who wears No. 4 and is the uncovered end man on the line of scrimmage is ineligible to catch a forward pass, just as an uncovered left tackle wearing No. 66 cannot catch a forward pass even if he is the end man on the line of scrimmage.

That’s not so controversial, though there are some special teams coordinators upset about that fact since it takes away some potential for obfuscation and fourth-down fakes.

This also locks those “guards” and “tackles” into position. They can’t shift as soon as the long snapper steps over the football. The previous rule was they are locked in when the long snapper touches the ball. That’s changed, which means plays like this are a thing of the past.

Marcus Freeman had Georgia’s Defense in shambles 😳
pic.twitter.com/5C6Dygotzp

— SleeperCFB (@SleeperCFB) January 3, 2025

The main issue is that this was proposed in February and passed in March. Many teams had already started spring practices by then, including Texas. Coaches who schedule significant portions of practice down to the minute didn’t have the time to teach new schemes.

Those complaints been seen in recent national reporting. USA Today reported that an unofficial survey conducted by Division I coaches, “with responses from special teams coordinators and head coaches with results provided to USA TODAY Sports,” was against the rule 61-1.

There are multiple reasons for coaches being against it, according to USA Today. Teaching is part of it. Lack of fakes is another. Some special teams coaches even complained there might be more blocked kicks. However, this doesn’t prevent teams from using one-man shields, two-man shields, or three-man shields on punt plays. Nor does it prevent punters from getting their kicks off in a timely manner.

Overall, this appears to be a narrow complaint. The “right guard” and “left tackle” not being able to catch a pass sounds like football, even if a scrimmage kick like a punt is classified as a different style of play.

What effects could it have? Receiving teams now know who they need to “guard” and who they need to “block,” which could open things up for longer returns. There was some speculation in the USA Today piece that it might cause more punts to be blocked and therefore create injuries to punters since the returning team does not have to react to as much. But what they previously had to react to were attempts to trick them by playing games with formations and jersey numbers as opposed to good old fashioned surprises.

But overall, the complaints from the coaches sound more like complaining about a sudden change and having to adapt to adversity rather than anything that threatens or drastically changes the game for the worse. Fair complaints, but ones that do not appear to have much effect even if they come from a near unanimous chorus.