So, yes, when you chart the receiver's path on a bunch of kickoff returns for touchdowns and put them all next to each other the similarity of them all does "look" boring. But that's an abstraction of the actual moment of the play. When you're actually watching one get sprung, it isn't boring at all. And part of the huge excitement of it is not how they got there, but the way it instantly "steals" the points the other team just scored... maybe even flips a lead if the other team only got a field goal. Its a momentum changer and when momentum shifts in a football game that is inherently exciting (or terrifying if you're on the bad end of it).
So, someone will say, "but wouldn't that be true about a punt under the Schiano rule?" Sure. But the point isn't whether one is just as good as another. He said the play is inherently boring. Not only is that purely subjective judgment, but I disagree and I'd be willing to bet a majority of folks disagree.
I also disagree about the onside kick being bad because it isn't graceful. It's interesting precisely because it is so difficult to do. If you find a kicker and a squad with a knack for pulling it off, that's super exciting.
All that said... that Schiano rule does seem like a decent proposal. I wonder about the unintended consequences though. How much would that 20% conversion rate (for 4th-and-15) change if that situation was a consistent part of the game? Does it put high-powered offensive teams like the Rams, Saints, or Chiefs in a position to just absurdly run up the score as they play the odds that more often than not for
their team they'll keep possession and score again? Adopting that rule would have to come with some agreement to adjust it if the odds on that play started to get out of hand.
