I think the "nuclear option" is not exactly a rules change...[T]he way it would work is that a Senator would raise a constitutional point of order that the Constitution does not permit the Senate to require a super-majority to prevent indefinitely a vote on Presidential nominations.  This would result either in a ruling by the chair that the current rules do require 60 votes, which could then be appealed and overruled by a simple majority of the Senate, or perhaps in a ruling by the chair, perhaps Pence, invoking the Senate precedent established in the "conspicuous exception" McConnell cites, to say that only 51 votes are required where the refusal to end debate amounts to blocking action on the nomination by less than a majority of the Senate.  Such a ruling in turn would require 51 votes to overrule.   

Moreover, I very much doubt McConnell is actually ruling it out - I think he just isn't ruling it in.  And I wouldn't really expect him to rule it in at this point. I think the headline [in the Hill article] is pretty misleading.