You speak for a very small minority on this matter (USC-Notre Dame). It's not even worth debating.
Worth debating: The insistence of the California schools playing each other H-H every year, which is the primary roadblock for the league going to an 8-game schedule while giving the North schools the requisite exposure in SoCal. I think it was Jim Mora who said it best one year when he was the Bruins' HC -- if UCLA-Cal is such a special game and one that needs to be played every year, why are we playing it on a Friday night?
I want to go back in time and round up the most vocal 9-game conference schedule proponents and strangle them. It's that insular mindset, just as much as geography, just as much as our lousy TV deal, just as much as the limited scope of the Pac-12 Networks, that has put this league in the position it's in. We created this purity checklist, marked off all the boxes and what has it gotten us? Ever-decreasing notoriety, an ever-increasing chest-pounding over national titles in sports nobody cares about and a league that's closer to the MWC than it is the SEC. In other words, we haven't gotten a damn thing out of the deal -- or nothing close to what was promised and envisioned, anyway.
But yeah, we'll keep waiting for the SEC and everyone else to go to 9 league games. And waiting. And waiting some more. So what if the Big 10 plays 9? They can afford to, because their network mints money. Ours does not. We need to get out on the road and get more exposure. With the inherited drawbacks we face (primarily in geography and fewer FBS leagues out west), it's a lot to ask coaches to upgrade their non-con schedules even more than they already have, under a 9-game slate (At Utah, we just need to stop being a millstone around the league's neck in this regard).