Should Utah accept these one-game deals in football?

The recent announcement that Utah will likely play Notre Dame in football in 2010 has been met with mixed reactions, although most have been positive.
In 113 years of football, the Utes have never met the Irish, considered the most storied program in college football history.
So why shouldn’t the Utes play at Notre Dame?
Some would say Utah’s program is better than to accept a one-time ?money game? and that the Utes should only play home-and-home games. Or at least ?two-for-one? games, where they play twice on the road and once at home.
Ideally one of the latter two options that would be nice. But Notre Dame isn’t about to come out to Utah and play a game at 45,000-seat Rice-Eccles Stadium when it can play at places twice that size.
I think Utah is doing the right thing by grabbing these one-time games against the likes of Michigan this year and Notre Dame in 2010. It’s not like the ’70s and ’80s money games when the Utes were just fodder for programs like Nebraska, Oklahoma and Tennessee and lost by big margins every time.
Utah is to the point where it has a legitimate chance of competing with Michigan and Notre Dame, even on the road. So why not give it a shot? The Utes won’t be expected to win these games and if they happen to come home with a victory, it would be a huge feather in their caps.
So what do you think, should the Utes go after teams like Michigan and Notre Dames with one-year deals or insist on home-and-home games with lesser-profile teams?