This just seems like common sense.
I would like to hear from someone with the opposite opinion of why we shouldn't do that.
Well, I'm not going to argue we should never go under center and use the I, but I do see the trade-off.
Under center handoff to a RB in the I (with or without leading blocker) is like tightening the choke on a shotgun: you may not be telling the defense precisely where the ball carrier is going...could be off-center, or off-guard to either side...but it's a pretty clear indicator for them. They pretty much know the guy is going somewhere between the left tackle and the right tackle (if it's a run play). So they can focus on defending the box. And just the box.
Back up to the pistol with the RB 7 yards deep, and you're giving up quick development of the play, but in exchange now you've sawed off the shotgun barrel. It's a real scatter shot, that RB can go anywhere from hash mark to hash mark, and beyond. Now you're forcing the D to defend a much broader space.
The latter works against slower or larger defenses. Forces them to cover the field, spread out. And once you spread them out, you can really get a decisive advantage at the point of your choosing (concentration of mass via surprise, for those using principles of war).
On the other hand, under center and I formation works better if the defense is small but quick, or if your offense has a significant size advantage over the other guys. For instance: we'd probably have been much better off just jamming I formation runs at App State last fall, slamming it straight into the box over and over again. Give up surprise and just go right at them with our greater size.
So...trade-off. Most of the time, in the SEC, we're better off in the spread. Even in short yardage situations. Simply too easy for very good SEC defenses to fill the box if they know pretty much where we're going.
Like I said starting off, that's not really the "opposite view" you were looking for, more like a balanced viewpoint.