I totally agree with your statement 100%....and am now curious to see if what I now state will be found to be diagreement
We are always in a state of being the culminations of potentially billions of lives and the Buddha was not a exception to our lives experience but a example of our experience. So thusly we may be ripe for enlightenment in human form in this very life....we simply do not know for certain being human what our past spiritual experience was or ammounted to. It is very very unlikely but we could never disallow the possiblity.
The spirit of Bodhicitta to my personal opinion allows for the final push towards full enlightenment and buddhahood which by necessity of description entails the total complete absolute destruction of self concept in every aspect.
Such could not simply occur without bodhicicitta replaceing self with other. Suchly buddhahood could not occur without bodhicitta. Self could be removed only to the extent that self could remove self(concept)...which is of course close too, but not the real bannana. In absense of self the only motivator to provide such (other) which must motivate would be other concern or bodhicitta. Seemingly in a practical fashion this would have to be as it is.
Thusly the crux of the issue in a final consideration of philosophical viewpoint difference between the two schools....one considering a fully enlightenment being this, and one considering a fully enlightenment being that, and two different requirements to get to the two different places. One saying this is not possible, one saying that is not possible.
My personal opinion...it only matters if you are one of the very rare few who are that close. For 99.9% it matters not a whit, both paths are the same (if not abberations within those paths).

