It's interesting that you mention the homogenization of blue. To quote myself from what I would consider to be a somewhat relevant topic: http://themanadrain.com/topic/198/mtgo-power-9-combined-jfm-archetype-vs-archetype-data/20
In addition I would assume it would be fair to make inferences as to the true effect of homogenization of the primary blue engine. For example, the addage that "big blue" by nature grants a superior foundation for the Workshop match up seems to not play out in actuality.
We've been told pretty adamantly that deck construction and meta relevance of card selection were primary facilitators of Workshops rise to dominance. I'd like to see this fallacy (if you want to coin it that) go away. It's disingenuous to conclude that a large percentage of the player base is unable to address Workshops after having many years of trial and error. I'd like to propose that the homogenization of blue based control has less to do with Gush being dominant and more to do with the the nature of the Gush - Workshop match up, in that Gush is and has been the best option to address Workshops within the context of the general meta.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I find it interesting that the argument of Workshops > Gush : Gush > Big Blue : Big Blue > Workshops is pretty much disproven by the data we've had up until this point. That Gush has had less to do with the shape of this current format than say recent printings such as Mental Misstep, Graffdigger's Cage, and Flusterstorm.
While prevelant there seems to be more diversity among Gush as an archetype as opposed to Workshops prior to restriction(s).
Ultimately my argument is that homogenization is something that needs to be looked at more deeply, it's less about the prelevance of X card and more about nunanced factors that contribute to its selection over other options and that homogenization isn't necessarily a bad thing.
It's been a long day and I'm having difficulty articulating my points so be patient with me.