Oh no sir, I won't ignore! In fact, this question is very introspective and took me a few to think about. To answer your question, I would probably want to know what exactly was gutted and for what reason. But does that mean that Aikikai is Kisshomaru's vision? Did he merely organize training to make it more efficient, or did butcher the vision that was Morihei's? Is Shioda's the vision of Morihei, or his own? And what about Tomiki? I think that's the difference I see between Takeda and Ueshiba; Takeda was content with his art being Daito Ryu. Ueshiba, more of a spiritual transformation and less of a falling out between student and teacher, created his art being Aikido.
First, don't take my posts as meaning I think Kisshomaru butchered aikido. I have a lot of respect for what Kisshomaru did. I don't agree with everything he did, but I certainly have a lot of respect for him and what he did.
Do I think the current version of U.S. Aikikai aikido is Kisshomaru's vision? Yeah, I think it is. Did he change a lot of his father's art? I don't know. Goldsbury sensei has some excellent articles here on AikiWeb and he will probably address that question in an upcoming one. In reference to what we're talking about here, read the published ones and look for the part about omote and ura and the spread of aikido worldwide.
As for the students ... research Daito ryu. You'll find that each of Takeda's students are doing their own thing and they don't really look alike. So, if we follow that trend, why should Ueshiba's students not look different?
If Takeda's students can do such different things and still do Daito ryu, why can't Ueshiba's students do different things and still do Aikido?