Sure, and that's exactly what Nishio was talking about, and talked about quite often. That Aikido ought to be comparing the effectiveness of what they do to people doing other arts.
Here's a little more from the same interview:
I almost wonder if, in light of what Mr. Nishio is saying there, that the problem may be exasperated by any attempts to consolidate aikido. Rather, what if you went the other direction? Get rid of the umbrella term, get rid of the Hombu, let the art radically splinter into countless nameless lineages, that it really is at this point, where each lineage gets by on what it can actually do on its own, now, not who it came from in the past.
Ineffective budo should no longer stand on the shoulders of the ghost of Morihei Ueshiba. By doing effective budo, and calling it aikido, you end up making a conscious choice to subsidize the efforts of those who do ineffective budo, because they can rely on the goodwill engendered by the term aikido to attract and mislead students that they too will get to be like those leading lights by doing something other than what made those illustrious few.
Maybe it is really time for aikido to die, so that the skill may live on?