Oath and Golem are distinct in that Golem is a threat and disruption while Oath is not. Golem requires a very specific and narrow set of answers while oath has a plethora of non Force of Will answers available in almost every colour and every strategy. Another issues is that you absolutely have to have a restricted card in your opening hand or you auto lose against Golem whereas with other threats you don't.
Yet if you look at most "blue" decks in the format you will see that most will run removal for golem in the main. Be this Lightning Bolt, Swords, TMS, or the rarer Disenchant/Hurkyls. Very few decks run enchantment removal main. So whilst you are correct that Golem requires more specialised removal, pilots are more prepared for Golem than oath in the main at least.
I think one of the major things to happen in this story that nobody is talking about is the loss of the spell-like creature. The rise of the delver deck (and its variants e.g. mentor) has really driven out many of the non-combat oriented creatures. Which would continue to have their effects under spheres etc. That has made workshop pilots lives a lot easier in terms of controlling the board.
Yes, that's it, exactly. People prepare for Golem because it's a far better first turn play. As a result it takes up a greater portion of every major meta and requires anyone wanting to take a meaningful first, second, third, and Xth turn of the game to have an answer, a mox, and the right colour of mana in their opening hand or scoop. Oath and similar first turn plays therefore command a lesser constraint on an opponent's deck design thus casting a much narrower shadow across the meta comparatively. Golem shop mox requires every opposing opener to be perfectly tailored to beat that strategy without the opportunity for any other form of retort. Every deck has to be designed to beat a turn one Golem off of shop+mox or it is simply invalid.
I completely agree about the way delver and mentor have invalidated other creature based strategies. Now instead of casting creature spells players just cast cantrips and get creatures attached to them. If there was a one blue mana 1/1 prowess that drew a card when it came into play that would be a pretty good card even without scry 2. This card doesn't exist but you can create a whole deck full of them by resolving one of four Mentors. No amount of restricting cantrips would affect this. I think even if blue were not a colour Mentor would still be putting up the same results or better with cantrips of other colours.
@Moy I agree with almost everything you've said in your posts except parts of this paragraph:
My bullshit detector was going off when the justification was "we want moxes to be played." During that era I'd say 7 to 8 times out of 10 it was way more beneficial to be setting that chalice at 1 then at zero. Nevertheless, I'll concede to people being happy now that they can play moxes, but I don't agree with the whole way things went down. Which leads us to the present. If you want to talk about strategic diversity what happened to merfolk? bug fish? big blue? landstill? Bomberman? Gifts? Thirst decks? tezz decks that don't fold to null rod. Both Gifts and thirst came off the restricted list. Neither are remotely playable because of gush. People seem to be viewing the thought of the restriction of gush as a bane to blue decks. I think it's a boon. It would allow deckbuilders the ability to fight shops much better and we wouldn't have to hit shops with another bs restriction.
As far as I can tell Big Blue, Gifts, Thirst, and to a lesser extent Tezz seem invalidated by Shops moreso than Gush. The other decks all seem solid vs. Shops though. I think some of those others might actually be half decent against Gush. Gush does have a slightly greater share according to mtgtop8 though (4.6%).
In closing, if I had a personal vote to help make decisions regarding the Banned and restricted list. I'd ideally, go back in time and instead of restricting chalice I would have restricted gush. What do we do now? I'd say restricting gush would open the format up and make it more than an over glorified game of rock, paper scissors. Then after the dust settles go back to unrestricting cards. A bit long winded of me and I apologize. if I missed out on relevant topics like people having 8-13 dead cards vs shops in the main deck it’s because we all know things get complicated. I have spent way more time writing this then I would have liked but I don’t want vintage as a format to turn into an edh playgroup governed by the VSL. (ie. a small group of very good players just having fun on a Tuesday)
I'd imagine that in this format the blue vs blue mirror woult largely subside to Shops vs Dredge and the remaining control decks would likely focus on beating those archetypes to a somehwat greater extent than they attemt to pray on eachother today. Maybe it would be enough to reduce the numbers of both of those decks but I think more likely it would bring Workshop strategies to a greater metagame share at which point it might get restricted.