This is a great question to ask here. I've been active on this DG for a little under two years now, and read the articles regularly, even if I don't post with the same frequency.
So I'm not sure if the 'legitimate question' is directed at a handful of 'regulars' here, or anyone in general. Whether I'm considered 'regular' or not, I have thought about this some.
Jeff, your first question was 'where does this supposed bias come from?'. It may come from a number of angles. Personal reasons, business interests, past experiences. I cannot speak for others, but can tell you my personal views.
I prefer to play my golf on 'older' courses, or those built over fifty years ago. Why? To my eyes and mind, they have a certain 'look', a certain 'feel'. There is a sense of history about them. Most all of them, for me, are very inspiring to play. There are some 'older' courses, however which I do not feel are as 'inspiring' to play, and it is because of their architecture. A case in point is Congressional. There is tremendous history to the club itself, and I couldn't have asked for a better membership with which to spend time. However, despite the history, I never cared much for the golf course. Why not? I didn't find it visually appealing. I found it extremely well cared for--Mike Giuffre does a tremendous job. However, most all holes are straight, with two or three exceptions. The bunkering is well off the lines of play, in most cases. A lot of the greens are relatively simple in their contours, and apart from having high greenspeeds, are really not all that difficult to putt. I played some good rounds there, and some bad rounds. Why didn't I like it? The architecture. Not the architect.
During summer 2004, I played Beechtree for the first time, and despite playing (beyond) poorly, loved the course. I don't need to brown-nose Tom Doak or Cory Lewis, nor do they need me to. I loved it. I loved the way the holes set up from the tee, and design and appearance of the bunkers and architectural features; the contours in both the fairways and the greens. Why did I love it? The architecture.
Later on in the year, I played French Creek, in the October 2004 outing. I appreciated the chance to play it, but overall, I didn't care for the course. I didn't play well at all that day, but I still felt it was overall too penal; too many forced carries, some fairly long (and I am a long driver of the ball) and death (water hazards, wetlands, out of bounds, thick woods, etc) lurking close at hand on many shots. I understand they are hazards to be avoided, but to me, there didn't seem to be a chance for a player who was 'off' on that particular day, to get the ball around the course, in contrast to something like Bethpage Red, where you can be off, but not become bruised and bloodies in the process. It's difficult to say if I would have liked it better had I played better that day, and would gladly give it another chance to form a more accurate opinion of it. I do understand the wetlands have a strong influence on the course's architecture. I did like a lot of the greens there, and how Gil used slopes to create interesting putting.
In contrast to Tony, I absolutely loved Hidden Creek. Again, I don't need to brown-nose Pat or Coore/Crenshaw, nor do they need me to. I played below average in the May 05 outing, not poorly but not 'average' for me, but loved the architecture of the course, and can recall many of the holes. I fully agree that I would have gone back to the first hole and played again if the opportunity was there.
I understand the last three examples I have given are 'new' courses, built by 'most favored' architects. Where I am tying this in is that in my mind, these architects overall are creating golf courses that for me, remind me of the 'older' courses that I have such an affinity for. They are building courses that offer a high degree of strategy, perhaps offer some quirky features, offer bunkering that has a 'natural' and perhaps more 'weathered' appearance to it, and greens that are fun and difficult to putt--offer interesting contours and features that tie in with the surrounds well, much as "Golden Age' architects such as Flynn, Ross and Park.
Where this now works back to Jeff's original post is the first full paragraph "On the other hand...the industry." My opinion is that the "bias" architects seem to have the common thread of learning from the past--learning from the Golden Age architects--and what made some of their courses so good--and carrying it forward into today. Tom Paul and I have talked a little about the concept of "going back to go forward", or words to that effect, in terms of learning from the past in order to forge ahead. I feel these architects that we may be "biased" towards have successfully gone back and "learned" from the past and are using what worked well for those architects, along with modern technology and fresh ideas, to create courses that have that "instant-old" feel to them, in many cases. For example, Hidden Creek feels "old" to me, like it has been there for many years, as does Beechtree. In fact, one of the things that drew me to Beechtree was its resemblance in some spots to some of the Bethpage courses and others on LI, where I had played many rounds growing up.
Another common thread among many of these "bias" architects is that the "wow" factor may be gained with a golf course that is more subtle, but multidimensional, meaning it plays different ways-aerial, bump and run, etc-depending on the day-without the need to create 'wow' with all sorts of ponds, waterfalls, fountains, 'signature holes', that sort of thing. There appears to be a lot less in the way of earthmoving-more letting holes fall where they may on the land. Sometimes it provides for an uneven lie in the fairway, but hey, that's golf. That's the rub of the green. It may be unfair, but as is life sometimes too.
The one criticism I have with some-not all-of the architects that are 'less favored' is that their courses tend to be much more manufactured in appearance, and not as well tied in with the natural environment. Yes, you can apply the same criticism towards the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks school of design-manufactured/engineered holes-but I think they too tie in with their surroundings better in many cases than the "less favored" architects. Remember, a lot of their holes were adaptations, not verbatim copies of holes which Macdonald felt 'ideal'. And like all architects, sometimes it was a figurative grand slam, other times, it was a strikeout.
In conclusion, I would like to answer Jeff's question "...is there something to those courses designed by the architects who regulars at this DG supposedly lean toward?" with, yes, there is. It's the architecture.