Perhaps the reason for muscle contractile apathy, and the focus on aerobic improvement, is that there is so much more potential improvement to be gained by aerobic improvements.
Athletes are interested in investing their time on workouts where they stand the most to gain in terms of performance, hence the great focus and discussion on how to maximize their investment.
The bias may be there just because it is appropriate.
Unless my model is wrong, I think of the concept of periodicity, in terms of building bigger and bigger aerobic bases, over the course of years or decades, while periodically (e.g. twice a year) introducing strength on top of the new base. The size of the strength component doesn't change too much.
I'm happy (in an ingorance is bliss way) to recruit new slow twitch and oxidative fast twitch fibers, and let contractility take care of itself.
How important can muscle contractility be? Getting back to the car, a big engine is useless, if you still have a carbeurator, and a single pipe exhaust. (Or think about why Harley Davidson's are slower than their Japanese opponents with only half the engine displacement).
I will be curious to see if in the next 10 years or so, once science has opened the door and explored the realm of muscle contractility, if I must re-evaluate my muscle outlook.