Television Series Term Limits

With so much garbage television continuing on for season after gut-wrenching season (yes, i'm looking at you, "According to Jim" and "One Tree Hill"), I'm proposing a new way of determining how long a television program is allowed to remain on the air.

Television Series Term Limits

• 2 Seasons - guaranteed to every "original programming" television series placed on the air
  
• 3rd Season - granted if the series is either popular or critically acclaimed
• 4th Season - granted if the series is both popular and critically acclaimed
• The End - no more seasons
  

Now obviously i realize that there will have to be some type of absolute measurement for the terms "popular" and "critically acclaimed".

It stands to reason that "popular" would be measured in pretty much the same way that it is now - how well a program does in the ratings (Although there would have to be a cutoff point, and I'm currently unsure of what that would be).

Would "critically acclaimed" be measured by Emmy nominations, Golden Globe nominations, or possibly from the result of a vote cast by the leading magazines and websites specializing in critiquing television programs? Perhaps a combination of these three. What constitutes a "leading" magazine or website?

By the way, I'm not including "reality television" in any portion of this post. Luckily, in the fantasy world that allows me to place term limits on television shows, reality programming does not exist.

Now let's weigh the pros and cons of this sweeping reform that could change the way television shows are produced...


Everybody gets a Fair Shake
Two seasons are guaranteed, which would enable every show the chance to find and keep an audience. Also, this could be the incentive necessary to prevent a network (Hi Fox!) from placing a total crap show on-screen as they would have to keep airing it for two seasons - sucky show, sucky ad revenue.


Increased Quality Per Episode
The way i see it, the creators of a television series have to believe that their series has a chance to be well received by both critics and viewers alike. I think it's safe to work under the premise that no one creates a series with the hopes of it failing. So now the creator of any given series can start a show with the assumption of a four season story arc. This concept would also help to eliminate "filler" episodes within a series. Each episode would now have with it a greater sense of urgency as the series draws closer to its conclusion at the end of season 4.


Closure
If by the middle of season 2 it has become apparent that the series is not going to fall within either the "popular" or "critically acclaimed" categories, half a season is available for tying up loose ends and saying goodbye to the audience your series has garnered in its two seasons on the air.


Fond Memories
Shows no longer have to outstay their welcome. If they were good for the first few seasons, they can be remembered that way and not have their loyal viewers watching the garbage their show has become in season 5 and reminiscing about how great it once was (Hi "Grey's Anatomy"!).

I'm sure several Grey's fans are pissed at me right now, but when you're a television show in its fifth season and one of the main characters is boning the ghost of a former patient she fell in love with during the show's glory years, you've jumped the shark .


The only drawback I believe to be apparent in my term limit proposal, is that a series does occasionally come along that deserves at least a fifth season, maybe even 6 or 7. However, this is rare, and far outweighed by the fact that shows like "According to Jim" and "One Tree Hill" would only be left on the air for 3 seasons ("popular", but not "critically acclaimed").