This week we see the end of "Jericho" (again). We were treated to a good season of almost non-stop action. The story moved along at a break-neck pace, and one has to wonder if the series was better because of the short season.

In the United Kingdom, the standard for television has been short seasons, called "series" instead of "seasons" over there. The short season has always been enough to tell a story, keeping the storytelling tight and focused, and then finishing with a clean ending.

The U.S. model is quite different. Our seasons are are commissioned with a 13-episode order, and if the show does well is expanded to include another nine to 13 more episodes.

Having that many hours to fill leads to the infamous filler episode. In my opinion, that was the biggest problem with "Battlestar Galactica" last season. When a show adds a filler episode, it normally doesn't include any scenes that add to the season arc, which leads to fan dissatisfaction with the season, and the show as a whole.

CBS giving "Jericho" a seven-episode second season is probably the best thing they could have done for the series. With a short season order, the producers and writers were forced to focus their storytelling, and condense a season's worth of stories into a smaller package. And they were very successful at it. There were scenes in this season that seemed a little slow, or out of place, like the early episode Stanley/Mimi scenes. But when the DVD comes out, even those scenes will make more sense, and seem more relevant when all the episodes are viewed together.

But given how well the short season worked for "Jericho," would it work with more American series? I think it might.

Another U.S. show got a sort season order, and it too is performing fairly well. "New Amsterdam" has its story moving along at a quick pace, peeling layer after layer of the main character's history away. We are learning more about him each week. If anything is a miss with "New Amsterdam," it's the police procedural portion. The personal interactions of the characters, and the historical flashbacks more than make up for this series? faults.

Where the shows seem better for the shorter seasons, one does have to ask if the audience could accept short seasons? Americans are already accustom to longer seasons, and dislike reruns. Fewer episodes most likely means more reruns. Large series orders are better for the studios, because they save costs in creating new standing sets for short seasons. It's just cheaper to shoot 22 episodes of a series, than shoot three series with six or eight episodes each. Varying salary demands and set construction would make it a drain on studio profits.

I hope we move to the shortened season, because I like what it has been doing for the stories these series are telling. I just don't think the studios and viewers are quite ready for it.

If you'd like to chat about this column, you can join our message board discussions by clicking here.

Ed Left is a columnist for Airlock Alpha, who was lives through the varied weather patterns of Chicago. He also is the Webmaster of Sci Fi On TV. He can be reached at eleft@airlockalpha.com.