One great long season or two just ok seasons per year?

So I just started watching Australian Survivor this year, I finished the "first" season, the 2016 one that is technically the 3rd season, the one with Lee, Kristie and Flick, finished it last month, and on episode 8 of the 2017 one, which is a huge improvement from the 2016 one, but watching both of these Australian season and the current US one (48) is like night and day, it's like what I ordered vs what was delivered.

Casting is always a huge part of how good a season is, but I think the next main issue is the length of days, by the time the US are voting for the winner, the AUS ones haven't even merged, lol.

Was it ever officially stated why they reduced the length of days? I know it must be tiring for Jeff to spend a lot of days out there and away from his family, but honestly I think this is one of the things that's slowly killing the true potential of Survivor US. Once in a while, a great cast (47) makes the season great, in spite of these issues, but that's hard, it's much easier to return to a longer length and let the players flourish.

I think they can experiment by having one 26 days season with Jeff and have someone else host a longer one, so in a year we get a short one with Jeff and a long one with a new host. Jeff loves this game and I think he shouldn't feel like he's being replaced but instead letting the game be as great as it could possibly be.

Or they can have just one season in the year, hosted by Jeff like 39 days or something. The longer the days, the more time for people to form bonds, for interesting things to happen, camp life is basically non-existence in new-era survivor US.

I guess what I'm saying is that i would prefer one very good long season in a year than two mediocre short seasons.

P.S - Producers on the US really need to go to these old AUS seasons and take some of their challenge designs.