The Problem: Tournament directors and organizers have started a trend toward bigger starting stacks, smaller starting blinds, and more playing hours. This is exactly the wrong approach.
Tournament directors take note: You are making the players play more, but you are not giving them more play. If you really want to add more play to tournaments, eliminate players quickly until the money is reached, and then slow down. There is nothing more frustrating than starting a tournament with enough chips to play 50 rounds, then after struggling through two days of play and arriving at the tail end of the money, realizing that you barely have enough chips to play 10 rounds. This is bad enough, but by the time you approach the final table, you may have enough chips for only five rounds.
What a perversion of poker. When it doesn't matter, you have a lot of play. When it really counts, you have little or no play. If this isn't bad enough, they expect players to routinely put in 12- to 14-hour days. (Not since the English passed labor laws to prevent owner exploitation of workers during the Industrial Revolution has anyone been expected to work that many hours, except perhaps a few interns at crowded hospitals.)
The Solution: In the early stages of the tournament, eliminate players quickly. This can be done by starting at a higher level, playing shorter rounds early, or eliminating some of the early levels. In the late stages of play, eliminate players slowly. This can be done by adding more levels or lengthening the time at each level. Typical days should consist of seven or eight one-hour levels with breaks every two levels until the money is reached. Then you can implement more or longer levels. There is no need for a dinner break, especially if the schedule is arranged so that play ends at around 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. This enables players to have a leisurely meal with wine, if they so desire. Right now, Bellagio (under the guidance of Jack McClelland and Doug Dalton) seems to be the only brick-and-mortar venue that has any clue that this is what players want.
Advantages:
• Players are given more play
when it matters.
• Players are eliminated without exhaustion. They will play cash games, gamble in the casino, or spend time with their significant others (dinners and shows).
This benefits the casino or cardroom as well as the players.
• Secondary tournaments or those starting the next day will get better attendance.
• The tournament will save money on staffing, and the players will benefit from the fact that it will no longer be necessary to scrape the bottom of the barrel for dealers or floormen.
Disadvantages:
• Players who are eliminated early will complain that there wasn't enough play. But players who are eliminated early will always complain about something. They know the problem has to be with the tournament and not with the way they played.
• Players who have come a long way to play in a specific event may believe they didn't get their money's worth. This might have applied to most players when the
World Series of Poker main event was the only 10K event each year. Now that there is one every two weeks or so, this is no longer an issue.
I could go on and on with the reasons why my suggested structures are better, but if the powers that be haven't gotten the idea of what is clearly better by now, they never will. I have discussed the ideas expressed above with a number of the top tournament players, including such superstars as Mike Matusow, Gavin Smith, Chris Ferguson, and Allen Cunningham. There is virtually unanimous agreement that players want
more play when it counts and less when it doesn't matter. Yet, the trend is in the other direction. Go figure. 
Steve "Zee" Zolotow, aka The Bald Eagle, is a successful games player. He currently devotes most of his time to poker. He can be found at many major tournaments and playing on FullTilt, as one of its pros. When escaping from poker, he hangs out in his bar, Nice Guy Eddie's on Houston and Avenue A in New York City.
