I understand the commercial dollar drives the length of these games but goodness if these marathon broadcasts could be shortened it seems more would stay interested.
I don't work in the advertising business so this is probably a very simplistic and uninformed approach, but here's a thought I've had.
A typical ESPN game on Saturday has 14 commercial breaks during the quarters. This does not include the breaks between quarters or at halftime. The breaks vary in length, but let's say they are all 2:30 (time for five 30-second commercials). This would equal seventy 30-second commercials. If they charge $1000 per 30-second commercial, they are bringing in $70,000 per game (I know it's a lot more than that, but for ease of math, I'm using $1000 per commercial). If they would cut out one break per quarter, that would reduce the game by 10 minutes and 20 commercials. So, if they only had 50 commercials, they would need to charge $1400 per commercial to make the same amount of money they would have made with 70 commercials.
I don't know what a commercial typically costs, but I've never seen a game where they didn't have a commercial during the break. There is always some company willing to pay whatever the networks are charging.
Again, I'm sure folks with a knowledge of the industry would be able to poke lots of holes in this, but it seems that TV could make the same amount of money and reduce the number of breaks thus reducing the game times with a similar approach to this. Plus, we are already seeing commercials being put in when there really isn't a break in the game. They are using a split screen to show a shorter commercial, etc. So, TV is going to figure out a way to make their money no matter how many true commercial breaks they are given in a game.