Well, the whole idea was to open up the scripture for readings, but a good Bible study class will do you more good. I say make a single-year calendar and harmonize it with the EF (and ditch the modern LotH.. had to get that in there).

While the intent to read more scripture is admirable, the readings often seem disconnected and not relevant to the mass of the day. I Mug defeated the army of Ug, son of Jug, of the Jarheads in the plain... It often makes no sense.

Tampering with the lectionary was a catechetical blessing, but a liturgical nightmare. Unfortunately, it's almost universally seen as one of the greatest changes of the liturgical innovation.

The Ethiopian Church has a four-year cycle based on the Gospels so that one has Year of St. Matthew followed by Year of St. ... etc.

I cannot recall if the Ethiopian discipline in any way shaped the idea of the three-year cycle in which Matthew, Mark and Luke cycle through with St. John filling in here and there especially during the "Year of Mark".

I do recall being taught -- in the Anglican pond -- that the Roman Catholic 3 year cycle of texts (which the U.S. Episcopalians adopted with some alterations) were meant to underscore the brief timespan of Our Lord Jesus' earthly public ministry i.e., 'The Lord Jesus Christ did all this in a (mere) three year time period.'

For a while I have wondered if the previous one year Lectionary could be authorised for the OF for Low Masses. And venturing further in realms propositional, I think an arrangement of explicit fixed theme for each Sunday -- as is noted on the Maronite Lectionary -- would allow for a single year's worth of Propers with Psalm based on the theme (the Sunday of the Transfiguration, for example) then use a three-year rotation of readings in keeping with each Sunday's theme. It may sound like moving deck chairs on the Titanic but I think this idea would prove strong in terms of catechesis as well as creating a clear sense of annual structure to be repeated year after year.

The three-year lectionary was invented in order to expose the faithful to a larger selection of scripture than is possible in a one-year lectionary. Other explainations are folk-tales invented after the fact. This innovation directly impinges on the character of the liturgy itself (which should not be hijacked for this sort of directly didactic functionalism) and on the role of scripture in liturgy (with the false implication that the Mass gains richness from the amount of scripture read directly rather than from the infusion of scripture in all of its texts). What we get is less rather than more connection to scripture by people in the pews, as well as yet another example of social/catechetical engineering of the liturgy. The ancient, rich connection between the proper chants and the lections is lost and the organic, historical development of the lectionary is swept away for an engineered product--certainly a process of rupture rather than continuity.

I remember that in the 1990's the Joint Liturgical Group in the UK put forward a four-year lectionary that followed the Ethiopian idea of one Gospel per year. But that format never gained traction.