The problem a snap count creates is that it will require teams to carry more players on their rosters, then the financial incentive for the players, or the owners goes out the window.
No it does not at all. I am catching myself here, a decade ago I would have accidentally been rude to some of the people in my replies due to me thinking someone is not grasping or not that intelligent.
Now the more deliberate me reflects back on my OP that is 3 posts long, each pretty long by themselves, with a lot of outstanding detail but as a person earlier was saying more brevity would be a help in a percentage of my posts
You still have the same 53 players, there is no extra burden in any way. Because of the few starters that you sub in for a few snaps here and there if they are pacing high, that simply means the backup plays a few more snaps. Plus the financial bonus they get is so big that even if they go to a 55 man roster it is still a boost.
You know they where already talking about adding 1 or 2 guys to the 53 man roster for years now even before the 17th game was talking about. It is one of the things that is on the off season list they go over each year. Even with 16 games they will probably increase the slots and even with 16 games each year the cap is rising. If they even went to say a 55 man roster, that means 64 more players will get to be in the NFL, another win for the NFLPA.
I have already gone over so many of these things, all the scenarios work. There is a win only scenario for players, owners, team and NFL employees, and fans to go to a 17 game schedule, with 2 bye weeks, 19 week regular season, and my play cap for each position based on the formula I gave earlier.
Cheers