This is usually only an issue that is talked about in close games where the chances of coming back to win are already small. Having an additional timeout or two doesn't change the likelihood from "unlikely" to "likely". It probably doesn't do much to move the needle at all.

It is really easy to play "what if". What if we had that extra timeout - we could have stopped the clock one more time and gotten off one additional play." Well, you also have to assume that additional play would be successful. And not just successful as in keeping down and distance on track, but successful as in getting a good chunk of yards in very little time.

Well, what about this "what if"? What if a coach sees a mis-alignment on defense but doesn't call a timeout. That mis-alignment allows the offense to make a big play. Perhaps a scoring play. If you would trade a timeout for an increased chance at a scoring play at the end of a half or game, why wouldn't you trade a timeout for an increased chance at stopping a scoring play in the first quarter? I don't get the logic.

And no, icing an extra point doesn't fit in the above scenario. I get that. That decision is an obvious one for fans to criticize - but the vast majority of criticisms are vague "clock management" issues, and when pressed people talk about using timeouts too early. Well, if this is really an issue, then it's an issue for every team in nearly every game. If you were to pay attention to every team/coach with the same microscope you use on BYU/Bronco, you would see this is true.