This just all seems like nonsense to me. I am pretty sure if one of the analytical sites looked at this situation it would be a clear "go for it". Fleck: "You hope for a turnover, three, and out , use the timeouts"
1. You kind of need two three and outs at this point if you don't get a turnover
2. What is more likely converting a single 3 yard play or getting consecutive 3 outs (or a 3 and out plus turnover) sandwiched between a must score from your offense?
3. Fleck teams have been incredibly inept running any sort of hurry up offense for his entire tenure. How many times have you seen Fleck teams fail to even record a single first down when given the ball say sub 2 minutes and needing a TD to win or tie? How many times have they even made it to midfield?
It's not like it's the biggest issue coming out of the game, but it is just concerning that Fleck seems to struggle with decision making on 4th down consistently. Going for the 4th and shorts inside his own 30 against Bowling Green and Purdue in the first half, attempting 50 plus yard FG's with unproven/backup kickers at Iowa twice. Not going for 4th downs in other siutations like yesterday or at home against Wisconsin in 2019 (I am sure others just off the top of my head). It just seems like it's a random wheel of decision making instead of a more data or logic driven approach...and in the past it's frequently lead to wasting timeouts to come to said random decision too.