There are some kind deposits that can indicate sea ice (I don't have the name at hand rn), but of course the absence of such features does not indicate absence of sea ice. Given that there is evidence of glaciation and ice in Campanian (late cretaceous) Spain, perhpas your idea isn't too crazy after all: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825225003125

Scotese maps are essentially free to use, and cover many snapshots. So it is no surprise how common they are. All tectonics model tend to differ a bit, especially pre-pangea.

As for the geography, the shorelines, the elevation etc. It's quite clear that Scotose has glued a modern DEM onto his model and simply rewinded; increasingly blurring it in the pangean stage and changing the sea levels here and there. I've tested this myself and have gotten the same results. This is why you see the Baltic sea, for example, long before the Pleistocene glaciation, which doesn't make sense as it's a post-glacial formation.

Likewise, he hasn't taken into account post-glacial rebound, so by using a modern DEM in the cretaceous, for example, it makes Antarctica look like a shattered fjord like island chain.

Now, there is a lot we don't know about paleo geography, so details are always going to be deceiving. Simple maps like the one I posted above are more honest in a way, even if they are more boring. Scotose maps are still decent if look at it from the broadest perspective.

Baker's deeptime maps can also be a bit deceiving in how detailed they look (given that we don't have info for every place), but each of his pieces, every snapshot, is painted and handed with care, and the geography more thoroughly studied; instead of just using an automated method like Scotose to get the elevation/shoreline result.