It was? For both teams, or just Iowa? Because Debby across the river to the west put up like 450 on your defense - and they throw the ball more than you do. In fact, I'd say the weather was a factor for them more than Iowa.
Again, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than that you have strong enmity against Iowa. Since you are a Gopher fan, I think I understand your dilemma. The whole Freudian penis-envy thing. In order to compensate, you come to an Iowa message board and start flinging garbage drivel in the hope something sticks. Got it.
Now, in response to the "meat and potatoes" of your argument...
First off, and I was consistent on this position before, during, and after the Nebraska game, Nebraska was much better than their record indicated.
Second, Iowa went 0-9 on 3rd down in that game. A statistical anomaly, given that Iowa converted 41% on average for the season. Not great, but above average. Regardless, that had a lot to do with having under 300 yards of offense for the game. A game in which they won by 8 points, by the way. Also, Nebraska turnovers created a shorter field for Iowa--meaning fewer yards to gain.
Third, football has three phases: defense, offense, and special teams. You provide one statistic (total yards on offense) as a way of trying to substantiate a point (that is still a mystery) that Iowa was somehow inferior and undeserving of winning a game that again they won by 8 points.
Fourth, as an example, in the National Championship game Clemson had 31 1st downs compared to Alabama's 19. If we used your line of logic (circular reasoning at its finest), Clemson was clearly the superior team (since apparently special teams and big plays don't matter in your world). Also, Clemson had 550 total yards of offense compared to Alabama's 473. With both of those statistics, if we go by your prodigious and insightful view of things, Bama should have immediately handed the NC trophy over to Clemson.
I guess they never consulted you before accepting the trophy.
