Before the Rams play this Sunday, I'll be rooting hard for the Raiders and Dolphins.  I won't be doing so because I dislike the Chiefs and Patriots (although I do), but rather because I love the fact that with wins they would both cap seasons that prove to be very unique in the NFL history books.

Since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970, 27 teams have managed to post an undefeated division record in 41 seasons with varying division sizes, and every single one of them has won their division (the Bears could also add to that list Sunday with a win).  However, the 7-8 Oakland Raiders play at Kansas City this Sunday (televised locally in St. Louis) with the chance to become the first team in that time frame to go undefeated in its division despite not winning that division.  Even more intriguing is the very unique possibility of the Raiders becoming the first team since the merger (in a non-strike season) to go undefeated in its division while going winless against the rest of its conference, the latter of which they assured by losing to the Colts last Sunday.  The only other time such a season has occurred was in 1982, when the then-Los Angeles Raiders went 5-0 against their division while going 5-1 against the AFC as a whole thanks to a very unbalanced schedule as a result of the players' strike that season.  The closest any teams have come to this feat during a full season were the 2008 Arizona Cardinals and 2009 Cincinnati Bengals, both of whom went 6-0 in their division but 1-5 against the rest of their respective conference.  Despite the poor records, both of these teams won their divisions and would have still won them if they had lost their lone non-divisional conference win - something the Raiders will not do if they complete the divisional sweep this weekend.  Even if the Raiders don't win or tie this Sunday, they will match the 1998 Tennessee Oilers (who went 7-1 division, 7-5 conference, and did not win their division) as the only team to go winless against the rest of the conference despite only losing once in their division.  This discussion would not, however, be complete without mentioning the 1989 Cincinnati Bengals, who finished last in their division at 8-8 despite a 5-1 division record, mostly thanks to their 1-5 record against the rest of the AFC.

In case anyone is wondering, the closest any team has come to doing the opposite of what the Raiders are trying to accomplish is the 2008 Buffalo Bills, who went 0-6 in their division and 5-1 against the rest of the AFC.  Also, the 1984 San Diego Chargers and 1988 Miami Dolphins managed an 0-8 record in their division and 3-1 record against the rest of the AFC in a slightly more unbalanced scheduling environment.  However, the 2010 version of the Dolphins is even more interesting.

With a loss last week to the Lions, this year's 7-8 Miami Dolphins have already guaranteed that they will set the record for the largest road-home record disparity in NFL history (not just post-merger).  At 1-7 at home and 6-1 on the road, their 5.5 game disparity is rather earth-shattering for what is the reverse of the conventional split; in contrast, a significant number of teams have had a 6-or-more game disparity the other way, most recently the 2009 New England Patriots (8-0 home, 2-6 road).  However, including this year's Miami team, only 25 times in 91 seasons of the NFL and AFL has a team finished with a road-home disparity of 3 games or worse, and only 8 of those have been 4 games or worse (though the 49ers' 0-5 home/3-1 road split in the strike-shortened 1982 season deserves honorable mention).  Even if the Dolphins lose this weekend at a New England team that has nothing on the line and will probably rest its starters, a 5-game disparity would still break the current record of 4.5, set by the 1961 Detroit Lions (2-5 home, 6-0-1 road) in a 14-game season.  But with a win, the Dolphins have a chance to achieve a 6-game disparity and set a record which legitimately may never be broken, even if the NFL decides to adopt an 18-game schedule in the future.  

So, sit back and enjoy some potentially once-in-a-lifetime football teams playing this Sunday afternoon before watching the Rams shoot for the playoffs later that night.  I know I will be.

it seems like just yesterday that fernando tatis posted a .298/.404/.553 line as a 24-year-old 3rd baseman back in '99. walt jocketty looked like a genius prying the young stud (along with decent LHP darren oliver) from the rangers for the aging todd stottlemyre and the disappointing royce clayton, and rightly so. then tatis got hurt in 2000 (hamstring, wasn't it?), struggled upon his return, and was shipped off the following fall in the hermanson/kline deal, which yet again made walt jocketty look like a genius. as an expo in his age 26-28 seasons, he struggled mightily - his .259/.339/.359 line in an injury-shortened 2001 marked his best efforts in each of the slash categories in montreal. britt reames, his counterpart in that trade, also had a rough go of things up there. yikes. must be something in the water.

anyway, with the exception of an expanded-roster cup of coffee with the regretfully bad 2006 orioles, fernando hadn't seen meaningful at-bats in the major leagues since flaming out as an expo way back in '03... until now! yes, he's back! as a met, to be specific. and in his first game after being called up, he roped a pinch-hit single to right field off the nationals' john lannan. (yes, it was a rope; i happened to be watching on TV at the time.)

good to see you back in the bigs, fernando. here's to a long-overdue string of success, even if it is for the pond scum.

based on the interesting discussion generated when i posted fanshots of my old scorecards (see links), i thought i'd pose this question to the VEB community:

what is (are) your most prized piece(s) of cardinal memorabilia? and most importantly, what makes it so important to you? is there a personal story behind it or is it just something unique and cool?

i'd love to hear more about all the interesting stuff out there.

i'm sure everyone remembers back in november when the cards had interest in curt schilling. seemed like a lot of the community here was in favor of signing him to a 1-year deal, and even schilling was agreeable to the idea. however, things didn't progress too far beyond that as it turned out. he re-signed rather quickly with the red sox, leaving it up for debate as to whether he merely used the cards (and other interested teams) as leverage with boston.

well, if we only knew then what we know now: it looks like his shoulder is in really bad shape. could require surgery, threatening most of this season if not his career. yikes. while it's sad to see just about any player get hurt, i'm extremely thankful that it's the sox on the hook for this lost season from schilling and not the cardinals.