Dodgers have 9 games but aren't in the list. I was worried at first lol

Way to completely ignore the Royals, Blue Jays, D-backs, Reds, Pirates, and Nationals, MLB! That's how you grow the game; act like the teams that need the most help don't even exist!

Those teams are terrible, Todd, and no one wants to watch them. Ratings poison. How do you not get this.

The Twins get more games than the Yankees. I AM TIRED OF THIS PRO-MINNEAPOLIS BIAS!!!

Oh, absolutely they are, but MLB has the opportunity to throw them on at least one broadcast per summer and refuses to so that they can feature...whom, exactly? The Orioles? The White Sox? The Indians? C'mon. If those teams can get multiple games, they should just feature every team at least once in an effort to at least acknowledge their existance. Baseball already skews itself towards the upper echelon too much as it is; leaving these teams without a nationally broadcast game while you feature the Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers and Mets scores of times is just stupid.

The one thing I hate the most about nationally broadcast baseball games in when the Fox Saturday game of the week and the ESPN Sunday game of the week are the same series. MLB needs to fix this situation because the national audience does not want to see the the same two teams play two days in a row.

It's similar to when SNF or MNF have back to back weeks of the NFC East. It gets old fast...

I agree with what DCS says. I hate when I'm stuck with the same two teams for two days in a row (usually NY, NY, and Boston, but some others fit in there too). They need to diversify and give every team at least an appearance.

So... as a Red Sox fan, there are 8 more games that I will listen to on the radio (in addition to the 2 Joe Morgan debacles on Sunday Night Baseball), because there's nothing worse than having to endure the ridiculousness of a FOX broadcast (in ANY sport)....most notably that with Buck & McCarver.

"Those teams are terrible, Todd, and no one wants to watch them. Ratings poison. How do you not get this."

Sure, the Royals are terrible, but you'd at least figure Zack Grienke would bring some bank and some intrigue to a game. I think they were on more than once last season, and they've got a Sunday Night Baseball appearance this season. That's actually a bit baffling.

JHitts, I agree on Grienke (I'm a Red Sox fan), but he's a starting pitcher. With the schedule set 2 months before the regular season starts, there's a 1 in 5 chance they'll televise a game Zack starts. Pretty long odds. We all know this is about one thing - ratings. KC, Pittsburgh, Washington, who'd watch outside of those cities?

Sure, you'll likely take a ratings hit by showing games from those cities (though, I'd counter by asking if it'd be much more than showing Rays games if they're not in contention). But if you're not going to include all of the teams in the national broadcasting package, why do you require one representative per team in the All-Star game?

Fox has carried games for 15 years now, and I don't think they've aired a single Blue Jays game.

Good for Fox, though...it's the only way that the Red Sox end up on free television in Boston.

Great, Thanks FOX for contracting MLB to a more managable 14 teams!

Gee, New Orleans and Indy are in the Super Bowl today. Those are two minor league cities. I guess nobody will watch and ratings will be bad because, let's face it, nobody wants to watch New Orleans or Indy or KC or Pittsburgh. ... Just another example of how the NFL has it right and MLB doesn't know its collective a$$ from a hole in the ground.

Awesome, hopefully I'll be watching Man United at 2:45 on FOX, then Yankees at 7 on May 22