Fabulous! Carnival in Venice

In about 1985, I saw a photo of Venice during Carnival (Carnevale), which included the masked and costumed revelers, it has been on my “Top 10” visit list ever since.

What is not to like about this event:

  • The beautiful city of Venice
  • A really big 10 day party through the streets
  • Fantastic costumes
  • Italian food

Carnival (Carnevale) is the annual event in Venice for the ten days leading up to Lent, the last night is Shrove Tuesday on which there are several big balls. Of course this is not just a Venetian tradition; think Mardi Gras in Rio or Trinidad during the same time of year, but my interest in fancy masked balls and beautiful costumes is much greater than watching dancers in dental floss bikinis. The origin of the word carnevale is Latin (carnem levare or carnelevarium) and suggests a “farewell to meat”, which was traditionally given up in the weeks of self-denial, during the period of Lent.

The history of the masks and the masquerade dates back to Roman times, there are records of the festival as far back as 1162. The Romans celebrated the early part of the year with a fertility festival where masks were used by all levels of society including slaves. The Carnevale di Venezia enjoyed a long period of infamy and notoriety through the 1600s, up until the time of Napoleon’s conquer in 1797. At the peak of this event, the party started on December 26th and ended sometime in the spring. This period of gambling and partying coincided with the loss of prominence and wealth in the region, as the power centers of Holland and Britain expanded their trading reaches. The celebration continued to decline and was actually banned in 1930 by Mussolini. A group of Venetians, and Venice lovers restarted the tradition in 1979.

Today the Carnevale is limited to the ten-day period before Lent and it is an enormous tourist draw. The city is really crowded, hotels are expensive, restaurants full and the streets are at times simply bottlenecked. There are websites and tour groups fully dedicated to the event. The range of party events caters to the rich and sophisticated (balls and music), to the families with kids (chocolate and puppets) and to the college crowd (pub crawls).

You can choose to participate in the carnival celebrations in several ways depending on your tastes, energy level and budget. You can simply walk around the streets or sit in a cafe and watch the incredible costumed characters that are wondering the streets. Spend some time in Piazzo San Marco, there are all sorts of special performances throughout the day and night. Choose to get your face painted and have some fun. Or you can buy tickets to any number events, that range from very affordable to very expensive.

We booked two nights in a great hotel right near Piazza San Marco. Arrival in Venice was actually easier than anticipated; there is lots of signage, big car parks and a central arrival point for the aqua-transit system. The vaporetti (water buses) are very efficient, there are multiple routes and destinations available, at a very minimum every visitor will end up on the #1 or #2 at some point, running in the Grande Canal and Canale delle Giudecca (respectively). Buy a multi-day unlimited ticket; you will end up using the system.

Venice at any time of the year is beautiful; there are endless museums, galleries and historical buildings to engage all types of interests. Two things that I would highly recommend;

  1. A visit to the island of Murano where the glass factories are located. You can take the “scenic” boat tour that we did in error and really see all the islands or go direct. In either case, Murano is filled with glass and restaurants and is a nice break from the crowds in Venice.
  2. The Secret Itineraries Tour of the Doge’s Palace. This tour as something beyond the normal tour and it is really fun!

Pick 4 Lottery Strategy System Picks the Right Pick 4 Strategies to Win

A good Pick 4 Lottery System has more than just one Strategy; it has a number of Pick 4 Strategies to offer the lottery players multiple ways to find the next winning number.

These multiple Pick 4 Strategies open the door for the players to take advantage of various number trends that can take place at any given time during this lottery game.

In March 2010 there seems to be an overabundance of Pick 4 Triples and Double-Doubles based on the low percentage for these types of Pick 4 numbers to be drawn over a period of time. These two groups of numbers represent just 6.3% of all 10,000 Pick 4 numbers. Their collective combinations total 135 of 715 combinations for all Pick 4 numbers. There were approximately 125 of these types of numbers drawn in the U.S. and Canadian Pick 4 Lotteries in March 2010.

Another Pick 4 lottery anomaly is the current amount — over twenty — of traveling numbers that began in March 2010 and is carrying over into April 2010. A traveling number is the same set of four digits that make up a winning Pick 4 number that is drawn two or more times over a short period of time in more than one State. The perfect definition of a traveling number includes that the same number being redrawn in the exact order. But the traveling Pick 4 Box form is quite acceptable for the purposes of winning free money.

Triples and double-doubles are the highest paying Pick 4 Box numbers. Triple numbers, such as 1112, pay $1200 for one single $1 investment. The dollar investment on the double-double number, such as 1122, returns $800.

The key to being a successful winning Pick 4 player is to have a multiple Lottery Strategy System. It provides the right Pick 4 Strategies which enable Pick 4 players to have strategies to create and play these ongoing number trends as they occur.

Combining strategies for playing triples and double-doubles with the traveling number strategy gives the player the right Pick 4 strategies to win some very nice payoffs. A perfect example of the double-double traveling number occurred with the combination draws of 8877 first in the Delaware Pick 4 Midday draw, March 22, 2010, and the April 4, 2010, Evening draw in the Kentucky Pick 4 Lottery. Players of this lottery game using both these strategies have put the 8877 on the watch list. The New York Win 4 lead the way with the evening drawing on March 30, 2010, of 0660 and followed up with this same number being drawn in the evening draw in the West Virginia Pick 4 Lottery.

The Indiana Hoosier Lottery Daily 4 began this imperfect trip, but nevertheless a profitable one for the New York Win 4 players when the third box form of 5757 was drawn in the midday draw on March 31, 2010. The Indiana Daily 4 first drew 7755 on March 18, 2010, midday draw. Traveling east to the Ohio Pick 4 Lottery, the OH Pick 4 drew 7557 in the evening draw on March 22, 2010.

The Big Apple State continued to provide big winning slices of cash for their Big Apple Win 4 players when it drew the third box form of the triple 7111 on the evening of April 4, 2010.

Previously, again starting out in the Indiana Daily 4 on the evening of March 16, 2010, the first triple box form was drawn as 1171. Then, traveling southeast to the Georgia Cash 4 was 1711 which was drawn in the evening draw on March 30, 2010. Like the New Year’s Eve Times Square countdown it gave New Yorkers one more thing to celebrate, another pocketful of NY Win 4 Lottery Free Money.

In a rare return home Pick 4 traveling number, trend players keeping an eye open for these two strategies to converge once again, Oregonians in the Oregon Pick 4 Lottery were glad to welcome back the 0400 on March 18, 2010, in the 7pm drawing. It was first drawn here in the 1pm Pick 4 drawing on March 8, 2010. It then traveled to Florida and was drawn in the Florida Play 4 as 4000 on the evening of March 16, 2010 before boarding the flight home to the Oregon Pick 4.

To be a Pick 4 Winner you need a Pick 4 Lottery Strategy System with multiple Pick 4 strategies. It is the only way that Pick 4 players around the country and around the world have a real chance to win some big money. Systems that offer just one strategy to play or recommended to play just the single Pick 4 type numbers do not give you the same chance to win. Often times the reality is that the one strategy or the recommended “Pick 4 Single Number Pick 4 Systems” create “automatic losers” for both the numbers and the players.

All Pick 4 players need to keep their eyes open for these traveling numbers in all forms, 0660, 7755, 1711, and 0400, that could travel to the remaining Pick 4 U.S. Lotteries, the Caribbean Pick 4 Lottery, Ontario Pick 4 and La Quotidienne 4, the two Canadian Lottery Pick 4 Games. One or more of the other strategies in the Pick 4 System may just predict the arrival of one of these traveling numbers to your local favorite Daily 4 Lottery game.

Where Internet Jurisdiction Can Get Your Business Sued!

The concept of Internet jurisdiction can be complicated and unclear. What happens when a dispute arises over an item or service purchased from your business through the internet? If that dispute turns into a lawsuit, it could be with an individual residing across the country from your business. What happens then? If you live in California, could your business actually be dragged into a state court in Maine?

Any business with an Internet presence should understand how courts gain authority to hear claims made against out-of-state businesses. The bottom line is that establishing Internet jurisdiction over your business can potentially end up being very costly!

Establishing Internet Jurisdiction Over Your Business

No matter what the subject of the dispute is about, a court must have what is known as “personal jurisdiction” over all the parties involved. This applies to all courts, including state and federal district courts. Establishing personal jurisdiction means that the court has the legal power to make a binding decision over the plaintiff and the defendant in a given dispute. State and federal courts always have personal jurisdiction over state residents. But, when the defendant’s principal residence or place of business is not in the state where the lawsuit is filed (often called the “forum state”), matters are much more complex. This is often the case with suits involving e-commerce.

(Note: A corporation is treated as a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which its principal place of business is located. A partnership or limited liability company is considered to assume the citizenship of each jurisdiction of its partners/members. If you understand the nature of how a court can gain jurisdiction to hear a claim filed against your business, you can avoid certain practices that may expose you to out-of-state claims.)

The Concept of Minimum Contacts

One way a foreign court can claim personal jurisdiction over your business is by establishing that some sort of meaningful connection exists with the state in question and your business. States can exercise jurisdiction over your business through their “long-arm statutes” (which I discuss separately). However, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution mandates that certain “minimum contacts” must exist between the forum state and the defendant in order for a state to assert jurisdiction over the defendant. This basically means that activities which are deemed to establish substantially sufficient contacts with the residents or businesses of a particular state can be used by its courts to establish jurisdiction over your business. For example, you are not subject to the personal jurisdiction of an out-of-state court simply because you are involved in an automobile accident with a resident of that state where you live. All the events necessary to give rise to the claim occur outside the state of the other resident.

Activities establishing minimum contacts with another state are not always clear, but usually any substantial presence in the state will justify personal jurisdiction. Regularly soliciting business in that state, deriving substantial revenue from goods or services sold in that state, or engaging in some other persistent and continuous course of business conduct in the state are all examples of activities that would establish minimum contacts with that state.

Minimum Contacts Define Internet Jurisdiction

As stated, the concept of minimum contacts becomes more complicated when it involves the Internet. The courts have recognized that exposing the owners of a website to personal jurisdiction simply because the website can be viewed nationally is not enough to establish minimum contacts in a given state. Personal jurisdiction is “directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that a business conducts over the Internet.” Businesses that enter into contracts or subscriptions with residents of another state that involve the “knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet will be subject to the jurisdiction of out-of-state courts. But, websites that only post information without making active sales are unlikely to establish personal jurisdiction in a foreign state (except in the state where the owner(s) resides or conducts other business).

The ‘Zippo’ Sliding Scale Guide

Generally speaking, minimum contacts for Internet retailers and marketers are directly related to the nature and quality of electronic contacts they establish with residents of another state. In other words, mere advertising alone is not enough to establish jurisdiction. Most courts across the nation have adopted the “sliding scale” approach used in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. (1997). The court in Zippo determined that the act of processing the applications from Pennsylvania residents and assigning passwords was sufficient to demonstrate sufficient minimum contacts with the state. But, the Court held that jurisdiction is not proper when a website passively posts information on the Internet which may or may not be viewed by residents of that particular jurisdiction.

In the Zippo case, the district court described a spectrum consisting of three categories websites fall under. This spectrum ranges from: 1) businesses clearly conducting commercial activities over the Internet by entering into contracts with residents of the forum state; 2) interactive web sites with which a user in the forum state can exchange information and jurisdiction is proper if the level of interactivity is sufficient and there is a commercial component to the web site and 3) web sites which are “passive” by merely allowing users to post information accessible nationwide or globally that do not target a particular plaintiff in a particular forum (i.e. by intentional trademark or copyright infringement or in cases of defamation). Basically, under the Zippo sliding scale jurisdiction is more likely to be established when your Internet business engages in commercial activities directed at residents of a given state.

Of course, many cases fall in the middle of the Zippo sliding scale. In these instances, the courts generally have determined that “the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the website.” Making multiple sales to state residents is likely to expose an Internet-based business to personal jurisdiction in that state. A single sale may also be enough, provided it is accompanied by numerous intentional communications with a resident customers so that the transaction can be said to be purposefully aimed at the residents (or businesses) of that state.

Typically, the courts require “something more” than passive Internet advertising or more than just a single sale for jurisdiction to exist over a non-resident Internet business. Jurisdiction is often triggered by repeated or commercially significant sales to out-of-state residents, deliberate target marketing to out-of-state residents or significant non-Internet based contacts with the state.

State Long Arm Statutes

All states have enacted “long-arm statutes” setting forth what will be considered sufficient contacts with that state. In a nutshell, the long-arm statute allows that state’s courts to gain personal jurisdiction over Internet businesses. These statutes form the legal basis allowing the courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over your business. Under these statutes, service of process outside the state on nonresident individuals and businesses is allowed for claims generally arising out of: (1) the transaction of any business in the state; (2) the commission of a tortious act within the state; (3) the ownership, use, or possession of real estate in the state; or (4) contracting to supply goods or services to any person or business in the state; or 5) causing injury or damage in this state to any person by breach of warranty expressly or impliedly made in the sale of goods; 6) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting; 7) an act or omission outside the state causing injury in the state.

State courts typically exercise personal jurisdiction over Internet businesses under the “transacting business” provision of the long-arm statute. Like the Zippo court, state courts will look at jurisdiction in an Internet setting by looking at the “nature and quality” of the contacts with the state. Some Long-arm statutes set forth factual situations likely to satisfy the minimum-contacts test. Others contain much broader provisions not inconsistent with constitutional restrictions.

Helpful Case Summaries

Here is a summary of some decisions that have helped shape the law regarding internet jurisdiction. Hopefully, these summaries can provide some guidance.

  • Thompson v. Handa-Lopez, Inc. (1998): A Texas court gained personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state online gambling enterprise because the gambling operation entered into contracts with Texas residents to play online gambling games, sent emails to the Texas residents, and sent winnings to Texas residents;
  • ChloĆ© NA v Queen Bee of Beverly Hills LLC (2010): The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state website operator located in California may exist based on a single act of shipping a handbag into New York, along with other substantial business activity in the state. The single act of shipping an infringing handbag to New York combined with other substantial contacts, such as the shipment of several other items in-state and operating a commercial interactive website available to New York residents was sufficient to obtain specific personal jurisdiction;
  • Verizon Online Services, Inc. v. Ralksky (2002): The court held that nonresident defendants’ transmission of spam emails through plaintiff’s servers, located in Virginia, to nonresident Internet subscribers created a substantial connection to forum sufficient for exercise of personal jurisdiction on a claim of trespass to chattel;
  • Gates v. Royal Palace Hotel (1998): The court decided that the combination of a concentrated advertising effort within the state of Connecticut, active booking of reservations for Connecticut citizens through state travel agents, and an invitation to Connecticut citizens to make reservations through the Internet, constituted the transaction of business within the state such that exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper.

Causing an Injury within a State

Your Internet business can also be subject to jurisdiction in another state for purposefully causing a physical or economic injury (i.e. a “tort”) to a business or resident of that state. This is a separate avenue of liability outside of a breach of contract claim where your business is dragged into court by one of your unhappy customers. If you use the Internet to cause an injury in one state, you or your business may be brought into court in the state where the injury occurred. For example, under state long arm statutes, committing a tortious act within the state is a basis of jurisdiction.

Of course, in cases where the connection between the activity and the injury is not clear, courts have looked for evidence that the activity was “purposefully directed” at the resident(s) of the forum state, or that the person causing the injury had substantial contacts with the state. Most courts are less inclined to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents in cases involving tort claims arising from Internet use. Generally speaking, an Internet business must direct its activities at an in-state resident, or have a continuing obligation with that resident, in order reasonably to anticipate being hauled into court in the state.

But, not all torts or injuries will expose your business to the personal jurisdiction of another state. Even if a plaintiff claims to feel the effects of the harm caused by an act causing injury in his or her forum state, there must still be “something more” than mere Internet use to satisfy due process under the Constitution. Purposeful conduct may still be insufficient in jurisdictions where the activity must be directed at the plaintiff in his or her capacity as a resident of that particular state.

More case examples:

  • EDIAS Software International v. BASIS International Ltd. (1996): A New Mexico company was sued for sending defamatory email and making defamatory postings about an Arizona business. The court claimed personal jurisdiction because the defamatory statements intentionally targeted the Arizona business and actually caused an injury (defamation) within the state.
  • Pavlovich v. Superior Court (Cal. 2002): Under the “effects test”, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over a foreign resident in a corporation’s suit alleging the resident misappropriated its trade secrets by posting the corporation’s program’s source code on his website. The website was accessible to any person with Internet access and the resident merely posted information and had no interactive features. The court determined that the resident could not have known that his tortious conduct would hurt the corporation in California when the misappropriated code was first posted and this did not establish express targeting of California residents.
  • Blumenthal v. Drudge (1998): In another early decision, Matt Drudge of The Drudge Report made alleged defamatory statements about a Washington, D.C. resident on his website and the resident filed suit in the District of Columbia. Although Matt Drudge lived and worked in California at the time of the suit, a court ruled that he was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District because the injury occurred in the District. The court also determined that the Drudge Report had substantial contacts in D. C. since Drudge personally emailed his column to a list of emails belonging to D.C. residents, solicited contributions and collected money from D. C. residents and he traveled to D. C. on two occasions to promote his column. All of this was enough for the court in that case to determine that Matt Drudge had substantial contacts with the District;
  • Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. (1997): An Arizona plaintiff suing for trademark infringement argued that a Florida defendant’s mere use of the same trademark in its home page was sufficient for personal jurisdiction. The Florida defendant had “no contacts with Arizona other than maintaining a home page that was accessible to anyone over the Internet.” The court declined to exercise jurisdiction, noting the Florida defendant “did nothing to encourage residents of Arizona to access its site, and there [was] no evidence that any part of its business (let alone a continuous part of its business) was sought or achieved in Arizona.” The circumstances lacked the “something more” necessary “to indicate that the defendant purposefully… directed his activity in a substantial way to the forum state.”

Consenting to Jurisdiction over Your Business

A court can obtain personal jurisdiction if both parties consent to such jurisdiction. The most common type of consent is where a company is required to consent, in advance, to personal jurisdiction in a state for incorporating or organizing a business under the laws of that state. State business organization statutes require that a business provide the secretary of state with an agent to accept service of process. An Internet business can also consent to the court’s jurisdiction by filing a response to a lawsuit filed with that court.

Similarly, you may grant consent by signing a contract that has a provision requiring you agree in advance to be subject to the personal jurisdiction of a state. For example, a California website developer may sign an agreement with an Illinois service provider containing a clause stating: “The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal and state courts located in Cook County, Illinois, in any action arising out of or relating to this agreement. The parties waive any other venue to which either party might be entitled by domicile or otherwise.” (However, the States of Montana and Idaho do refuse to recognize such clauses).

You have now been introduced to the catch 22 of e-commerce! The Internet provides a great way for small businesses to operate and achieve massive growth. Unfortunately, such growth will inevitably expose your business to foreign jurisdiction and the ability to be hauled into court in some distant State. If you want to guarantee that you will avoid this risk and you plan on operating a commercial website, you will surely sacrifice sales and growth.

SportGamble.us Picks this Year’s College Football Bowl Games

Here are the consensus bowl picks from the SportGamble.us staff.

Tue., Dec. 14

New Orleans Bowl

North Texas vs Southern Mississippi

SG’s Pick: North Texas

If the So. Miss defense can stop Jamario Thomas from adding to his gaudy stats they should be able to keep this one close.

7:30 pm

Tue., Dec. 21

Champs Sports Bowl

Georgia Tech vs Syracuse

SG’s Pick: Georgia Tech

7:45 pm

Wed., Dec. 22

GMAC Bowl

Memphis vs Bowling Green

SG’s Pick: Bowling Green

I want to pick Memphis to win this battle, but the Falcon’s scoring offense, 4th in the nation, will simply outscore Memphis regardless of how well they play.

8:00 pm

Thur., Dec. 23

PlainsCapital Fort Worth Bowl

Cincinnati vs Marshall

SG’s Pick: Marshall

Marshall has shown up to play in big games this year. I consider a bowl game a “big” game, wouldn’t you?

6:30 pm

Las Vegas Bowl

Wyoming vs UCLA

SG’s Pick: UCLA

UCLA should burn Wyoming with it’s passing and running game. Although, Wyoming is playing in it’s first bowl game in 11 years…that’s certainly motivating.

9:45 pm

Fri., Dec. 24

Hawaii Bowl

UAB vs Hawaii

SG’s Pick: Hawaii

NCAA’s all time passing leader should have a hay-day against this no show UAB defense

7:00 pm

Mon., Dec. 27

MPC Computers Bowl

Fresno State vs 18 Virginia

SG’s Pick: Virginia

Fresno State failed to play with the big dogs this season and Virginia is on the horizon to become one.

2:00 pm

Motor City Bowl

Toledo vs Connecticut

SG’s Pick: Toledo

Connecticut has a football team? Well, that’s what we would have said last season but they have a QB that can rip the secondary. You probably haven’t heard of him but the NFL scouts know him very well. Connecticut has a chance if they grasp the mindset they had when meeting Pittsburgh earlier in the year.

5:30 pm

Tue., Dec. 28

Independence Bowl

Iowa State vs Miami (Ohio)

SG’s Pick: Iowa State

Iowa State’s explosive offense will give Miami all they want…plus some.

6:30 pm

Insight Bowl

Oregon State vs Notre Dame

SG’s Pick: Notre Dame

Notre Dame is going to fight its heart out in defense of Tyrone Willingham. Oh, did we mention they’re a pretty good football team anyway?

9:45 pm

Wed., Dec. 29

Houston Bowl

Texas-El Paso vs Colorado

SG’s Pick: Texas-El Paso

Jordan Carson (name sound familiar?) will finally have his chance to showcase his talent on national television. Colorado is still wondering what happened in the Big 12 championship…

4:30 pm

Alamo Bowl

24 Ohio State vs Oklahoma State

SG’s Pick: Ohio State

Oklahoma State is no stranger to big games. Unfortunately, they haven’t learned how to win them.

8:00 pm

Thur., Dec. 30

Continental Tire Bowl

25 Boston College vs North Carolina

SG’s Pick: Boston College

North Carolina has a lack of “big game” experience while Boston College has the “secret to success” for winning bowl games, they’ve won 4 straight.

1:00 pm

Emerald Bowl

New Mexico vs Navy

SG’s Pick: Navy

Did we say Navy? That’s right! These guys finally learned how to play football.

4:30 pm

Holiday Bowl

4 California vs 23 Texas Tech

SG’s Pick: California

Cal will punish Texas Tech for being pushed out of the BCS picture.

8:00 pm

Silicon Valley Bowl

Troy vs Northern Illinois

SG’s Pick: Northern Illinois

Troy has never been to a bowl game and they’re not ready to win one either. N. Illinois has a ground attack that will out-muscle this Troy defense.

11:00 pm

Fri., Dec. 31

Music City Bowl

Alabama vs Minnesota

SG’s Pick: Alabama

This isn’t because we like the SEC. Minnesota isn’t playing at home…

12:00 pm

Sun Bowl

Purdue vs 21 Arizona State

SG’s Pick: Purdue

Arizona State is coming with their 2nd string QB that Purdue’s young, yet darn good, defense should contain. Expect Purdue to light up the score board in this one!

2:00 pm

Liberty Bowl

10 Boise State vs 7 Louisville

SG’s Pick: Louisville

This may be bowl game of the year. If you like fast attack offenses and aggressive scoring, this game is for you! Vegas will be exploding with “total points” bets on this one.

3:30 pm

14 Miami (FLA.) vs 20 Florida

Peach Bowl

SG’s Pick: Florida

If Chris Leak (Gators) isn’t the best QB in the land he will be. When the Gators are operating on all cylinders I would pick them to beat anyone in the country. Keep an eye on this one because it should be a money maker!

7:30 pm

Sat., Jan. 1

Cotton Bowl

15 Tennessee vs 22 Texas A&M

SG’s Pick: Tennessee

The Vols simply ran out of time in the SEC championship. I suspect they will pick up where they left off. Neither team “should” be here so it will definitely be one of the better games to watch.

11:00 am

Outback Bowl

16 Wisconsin va 8 Georgia

SG’s Pick: Georgia

Wisconsin can play offense buy GA’s fast defense will stop the run and force Wisconsin to throw resulting in too many mistakes to overcome. Georgia wins.

11:00 am

Gator Bowl

17 Florida State va West Virginia

SG’s Pick: Florida State

Florida State has put the lost to Florida behind them. Bowden’s ability to dominate bowl games has a “W” written all over it.

12:30 pm

Capital One Bowl

11 Iowa vs 12 LSU

SG’s Pick: LSU (restrictions apply…)

LSU is young but managed to fight their way to a good bowl game this year. If LSU’s defense can keep the score close they can pull this one off.

1:00 pm

Rose Bowl

13 Michigan vs 6 Texas

SG’s Pick: Texas

If Mack can persuade his players they’re as good as he did the nations coaches Texas will overcome a solid Michigan team.

4:30 pm

Fiesta Bowl

5 Utah vs 19 Pittsburgh

SG’s Pick: Utah

Pittsburgh slipped through the back door to win the Big East but I’m afraid Utah will show Pitt what it’s like to play with the Big Boys.

8:30 pm

Mon., Jan. 3

Sugar Bowl

3 Auburn vs 9 Virginia Tech

SG’s Pick: Auburn

Auburn should be playing for the national title. Look for Auburn to win big for the slight possibility of sharing the title.

8:00 pm

Tue., Jan. 4

Orange Bowl

1 Southern California vs 2 Oklahoma

SG’s Pick: Oklahoma

This one should come down to the last quarter. Oklahoma should prevail with stamina.

8:00 pm