The question on the floor is what to think about Michael Vick. We all know what he did. But does what he did define who he is now? And does that even matter when it comes to playing football?
My take is that Vick is a bad man. This isn’t some young kid who made a bad choice, or even a few bad choices, along the way. He’s a cold, cruel person who, regardless of his skin color, deserves every bit of the vilification he’s received in the media – but not all the disgusting, twisted punishments suggested on sports message boards across the Internet.
I wouldn’t like to hang out with Michael Vick socially. I would not want my son to wear a Michael Vick jersey or get his autograph. Then again, I wouldn’t really want to hang out with Tiger Woods or Mel Gibson or Angelina Jolie – though maybe I could just hover within gawking distance of Angelina.
Vick has, however, paid his debt to society. He broke the law and paid the consequences for those actions. (I know those are two very cliché expressions when discussing ex-convicts, but they are appropriate here.)
So it would be wrong to deny Michael Vick the opportunity to play in the NFL just because he’s a rotten person. Who knows? Maybe Tony Dungy and Andy Reid have had a good impact on him. Maybe Vick isn’t such a bad guy anymore. As unlikely as that is, we don’t actually know.
So if he deserves a chance to play in the NFL based on his ability and nothing else, then he should be allowed to play. If he becomes a distraction, which is a line he’s bordering on already, then he should be sent packing. Football is a business; if having Vick on your team is profitable for your business, you keep him. If having Vick on your team detracts from your business, you can find somebody almost as good to replace him. Vick, on the other hand, doesn’t have any options that are almost as good as raking in millions in the NFL. He should remember that the next time he’s invited to an open-to-the-public birthday bash.
