Question of the day: Did the NFL do the right thing by reinstating Michael Vick for the third game of the season?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Did the NFL do the right thing by reinstating Michael Vick for the third game of the season? Reporters from across the Tribune family of newspapers will answer this question throughout the day. And we are interested in your comments too, so when you are done reading, chime in!

Houston Mitchell, Los Angeles Times

Michael Vick shouldn’t have to be reinstated. He paid his dues, in prison, and should have been able to play the moment he was released. Besides, he has already missed two full seasons. Donte’ Stallworth will end up missing only one, so apparently dogfighting is a much worse crime in the NFL’s eyes than killing someone while you are drunk driving. Don’t even get me started on why Stallworth served less time in jail than Vick.

But, in the world of the p.r.-minded NFL, this is no surprise. They couldn’t take a chance of losing sponsors or fans by doing the right thing, so the league did the safe thing. But everyone out there, ask yourself this: If it was your son or daughter who were in Vick’s place, wouldn’t you be unhappy that they were barred from working at the top of their field because of a mistake they already paid the price for?
Make no mistake, Vick’s crime was heinous and reprehensible. But the justice system took care of it. And the NFL should have had the backbone to let an off-the-field issue be settled off the field.

Dave Fairbank, Newport News Daily Press:

A third-week reinstatement seems about right. It falls between those who believe Michael Vick has been punished sufficiently and shouldn’t miss any time, and those who think he shouldn’t see the inside of an NFL stadium ever again. In other words, it satisfies almost no one, and isn’t that what American justice is all about?
No way Roger Goodell was going to reinstate Vick for opening week. He wasn’t about to permit Vick to become one of the NFL’s Week One storylines. Goodell also didn’t figure to wait until Week Six, his self-imposed deadline for a decision. Doing so would have effectively shelved Vick for at least half of the season and probably limited the quarterback’s prospects for getting signed.
Say what you want about Goodell’s judge-jury-executioner role – and there are any number of valid concerns – but his m.o. has been to drop the hammer when the judicial system did not. Aggravating both ends of the spectrum is the price of doing business.