This is unfortunately a very complicated question that's fraught with politics.
On the one hand, there are those who think he's morally undeserving of an MVP. Despite his prison time, they will never forgive Vick for his indiscretions. They'd probably be upset with me that I downplay it as "indiscretion."
Conversely, some think he's paid his debt to society and that if he won the MVP it would be a terrific example of turning your life around.
I think it comes down to the question: How do you judge Most Valuable Player? What does it really mean? Is it strictly about your play on the field, or does it take on another element. A moral one? Is it saying you're a good football player, or a good man?
You could argue that the MVP award is an endorsement by the league, putting a player on a pedestal as an example for all the other players to strive emulate.
If you took his personal history out of the equation, I think there's little doubt that Michael Vick is having an MVP-caliber year.
But what do you think? Would you award him the MVP? Leave a comment and let us know.
