The money line in Andy's article is this one:

"But many of his detractors say his crimes and prison stretch don’t jibe with one of the six requirements for Tech’s sports hall of fame: the candidate must be of good character and reputation/not have been a source of embarrassment to the university in any way.”

If that is truly a requirement for the HOF- and no one has suggested changing it or ignoring it in this case- then how can any logical person argue the case that Michael Vick has NOT been a source of embarrassment to the university? Regardless of whether he is a good person today - and I am not qualified to argue that point, only those who know him personally can weigh in on that- there is no question whatsoever that he caused a high volume of negative publicity for VT and continues to do so for a substantial number of people both within and without the VT community. That is an unarguable fact.

Based on our own self-administered rules for HOF induction I don't feel that Whit or anyone else can justify how Vick's enshrinement is consistent with the "embarrassment clause".