To say the Vick case has sparked debate among sports fans is an understatement. On one side are those who would ban Vick from the NFL permanently, on the other those who believe he was made a target for prosecution because of his celebrity status.

Like many people I didn't pay close attention to the charges when they came out. An NFL player in trouble with law enforcement isn't that unusual, and I thought a six game suspension was the likely outcome. My knowledge of dog fighting was limited, my understanding of the legal ramifications less. I didn't suspect the case would cause this much outrage, either from Vick's detractors or supporters.

After taking in the many media reports and reading countless blogs here at FOX Sports, here are some questions that seem to be emerging.

Is the Vick case about race?

From a legal standpoint, no. Prosecutions for dog fighting cut across racial and ethnic lines. But the reaction to the Vick case definitely is influenced by race. In an era of political correctness, real discussion of racial issues is limited. The off field behavior of athletes, often African-American, becomes a forum for expressing cultural concerns and sometimes prejudices.

The word "thug" seems to have become a code word in these discussions with racial implications. It is worth noting that this term frequently was used by bloggers about Vick prior to his current legal situation, when less serious charges were brought against him.

Taken simply as a legal case there would still, and should, be a degree of outrage over the allegations against Vick. But the sheer volume of the reports and blogs about Vick make the arguement that this is about more than Michael Vick. In terms of race, this is becoming the O.J. Simpson trial of the 21st Century.

As Paul Simon once wrote "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." That is the take away from this conversation in terms of race, and what is heard depends on which side of the divide you are standing.

What is misunderstood is how big the problem of dog fighting has become, and how seriously the law takes it. There are thousands of prosecutions annually and the vast majority of states have made dog fighting a felony offense separate and apart from the laws on animal cruelty. The law regards the violence of dog fighting as representing a culture of barbarity which will surely impact not just animals but society at large.

But dog fighting prosecutions are seldom about just animal cruelty.

There are huge sums of money involved in dog fighting, with seizures of as much as $500,000 reported in individual cases. Gambling revenue from dog fights fund drug trafficking and gang activity.

In this context dog fighting prosecutions are a significant tool in efforts to limit drugs, gambling, and gang violence. Raids on dog fights are also a low cost means of apprehending large numbers of known felons in one location.

The bottom line is that the government would have been pursuing the Bad Newz Kennel organization whether Vick was involved or not.

Are there other factors involved?

Celebrity and backlash against celebrity. As dissimilar as Paris Hilton and Michael Vick are, they share a high recognition rating from the public. It would be hard to find someone who doesn't know of them. They also are unique because their celebrity isn't matched by their achievements. Paris Hilton, stripped of celebrity, is just an heiress who goes to alot of parties. Vick, minus the Nike ads and hype, is a very good quarterback who hasn't reached his potential or won the Super Bowl.

When celebrities fall they provide as much, or more, entertainment value as when they at their peak. People who can't understand why Hilton is even famous, or why Vick gets as much publicity as quarterbacks who have taken their team to the Super Bowl, take great pleasure in seeing "unearned" fame taken from them. Read the blogs. There is not just disgust with Vick, but almost a joy at seeing his fall. It hasn't always been pretty.

Is Vick's career in jeopardy?

Count on it. He has, at best, a 50% chance of ever playing again. Vick could go to trial and could be acquitted, but that does not seem likely. The other defendants have agreed to testify against Vick and, by all accounts, the prosecution has a compelling case. As the last defendant to plead, Vick has little to offer prosecutors who can seek the maximum five year sentence. If Vick serves even two years he will have lost a major part of his career and would return at age 30 having lost some of his skills.

What is being overlooked at this point is the likelihood that the State of Virginia, which has sat on the sidelines until now, will join in with state charges. The bill that is about to come due for Vick is probably going to be more than just the 2-5 years on federal charges. It is not likely, but possible, that Vick might leave prison at 35 instead of 30 in which case his playing days are over.

What will the NFL do?

The dog fighting charges are not even the worst of it to the NFL. The defendants in the Vick case allege he financed the gambling end of the operation. The league warns players that some gambling activities (those that bring discredit to the game) may result in a permanent ban.

You have to view how the NFL will react to Vick in the context not only of the dog fighting, but also of the associations Vick has made. The people gambling on these fights are not persons the league is comfortable having around the edges of the game. Was Vick ever at risk of being approached by persons associated with dog fighting to shave points? You just don't know and it's a risk the NFL can't afford to take.

Finally, there are the PR issues. Animal rights groups are not going to forget Michael Vick. Not today, not tomorrow, not five years from now. The baggage he will carry for the rest of his career is going to be alot for a team to take on.

What about Michael Vick, the human being?

Nobody seems to care much about this question. Vick is, like most people, a mixture of good and bad. On the one hand you have the Bad Newz Kennels. On the other, charitable activity in Newport News and Atlanta and positive comments from teammates who know him well. As anyone who saw Michael Irvin's induction speech at the Hall of Fame can attest, redemption is possible even after poor decisions and worse results.

The biggest question isn't whether Vick can come back at the same skill level as a quarterback, but what kind of life he can build after all this controversy fades. That is the one question nobody, maybe even Michael Vick, can answer.

You will not be scored on this test.  It will take only 10 seconds and you may make one answer and one answer only.  Experience has proven that your first answer has a better chance of being correct.  Relax and pick up your pencils.  Here is your question.

Vick or Romo and why?

Put your pencils down.  Pass your papers to the front.  We will now go over your answers.

Those of you who picked Vick cited his tremendous athletic ability.  "The forerunner of a new breed of quarterback who accelerates the game with his speed and running ability.  Powerful arm that can make any throw from anywhere on the field.  Reminds you of Bobby Douglas."  OK, who is the wise guy?  "Star quality.  Creates an excitement around team."  Very well then.

Let's hear from the Romo supporters.  "Can buy time in the pocket.  A competitor.  Quick release.  Involves all weapons in the offense.  Tough.  A leader.  Dating Jessica Simpson."  Rumored to be dating, just rumored.  Alright class, do we have statistics to back up either arguement?

Let's look at the numbers.  Romo has a 15 point higher completion percentage, a 30 point higher passer rating, more yards, and compable touchdown to interception ratio.  And he's done all this in fewer games. 

Anyone wish to change their votes?  A few of you Vick supporters appear to be wavering.

OK, for what it is worth, and it is probably not much, here is my vote.  I pick Vick.

 NFL scouts are alot of things.  They are often wrong about overprojecting upside, but they seldom miss by underating anyone.  Vick was a 1st round pick, Romo wasn't picked.  Unless this is the biggest blunder since Unitas, Vick will have a better career.

Arm strength and speed do matter.  Perhaps Vick has so much of both that he overthrows some balls or gives up on plays too early when he sees the chance to run, but at the end of the day he is a nightmare to defend against.  Atlanta hasn't found the combination of players to put with him to exploit his unique ability.  Yet.  But if they ever do, and get a game plan that doesn't consist of two running plays to Dunn and going for a big play from Vick on third down he could be special.

Romo puts the ball at risk on occasion by hanging it up high.  Vick puts his receivers at risk by drilling them in the chest with balls that are hard to react to.

If you look at the reasons people give for picking Romo, alot deal with personality and perceived leadership.  What makes Romo a leader and Vick a selfish modern player?  Imagination.  The truth is we don't know either player and don't work around him.  The perceptions may be right, but just as easily could be wrong.  And "character" players who suddenly emerge at QB tend not to last.  Ask Joe Kapp.

Romo's upside is what it is right now.  He is at a level that will be hard to sustain.  Vick has so much potential there is still upside that is untapped. 

It's not an easy choice.  It's not the only defendable choice, but I'd go with Vick.  If I had to win a game tomorrow, though, it's Romo.  With any luck we'll be having this debate for years to come.

I'm tired of apologies. First Mel Gibson, then Michael Richards, and now Michael Vick. It's always the same. The person says, or does, something that is exactly what they wanted to do at the time. Polite society recoils in horror and then comes the apology.

Vick made an impolite gesture to the stands with one finger from each hand while walking off the field after a 31-13 loss to New Orleans. Vick blamed the incident on a fan who was heckling him and said "I don't know where it came from, but the people who know me know that's not me and that's not my character." Sound familiar?

Of course it does. It's the script of every apology for every dumb remark ever made. "I was (pick one) drunk, provoked, under stress. What I said or did wasn't me. I'm amazed by what happened. Ask anyone who knows me, I'm not that person."

The NFL is fining Vick $20,000. He gets to designate $10,000 to a charity of his choice. Last time I checked, Vick was making about $6.5 million a year. To put this in some perspective, if I had to give up the same percentage of my overall salary I'd be digging up $233.85 from my pocket. I'd somehow recover from that stunning financial setback, and I suspect Vick will too.

Hollow fines and empty gestures. Does the NFL think Vick is going to be restrained from making obscene gestures at fans over for what, to him, is spare change? Not really. It's just that the same empty suits who pimp out 20 something cheerleaders on the sidelines and push beer with the fervor of old time evangelists want you to know they are controlling the angry young men you pay $60 to watch.

So let it go. If flipping off the fans in Atlanta is really a serious issue and a real lesson needs to be taught, the Falcons can bench him for a game. Or suspend him. Or trade him. As for the league, what did the fine really accomplish? It is about image. "Look over here at the nice red kettles on the field and the little children dancing to Carrie Underwood's music. The man over there with the fingers extended? Ignore him, this is who we are."

The Falcons won't take any serious action because they cater to Vick the same way stars are catered to around pro sports. This is the product, this is the man behind the merchandise, this is the face on the game programs. So you get a mild scolding from management, a character reference that tells everyone what a wonderful human being you are, and suit up for the next game. It's Public Relations 101.

I'm not without sympathy for Vick. He's human, he made a mistake, and he doesn't want to be defined by it. But don't tell me this isn't who Michael Vick is. Coming off the field that afternoon that is exactly who Michael Vick was.

So save the apology. Real contrition involves change. It involves the realization that kids are watching and don't need that sort of example. It understands that there are still people around who don't want to be confronted by coarse behavior. And it doesn't make the same mistake twice.

So we're done here Mr. Vick. Now just go away. Please. And if you see Michael Richards on your way out, tell him not to bother coming by. We've got Mel Gibson on line 2 and he's going on and on about healing. If you ever run into him could you make one of those hand gestures at him for us? Thanks for stopping by.

Watching Atlanta lose 17-13 to the lowly Cleveland Browns I saw what attracts scouts and fans to Michael Vick. An arm that lengthens the field. Speed that inhibits defenses. More pure athletic ability than any NFL quarterback since John Elway. Today in Atlanta, all this talent and all this potential went into the NFL's computers and the post game printout was this:

16/40 197 yards 1 TD 2 INT

Which is pretty much your normal Michel Vick performance. Yet this is the face of the NFL. The one that sells more video games and athletic gear than the rest. The one everyone has waited for, the quarterback for the new milenium. Who threw 7 TD's with 2 interceptions in wins over Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, causing the media to proclaim that Vick had finally "arrived". The quarterback who would revoluntionize the way the game is played.

Well....................maybe.

It's tempting to fall into the trap of conventional wisdom, the "we all know" school of thinking.  It's a mental short hand that eliminates the need for analysis.  A good example is the way the media, and alot of fans, evaluate Michael Vick.  As in, "runs too much, great arm but not a great passer, his strengths limit the Falcons offensively, not a field general."

Casey Stengel, to settle arguements with writers, used to say "You can look it up."  So I did.  And I used another quarterback for comparison.  A classic quarterback as opposite Michael Vick as you can get.  The anti-Vick if you will-Drew Bledsoe.  Quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys who, like the Falcons, have had an up and down season.

Let's start with the idea that a quarterback leads the offense and is responsible for generating points and first downs.  Vick's Falcons had 274 first downs, 35 touchdowns, and 23 field goals.  Bledsoe's Cowboys had 261 first downs, 35 touchdowns, and 19 field goals.  Granting that Bledsoe had 166 passing 1st downs to Vick's 138, a quarterback works within an offense and this year the Falcons had a better running game than the Cowboys most weeks.

Now, about Vick running too much.  It is worth noting that the Falcons were 5-1 when Vick ran for 50 yards or more.  His mobility helped limit Falcon opponents to 2 sacks or fewer 6 times, in which games Atlanta was 5-1.  Atlanta was 3-3 when he ran fewer than 7 times.  Conversely, the less mobile Bledsoe was 3-4 in games where he was sacked at least 4 times.

Most people concede Vick has a great arm, but question his skills as a passer.  Some wonder how Vick would do away from the Falcons run-oriented attack.  Well, Atlanta was 3-2 with Vick throwing 30 times or more.  In six games that he had a quarterback rating above 90 the team was 2-4 which implies that even when Vick throws the ball well and more often the result on the scoreboard is no better.  One statistic critics might legitimately bring up is that 2 of his 30+ passing days (against the Panthers and Bears) resulted in a 39.1 and 25.8 passing rating respectively and two losses.  However, few quarterbacks travel to Charlotte or Chicago and come away with glittering stat lines.

Drew Bledsoe, is a very good passer, given time to throw.  In games he has a 90+ rating Dallas is 8-1.  But here is food for thought.  Dallas is 5-1 when Bledsoe doesn't throw the ball more than 25 times.   In other words, the running game is the surest path to victory when it works well and quarterbacks win more games handing the ball off than throwing it.  That's the context Vick is working within in Atlanta and it's hard to fault it (or Vick) when it seems to be effective.

Atlanta still has some problems to work out.  The emotional state of their coach being an obvious starting point.  But, whatever the problems in Atlanta, they don't start (and certainly don't finish) with Michael Vick. The jury may be out on Vick as a great quarterback, but there is no doubt he is already a very good one.