Vick is forgiven of his crimes and not admitted into the HoF based on criteria #3.

Criteria:
1. Out of school for 10 years or more;

2. Nationally recognized athletic, coaching, or administrative ability;

3. Must be of good character and reputation/not have been a source of embarrassment to the university in any way;

4. Candidate must have graduated/or not, in good standing/with good graces of university officials;

5. Candidate must receive 6 out of 8 votes of the members of the Hall of Fame selection committee;

6. The career of the person outside of athletics will not have a bearing on the selection unless that person is otherwise qualified.

Regardless whether his punishment fit the crime, people viewed the incident as an embarrassment for VT even though he was no longer a student at VT. Since the criteria doesn't place any time restrictions on when the "embarrassment" can take place, I can see how people could interpret it to include post college.

FWIW W&M removed Darren Sharper from its HoF after his convictions. I am not trying to compare Sharper's crimes with Vick's crimes or the decisions each university has made concerning its Sports HoF. What I am trying to show is how someone could interpret that criteria to mean "once an embarrassment, then always an embarrassment" and nothing can be done to remove that blemish from history. At the very least the 2 examples show that VT may need to redefine criteria #3 somehow; by either clarifying the time period for judging an athlete on or by clarifying what is truly meant by "embarrassment to the university in any way."