Second, this is a ploy towards favorable sentencing:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/19/152925/61
"Mike Tyson Sentenced to One Day on Coke, DUI Charge"

 I doubt it has anything to do with with expecterd civil actions.  An inmate can be sued and the plaintiff can ask a court to appoint a guardian ad litem to accept service on behalf of the incompetent (incarcerated) defendant) and protect his interests if the defendant has not chosen to establish a guardianship voluntarily.

Second, I can't see incarceration being the basis for a discharge of indebtedness, nor for a toll on the statute of limitations.  I've never heard of a discharge of indebtedness (and its existence would surely have come into the sights of the "no cable TV and no exercise" tough guys before now).  The toll of the statute of limitations probably can happen under some states' law - that's purely a matter of state law and surely varies from state to state.

Plus, if it's a suit on a note - those are practically un-defendable.  

As to the credit against time served - that's obviously true.

My thought is that his reasons are twofold - (a) he's doing like Martha Stewart and getting it over with so he can get on with his life and (b) he probably does not want to be around the house for the holidays.  

The former reason would include his desire to return to football.  An "acceptance of responsibility without protest" stance, which going straight to jail without waiting could be construed as, would likely be a credit to him in negotiations with the NFL for his return.  And, athletes have limited shelf lives and he is getting up there.  The sooner he gets this over with, the better his chance of being physically capable of performing at an NFL level, making returning a more viable prospect.

The latter can be either (a) because he doesn't want to deal with people talking to him about the case, or the potential cases in state court, or (b) because he's being generous to his family by sparing them the issue of his coming incarceration.  I suspect it's (a) - his long-time buddies turned on him in the federal dog-fighting case and likely did that based upon casual conversations in social situations.  So, why would he want to expose himself to "friends" or family either being compelled to testify against him in a grand jury situation (or similar) or to those "friends" being co-defendants and then rolling on him in a state court action, telling what they say he said over Thanksgiving dinner.  Or even wearing a wire, for that matter.  Adrianna bringing Agent Whatshername to Sunday dinner at Tony Soprano's house comes to mind.

I'd suspect he or his counsel have had some communication with/from other incarcerated prominent people (or learned from their experience) in making this decision.  It comes to mind that linebacker "Tank" Johnson, formerly a Chicago Bear and now of Dallas had to do some time (gun charge, IIRC) in Illinois after last season (and playing in the Super Bowl, for which he needed the sentencing judge's permission).  I remember the coverage of his incarceration noting he was receiving some deference from other inmates and from guards - I'd suspect Vick could get some of that same space during his incarceration, lessening the possibility of snitches.

As to the county lockup issue, my first thought was "space issue in the federal lockup".

  Federal pre-trial and presentence detainees are usually housed in local facilities which have contracts with the U.S. Marshal's office to house federal prisoners although in a few very large jurisdiction the feds have their own pre-trial and presentence detention facilities.

  As for the timing, I think we all agree it's football related but that doesn't answer entirely the "why now" question. Why not immediately after he entered his plea which would have resulted in even earlier release and afforded more time to get into "game shape" prior to next season?

   If he then performs on the field, he will eventually have chance to get back to the type of football income he was making. He'll never get back to the level of endorsement income he once enjoyed. It remains to be seen how much, if any, of the money the Falcons already paid him under his contract they will be able to recoup. All in all, he's paying a huge financial cost for his crime but, of course, that's different from Joe Blow only because he was in a position to pay a huge financial price. Mr. Blow would not lose as much only because he doesn't have as much to lose, and even if the Falcons receive judgment for all of the bonus money they already paid, I'd imagine Vick will still be better off than the vast majority of people convicted of serious crimes.

  I share your cynicism generally about athletes and other celebrities who publicly pronounce their "reformation" after misconduct but, that doesn't mean that some of them do not genuinely change for the better or that Vick will not. Time will tell, but no need to prejudge him.

And why did the federal government spend four years and millions of dollars trying to nail a guy who lying about taking steroids? Seems to me that there must be something more important than that.

  Or are you making the less than wise claim that if a Democrat is elected President, the Justice Department will adopt policies curtailing the prosecution of people such as Vick whose abuse of animals occurs in a manner sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over related offenses?

The Democrat Secretary of State even asked the judge in the OJ case not to hold pre-trial hearings on election day 1994 because too many people would stay home and watch instead of voting. Look it up. Look up all the big crime cases from 1994, like the Polly Klaas case, and see how the psychological links between Clinton, the Dems and lawlessness and immorality were repeated over and over.

Propaganda does not require facts or logic. To be effective it only requires a link between feelings. Fear and anger connected to Bill Clinton. If you've been awake over the last seven years you might have noticed.

I am saying that dogfighting has not been a concern of the federal government. Should Michael Vick have been prosecuted? Sure, in a court of the State of Virginia. I am not even sure that Bonds should have been prosecuted for his perjury. These are show trials.