Football rapidly approaches, but the big news over the weekend was the potential scandal at Baylor involving the transfer of Sam Ukwuachu, a.k.a. "What did Art Briles Know and When Did He Know It." I've personally sort of avoided that topic, other than to slap down some imbeciles on Twitter who either have the facts wrong or have the temerity to claim certainty over who said what to whom based on their incisive and detailed knowledge of absolutely nothing.

I don't know whether Art Briles did something wrong or not. It could very well be that he knew nothing about the allegations in Boise. It could very well be that Chris Petersen didn't even know all the details about the allegations in Boise. The fact that Sam Ukwuachu's records have nothing in them about disciplinary actions taken at Boise State is sort of damning evidence; it means the only way Briles could know is if Petersen told him. But since I don't know what was said between Briles and Petersen, it is patently obvious that I also do not know whether Briles knew anything or not. Logic is pretty simple. He might have known. He might not. But what I do know, without any doubt whatsoever, is this: You don't know either, so if you're one of the rabid finger-tappers spewing your asinine certainty all over the internet, stop it. You know jack and diddly, and all your screaming about what a sleazeball Art Briles is has no more validity than my claim to be the Emperor of Tahiti.

And considering the fact that once you wade past the click-bait headlines spewed by traffic-hungry journalists to get what was really in the statements issued by Briles and Petersen, a funny thing actually emerges: they both have substantially similar recollections of the conversation. They aren't calling one another liars. The press has decided that they should. Contemplate that, if you will.

And then there's the mouth-breathing amphibian who, when asked if he thought it would have been appropriate for Baylor to let Ukwuachu play if he had been acquitted, said that he'd have to read over the case files. Why? Because being found innocent doesn't mean you're not guilty. No, really, he actually said that. I mean, it's not like the words that come out of the jury foreman's mouth when they acquit are "not guilty" or anything, right?

That guy, and a certain national college football troll pundit on a certain Murdoch-owned network, actually seem to think that once you've been tried and acquitted you should still be punished for... well, I guess for being accused of something? I don't know. The logic completely escapes me. This is a complete travesty, and it's the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. There is a reason why you are innocent until proven guilty in every civilized society known to humanity. It's because if we presume you're guilty before a trial, then certain actions will be taken against you which we really can't adequately remedy after the fact. That's not proper. It is neither the letter nor spirit of the law. That is why we wait until judgement is handed down to punish, even though in some instances we might temporarily suspend the accused's ability to do certain things.

Like, say, use him in order to field a successful football team. But unlike, say, allow him to continue his education.

What we're getting at here is this: our society has become so addicted to the endorphine rush of scandal and controversy and outrage that when Something Bad Happens, it's a surprise people aren't riding around the streets on Appaloosas twirling lassos. The hivemind wants JUSTICE! NOW! AND JUSTICE IS WHATEVER WE SAY IT IS!

Calm.

Down.

Justice comes at its own pace. While we wait, the accused gets to continue doing most things unless there's a damned good reason for not letting them, and isn't allowed to do others if there's a damned good reason to prevent it. For example, making Ukwuachu change his class schedule would have been a perfectly acceptable thing to do, because all that is to him is an inconvenience. He'd have been allowed to continue his education, and the accused would have been protected from having to sit in the same room with the man she's accusing of rape. But you don't take punitive action against someone who hasn't been convicted yet.

Do you understand that this is the reason bail exists? It's not so you don't have to sit in jail, although that's certainly a relevant benefit. It's so you can go about your business while awaiting trial, having provided some security to the state to help ensure you'll actually be there. It's all part of the basic presumption that until you've been tried and convicted, you are not guilty, and in the event you are acquitted, you get to go back to doing your thing without consequence.

In theory, anyway. Our society has become so bloodthirsty and cocksure that even when someone is acquitted, their life is likely ruined. And every single person who has ever behaved in a manner which contributes to this should feel nothing whatsoever but shame as they read this paragraph.

So, really internet, knock it off. There's more than enough stupid in the world without you compounding it. And as for the media, you need to knock it off too. Yes, I get that revenue is vitally important, and that the perception of getting to a story first has weight with... well, your competitors, I guess. Frankly, your readers and viewers don't give a flying fig. Me, I'll be sitting over here reading tweets and e-mails and comments from people who are so fed up they're THIS CLOSE to just getting all their news from SB Nation.

But enough of my shocking and heretical opinions. Over the weekend TB weighed in on the need for accountability when legitimately trying to offer a troubled kid a second chance, and wildcatOO followed up with a crystal-clear examination of the facts behind the situation and an observation that the forest isn't being seen for the football-shaped trees. If you haven't read these two pieces, I strongly urge you to do so now, as well as Spencer Hall's fantastic editorial on how to say you're sorry.