Head to head

Whose comment section wins?

Pick any two fanbases and compare what their comment sections say, stat for stat.

MAC
Ball State
Cardinals
vs
MAC
Central Michigan
Chippewas
BALL sentiment · 818 comments
Positive73.7%
Neutral7.3%
Negative17.6%
Mixed1.3%
CMU sentiment · 3,899 comments
Positive80.3%
Neutral7.9%
Negative10.7%
Mixed1.1%
Mood

Who is happier

Fan Score counts positive comments per 1,000, so a loud fanbase cannot buy its way up the board. Positive share tells the same story as a percentage of everything said.

Ball State
Central Michigan

Fan Score

737.2
(better)803.3

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

73.7%
(better)80.3%

Share of all comments that are positive

Edge

Who is harsher

Negativity, toxicity and explicit language, every one of them per 1,000 comments so the two sides stay comparable whatever their volume.

Ball State
Central Michigan

Negativity

176
(better)107.2

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

20.8
(better)14.1

Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 (lower wins)

Explicit language

20.8
(better)6.4

Explicit-language comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

Ball State left, Central Michigan right. Tag applications per 1,000 comments, on the same scale across every row. Reported as rates only: this block never picks a winner.

Subject matter

What they talk about

Three topic groups where neither direction is better, just louder. These rows describe a comment section instead of scoring it.

Ball State
Central Michigan

Betting talk

7.3
1.5

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

44
64.9

Team and front-office comments per 1,000: coaching, the athletic department, and gameday

NIL & portal talk

2.4
2.3

NIL and Transfer Portal tag applications per 1,000, which may overlap

Shape of the season

Week by week, side by side

The same season read twice: weekly mood for both comment sections, the weeks the two teams actually met, and where each fanbase lands nationally on the seven topic groups.

Rivalry pulse

Weekly comment shares: Ball State up, Central Michigan down
Ball State positive ↑Central Michigan positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
Ball State had the happier comment section in 10 of 20 shared weeks, Central Michigan in 10.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for Ball State and Central Michigan
Week ofBall State resultBall State positive shareBall State negative shareCentral Michigan resultCentral Michigan positive shareCentral Michigan negative share
2025-08-2386.2%6.9%W64.9%21.8%
2025-08-30L60.5%25%89.4%5.8%
2025-09-06L80.4%11.6%L71.3%20.7%
2025-09-13W86.4%5.7%L76.1%14.6%
2025-09-20L54.8%32.3%W83.1%7.7%
2025-09-2775%25%W81.5%6.9%
2025-10-04W79.2%11.3%L72.2%21.7%
2025-10-11L75.9%17.2%67.9%26.8%
2025-10-18W78.4%9.8%W85.3%5.7%
2025-10-25L39.1%43.5%W85.3%7.7%
2025-11-01W50%42.6%L83.3%7.6%
2025-11-0860.7%35.7%W81.5%9.5%
2025-11-15L61.3%22.6%W89.1%5.6%
2025-11-22L73.7%21.1%85.6%5%
2025-11-29L71.9%28.1%L82.3%7.7%
2025-12-0694.1%0%72.4%10.5%
2025-12-13100%0%60%25%
2025-12-20100%0%L82.1%11.8%
2025-12-2788.9%11.1%
2026-01-03100%0%89.7%1.5%
2026-01-10100%0%94.7%0%
2026-01-1739%40.7%

Fingerprint duel

Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.

Ball StateCentral Michigan
Harm · Low volumeIdentity-Based Abuse · Low volumeExplicit Language · Low volumeCollege Sports · Low volumeOff-Field Storylines · Low volumeSports Betting · Low volumeTeam & Front Office · Low volume
Each axis is the team's percentile among ranked FBS teams for that tag group; deltas are gaps in percentile points. Low-volume fanbases are excluded from each cohort.
  • Ball State Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • Ball State Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Ball State Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Ball State College Sports: low volume, not ranked
  • Ball State Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
  • Ball State Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Ball State Team & Front Office: low volume, not ranked
  • Central Michigan Harm: 15th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Central Michigan Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Central Michigan Explicit Language: 9th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Central Michigan College Sports: 25th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Central Michigan Off-Field Storylines: 16th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Central Michigan Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Central Michigan Team & Front Office: 4th percentile of ranked FBS teams

The season, felt twice

Weekly positive share for both comment sections on one axis; hover shows the week's combined comment volume. Ball State's positive share was higher in 10 of 20 shared weeks, Central Michigan's in 10.

BALLCMU
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: BALL, CMU
Week ofBALLCMUComments
2025-08-2386.2%64.9%343
2025-08-3060.5%89.4%387
2025-09-0680.4%71.3%262
2025-09-1386.4%76.1%293
2025-09-2054.8%83.1%161
2025-09-2775%81.5%245
2025-10-0479.2%72.2%221
2025-10-1175.9%67.9%114
2025-10-1878.4%85.3%350
2025-10-2539.1%85.3%323
2025-11-0150%83.3%120
2025-11-0860.7%81.5%374
2025-11-1561.3%89.1%297
2025-11-2273.7%85.6%158
2025-11-2971.9%82.3%342
2025-12-0694.1%72.4%198
2025-12-13100%60%22
2025-12-20100%82.1%320
2025-12-270%88.9%9
2026-01-03100%89.7%79
2026-01-10100%94.7%40
2026-01-170%39%59
Behind the numbers

Sence read 2,498,712 college-football comments to build this site. It can read yours.