Head to head

Whose comment section wins?

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

MAC
Bowling Green
Falcons
vs
MAC
Buffalo
Bulls
On the field
Buffalo won 283 on Nov 1.
The comment sections had their own opinions.
BGSU sentiment · 3,685 comments
Positive78.3%
Neutral14.2%
Negative6.9%
Mixed0.6%
BUFF sentiment · 341 comments
Positive54.5%
Neutral24.3%
Negative20.8%
Mixed0.3%
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.

Bowling Green
Buffalo

Fan Score

782.6 (better)
545.5

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

78.3% (better)
54.5%

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.

Bowling Green
Buffalo

Negativity

68.9 (better)
208.2

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

12.8 (better)
23.5

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

Explicit language

1.1 (better)
8.8

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

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

Bowling Green left, Buffalo 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.

Bowling Green
Buffalo

Betting talk

0.8
5.9

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

75.2
88

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

NIL & portal talk

3.5
0

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: Bowling Green up, Buffalo down
Bowling Green positive ↑Buffalo positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
BGSU 3BUFF 28
Bowling Green had the happier comment section in 18 of 22 shared weeks, Buffalo in 4. When they met on Nov 1, Buffalo won 28–3; Bowling Green’s comments were the more positive that week.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for Bowling Green and Buffalo
Week ofBowling Green resultBowling Green positive shareBowling Green negative shareBuffalo resultBuffalo positive shareBuffalo negative share
2025-08-23W79.8%5.5%L50%12.5%
2025-08-3072.2%5.2%73.3%13.3%
2025-09-06L64.4%4.3%W63.6%18.2%
2025-09-13W77.8%4.9%W61.1%27.8%
2025-09-20L86.3%1.6%L63%22.2%
2025-09-27L70.9%14.9%L78.9%21.1%
2025-10-0464.5%10.8%W100%0%
2025-10-11W82.2%5.4%29%54.8%
2025-10-18L78.9%7%W40%13.3%
2025-10-25L74.6%12.7%L81%9.5%
2025-11-01L68.2%22.4%W66.7%25%
2025-11-08L84.1%6.8%L66.7%0%
2025-11-15L79.7%13%L61.5%30.8%
2025-11-22W88.4%4.6%L25%50%
2025-11-2983.3%11.1%59.3%25.9%
2025-12-0683.6%12%63.6%18.2%
2025-12-1392%4.5%19.4%6.5%
2025-12-2066.7%17.5%50%0%
2025-12-2776.7%7.3%40%0%
2026-01-0376.9%8.3%37.5%50%
2026-01-1095.3%0%90%0%
2026-01-1795.6%2.2%61.5%7.7%
Reactions from that night · Nov 1
Bowling Green

BGSU is blessed to have him🧡🤎

positiveCoachingFacebook

Better put him in the game 😬 😂

positiveCoachingFacebook
Buffalo

HAPPY HALLOWEEN 👻🎃🥎⚾🏐🏀🏈💙🤍

positiveFacebook

Only know ONE ☝🏾 ERIC MURDOCK NBA GUARD ….The PLAYMAKER EMT

positiveFacebook

Fingerprint duel

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

Bowling GreenBuffalo
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.
  • Bowling Green Harm: 3rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Bowling Green Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Bowling Green Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Bowling Green College Sports: 38th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Bowling Green Off-Field Storylines: 8th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Bowling Green Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Bowling Green Team & Front Office: 10th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Buffalo Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • Buffalo Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Buffalo Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Buffalo College Sports: low volume, not ranked
  • Buffalo Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
  • Buffalo Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Buffalo Team & Front Office: low volume, not ranked

The season, felt twice

Weekly positive share for both comment sections on one axis; hover shows the week's combined comment volume. Bowling Green's positive share was higher in 18 of 22 shared weeks, Buffalo's in 4.

BGSUBUFF
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: BGSU, BUFF
Week ofBGSUBUFFComments
2025-08-2379.8%50%472
2025-08-3072.2%73.3%396
2025-09-0664.4%63.6%244
2025-09-1377.8%61.1%221
2025-09-2086.3%63%471
2025-09-2770.9%78.9%160
2025-10-0464.5%100%206
2025-10-1182.2%29%418
2025-10-1878.9%40%86
2025-10-2574.6%81%84
2025-11-0168.2%66.7%119
2025-11-0884.1%66.7%50
2025-11-1579.7%61.5%82
2025-11-2288.4%25%185
2025-11-2983.3%59.3%63
2025-12-0683.6%63.6%194
2025-12-1392%19.4%119
2025-12-2066.7%50%69
2025-12-2776.7%40%160
2026-01-0376.9%37.5%116
2026-01-1095.3%90%53
2026-01-1795.6%61.5%58
Behind the numbers

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