Whose comment section wins?
Pick any two fanbases and compare what their comment sections say, stat for stat.
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.
Fan Score
Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)
Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)
Positive share
Share of all comments that are positive
Share of all comments that are positive
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.
Negativity
Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)
Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)
Toxicity
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 (lower wins)
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 (lower wins)
Explicit language
Explicit-language comments per 1,000 (lower wins)
Explicit-language comments per 1,000 (lower wins)
Identity-based abuse, tag by tag
Tag applications per 1,000 comments
Bowling Green 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.
What they talk about
Three topic groups where neither direction is better, just louder. These rows describe a comment section instead of scoring it.
Betting talk
Sports-betting comments per 1,000
Sports-betting comments per 1,000
Team & front office talk
Team and front-office comments per 1,000: coaching, the athletic department, and gameday
Team and front-office comments per 1,000: coaching, the athletic department, and gameday
NIL & portal talk
NIL and Transfer Portal tag applications per 1,000, which may overlap
NIL and Transfer Portal tag applications per 1,000, which may overlap
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
| Week of | Bowling Green result | Bowling Green positive share | Bowling Green negative share | Central Michigan result | Central Michigan positive share | Central Michigan negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | W | 79.8% | 5.5% | W | 64.9% | 21.8% |
| 2025-08-30 | – | 72.2% | 5.2% | – | 89.4% | 5.8% |
| 2025-09-06 | L | 64.4% | 4.3% | L | 71.3% | 20.7% |
| 2025-09-13 | W | 77.8% | 4.9% | L | 76.1% | 14.6% |
| 2025-09-20 | L | 86.3% | 1.6% | W | 83.1% | 7.7% |
| 2025-09-27 | L | 70.9% | 14.9% | W | 81.5% | 6.9% |
| 2025-10-04 | – | 64.5% | 10.8% | L | 72.2% | 21.7% |
| 2025-10-11 | W | 82.2% | 5.4% | – | 67.9% | 26.8% |
| 2025-10-18 | L | 78.9% | 7% | W | 85.3% | 5.7% |
| 2025-10-25 | L | 74.6% | 12.7% | W | 85.3% | 7.7% |
| 2025-11-01 | L | 68.2% | 22.4% | L | 83.3% | 7.6% |
| 2025-11-08 | L | 84.1% | 6.8% | W | 81.5% | 9.5% |
| 2025-11-15 | L | 79.7% | 13% | W | 89.1% | 5.6% |
| 2025-11-22 | W | 88.4% | 4.6% | – | 85.6% | 5% |
| 2025-11-29 | – | 83.3% | 11.1% | L | 82.3% | 7.7% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 83.6% | 12% | – | 72.4% | 10.5% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 92% | 4.5% | – | 60% | 25% |
| 2025-12-20 | – | 66.7% | 17.5% | L | 82.1% | 11.8% |
| 2025-12-27 | – | 76.7% | 7.3% | – | 88.9% | 11.1% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 76.9% | 8.3% | – | 89.7% | 1.5% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 95.3% | 0% | – | 94.7% | 0% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 95.6% | 2.2% | – | 39% | 40.7% |
“Eddie got that team formidable!”
“imagine the fan base showed out, but the team didn’t show up. not offense. not defense. & the coaches didn’t have one play to speak for today! embarassment. an easy win.”
“Hopefully we have more energy and more locked down when we played at lowly Akron. One of the worst programs in the nation and we made them look like Ohio State.”
“Hopefully, you took my advice and drove down to Spartan Stadium and watch the offensive play calling for Rick Neuheisel's son. Last 2 weeks, UCLA has rolled to big wins. Reminded me of the Dan Lefevour days here.”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- 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
- 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. Bowling Green's positive share was higher in 11 of 22 shared weeks, Central Michigan's in 11.
| Week of | BGSU | CMU | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 79.8% | 64.9% | 741 |
| 2025-08-30 | 72.2% | 89.4% | 692 |
| 2025-09-06 | 64.4% | 71.3% | 383 |
| 2025-09-13 | 77.8% | 76.1% | 408 |
| 2025-09-20 | 86.3% | 83.1% | 574 |
| 2025-09-27 | 70.9% | 81.5% | 374 |
| 2025-10-04 | 64.5% | 72.2% | 318 |
| 2025-10-11 | 82.2% | 67.9% | 443 |
| 2025-10-18 | 78.9% | 85.3% | 370 |
| 2025-10-25 | 74.6% | 85.3% | 363 |
| 2025-11-01 | 68.2% | 83.3% | 173 |
| 2025-11-08 | 84.1% | 81.5% | 390 |
| 2025-11-15 | 79.7% | 89.1% | 335 |
| 2025-11-22 | 88.4% | 85.6% | 312 |
| 2025-11-29 | 83.3% | 82.3% | 346 |
| 2025-12-06 | 83.6% | 72.4% | 364 |
| 2025-12-13 | 92% | 60% | 108 |
| 2025-12-20 | 66.7% | 82.1% | 370 |
| 2025-12-27 | 76.7% | 88.9% | 159 |
| 2026-01-03 | 76.9% | 89.7% | 176 |
| 2026-01-10 | 95.3% | 94.7% | 81 |
| 2026-01-17 | 95.6% | 39% | 104 |