Head to head

Whose comment section wins?

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

MAC
Buffalo
Bulls
vs
MAC
Eastern Michigan
Eagles
On the field
Buffalo won 3130 (OT) on Oct 4.
The comment sections had their own opinions.
BUFF sentiment · 341 comments
Positive54.5%
Neutral24.3%
Negative20.8%
Mixed0.3%
EMU sentiment · 67 comments
Positive61.2%
Neutral11.9%
Negative25.4%
Mixed1.5%
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.

Buffalo
Eastern Michigan

Fan Score

545.5
(better)611.9

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

54.5%
(better)61.2%

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.

Buffalo
Eastern Michigan

Negativity

208.2 (better)
253.7

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

23.5 (better)
29.9

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

Explicit language

8.8
(better)0

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

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

Buffalo left, Eastern 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.

Buffalo
Eastern Michigan

Betting talk

5.9
0

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

88
268.7

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

NIL & portal talk

0
14.9

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: Buffalo up, Eastern Michigan down
Buffalo positive ↑Eastern Michigan positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
BUFF 31EMU 30
Buffalo had the happier comment section in 7 of 15 shared weeks, Eastern Michigan in 7. When they met on Oct 4, Buffalo won 31–30 (OT); the two comment sections came out dead even that week.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for Buffalo and Eastern Michigan
Week ofBuffalo resultBuffalo positive shareBuffalo negative shareEastern Michigan resultEastern Michigan positive shareEastern Michigan negative share
2025-08-23L50%12.5%100%0%
2025-08-3073.3%13.3%L100%0%
2025-09-06W63.6%18.2%L100%0%
2025-09-13W61.1%27.8%L0%100%
2025-09-20L63%22.2%W
2025-09-27L78.9%21.1%L
2025-10-04W100%0%L100%0%
2025-10-1129%54.8%W100%0%
2025-10-18W40%13.3%L50%50%
2025-10-25L81%9.5%L0%0%
2025-11-01W66.7%25%
2025-11-08L66.7%0%W63.6%27.3%
2025-11-15L61.5%30.8%W52%32%
2025-11-22L25%50%L100%0%
2025-11-2959.3%25.9%100%0%
2025-12-0663.6%18.2%71.4%14.3%
2025-12-1319.4%6.5%0%100%
2025-12-2050%0%
2025-12-2740%0%
2026-01-0337.5%50%
2026-01-1090%0%
2026-01-1761.5%7.7%20%40%
Reactions from that night · Oct 4
Buffalo

Heading that way this afternoon. Can’t wait.

positiveFacebook

Sorry but they can't win against the Bills

negativeFacebook
Eastern Michigan

No classified reactions captured from Eastern Michigan’s comment section that night.

Fingerprint duel

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

BuffaloEastern 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.
  • 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
  • Eastern Michigan Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • Eastern Michigan Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Eastern Michigan Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Eastern Michigan College Sports: low volume, not ranked
  • Eastern Michigan Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
  • Eastern Michigan Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Eastern Michigan 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. Buffalo's positive share was higher in 6 of 15 shared weeks, Eastern Michigan's in 8.

BUFFEMU
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: BUFF, EMU
Week ofBUFFEMUComments
2025-08-2350%100%17
2025-08-3073.3%100%16
2025-09-0663.6%100%12
2025-09-1361.1%0%19
2025-09-2063%0%27
2025-09-2778.9%0%19
2025-10-04100%100%7
2025-10-1129%100%33
2025-10-1840%50%17
2025-10-2581%0%22
2025-11-0166.7%0%12
2025-11-0866.7%63.6%17
2025-11-1561.5%52%38
2025-11-2225%100%15
2025-11-2959.3%100%29
2025-12-0663.6%71.4%18
2025-12-1319.4%0%32
2025-12-2050%0%12
2025-12-2740%0%10
2026-01-0337.5%0%8
2026-01-1090%0%10
2026-01-1761.5%20%18
Behind the numbers

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