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
UMass
Minutemen
On the field
Buffalo won 2821 on Oct 18.
The comment sections had their own opinions.
BUFF sentiment · 341 comments
Positive54.5%
Neutral24.3%
Negative20.8%
Mixed0.3%
MASS sentiment · 1,455 comments
Positive55.1%
Neutral9.8%
Negative33.3%
Mixed1.7%
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
UMass

Fan Score

545.5
(better)551.2

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

54.5%
(better)55.1%

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
UMass

Negativity

208.2 (better)
333.3

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

23.5
(better)9.6

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

Explicit language

8.8
(better)1.4

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

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

Buffalo left, UMass 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
UMass

Betting talk

5.9
9.6

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

88
114.1

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

NIL & portal talk

0
11

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, UMass down
Buffalo positive ↑UMass positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
BUFF 28MASS 21
Buffalo had the happier comment section in 13 of 22 shared weeks, UMass in 9. When they met on Oct 18, Buffalo won 28–21; Buffalo’s comments were the more positive that week.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for Buffalo and UMass
Week ofBuffalo resultBuffalo positive shareBuffalo negative shareUMass resultUMass positive shareUMass negative share
2025-08-23L50%12.5%94.1%0%
2025-08-3073.3%13.3%L51.3%41%
2025-09-06W63.6%18.2%L55.6%32.1%
2025-09-13W61.1%27.8%L45.2%33.3%
2025-09-20L63%22.2%89.7%3.4%
2025-09-27L78.9%21.1%L57.9%42.1%
2025-10-04W100%0%L45%47.5%
2025-10-1129%54.8%L43.2%48.2%
2025-10-18W40%13.3%L53.6%34.5%
2025-10-25L81%9.5%L66.7%25%
2025-11-01W66.7%25%L36.8%41.2%
2025-11-08L66.7%0%L27.2%57%
2025-11-15L61.5%30.8%L42.6%48.9%
2025-11-22L25%50%L61%29.9%
2025-11-2959.3%25.9%36%48%
2025-12-0663.6%18.2%76%16%
2025-12-1319.4%6.5%68.3%12.2%
2025-12-2050%0%40%10%
2025-12-2740%0%68.6%13.7%
2026-01-0337.5%50%82.1%12.8%
2026-01-1090%0%81.7%14.6%
2026-01-1761.5%7.7%78.4%16.2%
Reactions from that night · Oct 18
Buffalo

I have a giveaway chance to win sometime soon

positiveFacebook

Recieve????? It’s I before E except after C

neutralFacebook
UMass

One of the most beautiful areas to watch a college football game. I hope you can figure out a solid path forward for all of the fans.

positiveStadium ExperienceFacebook

They should have never moved up a division.

negativeConference RealignmentFacebook

Fingerprint duel

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

BuffaloUMass
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
  • UMass Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • UMass Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • UMass Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • UMass College Sports: low volume, not ranked
  • UMass Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
  • UMass Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • UMass 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 12 of 22 shared weeks, UMass's in 10.

BUFFMASS
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: BUFF, MASS
Week ofBUFFMASSComments
2025-08-2350%94.1%84
2025-08-3073.3%51.3%93
2025-09-0663.6%55.6%92
2025-09-1361.1%45.2%60
2025-09-2063%89.7%56
2025-09-2778.9%57.9%38
2025-10-04100%45%43
2025-10-1129%43.2%170
2025-10-1840%53.6%125
2025-10-2581%66.7%45
2025-11-0166.7%36.8%80
2025-11-0866.7%27.2%120
2025-11-1561.5%42.6%107
2025-11-2225%61%166
2025-11-2959.3%36%127
2025-12-0663.6%76%36
2025-12-1319.4%68.3%72
2025-12-2050%40%32
2025-12-2740%68.6%61
2026-01-0337.5%82.1%47
2026-01-1090%81.7%92
2026-01-1761.5%78.4%50
Behind the numbers

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