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
Central Michigan left, Kent State 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 | Central Michigan result | Central Michigan positive share | Central Michigan negative share | Kent State result | Kent State positive share | Kent State negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | W | 64.9% | 21.8% | – | 40.5% | 11.9% |
| 2025-08-30 | – | 89.4% | 5.8% | W | 67.9% | 11.3% |
| 2025-09-06 | L | 71.3% | 20.7% | L | 94.5% | 3.3% |
| 2025-09-13 | L | 76.1% | 14.6% | L | 63.3% | 13.3% |
| 2025-09-20 | W | 83.1% | 7.7% | L | 0% | 0% |
| 2025-09-27 | W | 81.5% | 6.9% | – | 65.5% | 10.9% |
| 2025-10-04 | L | 72.2% | 21.7% | L | 35% | 50% |
| 2025-10-11 | – | 67.9% | 26.8% | W | 54.5% | 9.1% |
| 2025-10-18 | W | 85.3% | 5.7% | L | 66.7% | 0% |
| 2025-10-25 | W | 85.3% | 7.7% | W | 91.9% | 5% |
| 2025-11-01 | L | 83.3% | 7.6% | L | 71.4% | 11.4% |
| 2025-11-08 | W | 81.5% | 9.5% | W | 68.8% | 0% |
| 2025-11-15 | W | 89.1% | 5.6% | L | 55.2% | 13.8% |
| 2025-11-22 | – | 85.6% | 5% | W | 81.3% | 0% |
| 2025-11-29 | L | 82.3% | 7.7% | – | 37.5% | 12.5% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 72.4% | 10.5% | – | 85.7% | 0% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 60% | 25% | – | 59.5% | 7.1% |
| 2025-12-20 | L | 82.1% | 11.8% | – | 90% | 0% |
| 2025-12-27 | – | 88.9% | 11.1% | – | 80% | 0% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 89.7% | 1.5% | – | – | – |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 94.7% | 0% | – | 34.2% | 47.4% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 39% | 40.7% | – | 61.5% | 38.5% |
“Where can we watch this today?”
“Dinkall has to be Coach of the year in MAC. Anyone know the tie breaker to qualify as 2nd place team for MAC championship? CMU bs WMU would be an instant classic.”
“Is this only for students or fans too? Are the blankets going to be available for purchase either in the shop or bookstore?”
“Thank you KSU ! Screw the Roooo”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- 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
- Kent State Harm: low volume, not ranked
- Kent State Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
- Kent State Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
- Kent State College Sports: low volume, not ranked
- Kent State Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
- Kent State Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- Kent State 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. Central Michigan's positive share was higher in 16 of 21 shared weeks, Kent State's in 5.
| Week of | CMU | KENT | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 64.9% | 40.5% | 327 |
| 2025-08-30 | 89.4% | 67.9% | 364 |
| 2025-09-06 | 71.3% | 94.5% | 241 |
| 2025-09-13 | 76.1% | 63.3% | 235 |
| 2025-09-20 | 83.1% | 0% | 131 |
| 2025-09-27 | 81.5% | 65.5% | 288 |
| 2025-10-04 | 72.2% | 35% | 135 |
| 2025-10-11 | 67.9% | 54.5% | 67 |
| 2025-10-18 | 85.3% | 66.7% | 317 |
| 2025-10-25 | 85.3% | 91.9% | 460 |
| 2025-11-01 | 83.3% | 71.4% | 101 |
| 2025-11-08 | 81.5% | 68.8% | 362 |
| 2025-11-15 | 89.1% | 55.2% | 295 |
| 2025-11-22 | 85.6% | 81.3% | 155 |
| 2025-11-29 | 82.3% | 37.5% | 326 |
| 2025-12-06 | 72.4% | 85.7% | 188 |
| 2025-12-13 | 60% | 59.5% | 62 |
| 2025-12-20 | 82.1% | 90% | 323 |
| 2025-12-27 | 88.9% | 80% | 14 |
| 2026-01-03 | 89.7% | 0% | 68 |
| 2026-01-10 | 94.7% | 34.2% | 76 |
| 2026-01-17 | 39% | 61.5% | 72 |