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, Toledo 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 | Toledo result | Toledo positive share | Toledo negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | W | 64.9% | 21.8% | – | 79% | 9.8% |
| 2025-08-30 | – | 89.4% | 5.8% | L | 41% | 49.2% |
| 2025-09-06 | L | 71.3% | 20.7% | W | 88.7% | 3.5% |
| 2025-09-13 | L | 76.1% | 14.6% | W | 93.5% | 2.2% |
| 2025-09-20 | W | 83.1% | 7.7% | L | 26.4% | 70.3% |
| 2025-09-27 | W | 81.5% | 6.9% | W | 60.4% | 28.6% |
| 2025-10-04 | L | 72.2% | 21.7% | – | 60.2% | 30.7% |
| 2025-10-11 | – | 67.9% | 26.8% | L | 18.5% | 77.5% |
| 2025-10-18 | W | 85.3% | 5.7% | W | 41.4% | 49.7% |
| 2025-10-25 | W | 85.3% | 7.7% | L | 27.8% | 64.8% |
| 2025-11-01 | L | 83.3% | 7.6% | W | 56.8% | 32.1% |
| 2025-11-08 | W | 81.5% | 9.5% | W | 65.1% | 26% |
| 2025-11-15 | W | 89.1% | 5.6% | – | 51.8% | 41.8% |
| 2025-11-22 | – | 85.6% | 5% | W | 83.4% | 11.6% |
| 2025-11-29 | L | 82.3% | 7.7% | W | 73% | 18% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 72.4% | 10.5% | – | 72.8% | 16.6% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 60% | 25% | – | 88.4% | 4.9% |
| 2025-12-20 | L | 82.1% | 11.8% | L | 84.7% | 7.3% |
| 2025-12-27 | – | 88.9% | 11.1% | – | 81% | 9.5% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 89.7% | 1.5% | – | 81.1% | 10.5% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 94.7% | 0% | – | 70.6% | 11.9% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 39% | 40.7% | – | 82.5% | 6.7% |
“This should be all season. More enjoyable for the young ones when it's not nasty outside. It'd be a great recruiting tool. Time to get creative with enrollment.”
“Love my Chips, but the crowd WILL NOT RESEMBLE that pic!”
“Here's the link to streamed: https://eko.sport-affclub.com/hsfootball.php”
“30 seconds left. Ball near midfield. 3 timeouts. So let’s run 2 QB sneaks… I’m guessing we are just scared to throw downfield”
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
- Toledo Harm: 35th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Toledo Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
- Toledo Explicit Language: 29th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Toledo College Sports: 54th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Toledo Off-Field Storylines: 10th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Toledo Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- Toledo Team & Front Office: 86th 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. Central Michigan's positive share was higher in 15 of 22 shared weeks, Toledo's in 7.
| Week of | CMU | TOL | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 64.9% | 79% | 428 |
| 2025-08-30 | 89.4% | 41% | 506 |
| 2025-09-06 | 71.3% | 88.7% | 265 |
| 2025-09-13 | 76.1% | 93.5% | 297 |
| 2025-09-20 | 83.1% | 26.4% | 278 |
| 2025-09-27 | 81.5% | 60.4% | 324 |
| 2025-10-04 | 72.2% | 60.2% | 203 |
| 2025-10-11 | 67.9% | 18.5% | 332 |
| 2025-10-18 | 85.3% | 41.4% | 444 |
| 2025-10-25 | 85.3% | 27.8% | 462 |
| 2025-11-01 | 83.3% | 56.8% | 147 |
| 2025-11-08 | 81.5% | 65.1% | 561 |
| 2025-11-15 | 89.1% | 51.8% | 376 |
| 2025-11-22 | 85.6% | 83.4% | 320 |
| 2025-11-29 | 82.3% | 73% | 655 |
| 2025-12-06 | 72.4% | 72.8% | 772 |
| 2025-12-13 | 60% | 88.4% | 287 |
| 2025-12-20 | 82.1% | 84.7% | 627 |
| 2025-12-27 | 88.9% | 81% | 30 |
| 2026-01-03 | 89.7% | 81.1% | 211 |
| 2026-01-10 | 94.7% | 70.6% | 164 |
| 2026-01-17 | 39% | 82.5% | 282 |