Head to head

Whose comment section wins?

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

Big 12
Cincinnati
Bearcats
vs
MAC
Miami (Ohio)
RedHawks
CIN sentiment · 12,753 comments
Positive53.5%
Neutral11.6%
Negative33%
Mixed1.8%
M-OH sentiment · 1,085 comments
Positive79%
Neutral8.7%
Negative11.6%
Mixed0.7%
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.

Cincinnati
Miami (Ohio)

Fan Score

535.4
(better)789.9

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

53.5%
(better)79%

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.

Cincinnati
Miami (Ohio)

Negativity

330.3
(better)116.1

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

40.8
(better)13.8

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

Explicit language

7.4
(better)1.8

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

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

Cincinnati left, Miami (Ohio) 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.

Cincinnati
Miami (Ohio)

Betting talk

2.3
0.9

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

126.8
49.8

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

NIL & portal talk

10.4
3.7

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: Cincinnati up, Miami (Ohio) down
Cincinnati positive ↑Miami (Ohio) positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
Cincinnati had the happier comment section in 2 of 21 shared weeks, Miami (Ohio) in 19.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for Cincinnati and Miami (Ohio)
Week ofCincinnati resultCincinnati positive shareCincinnati negative shareMiami (Ohio) resultMiami (Ohio) positive shareMiami (Ohio) negative share
2025-08-23L40.8%41.8%L85.3%5.9%
2025-08-3036.9%48.1%57.1%33.3%
2025-09-06W68.9%23.3%L72.4%13.8%
2025-09-13W53.2%31.5%76.9%7.7%
2025-09-2049.6%41.7%L51.6%29%
2025-09-27W73.5%12.6%W86.7%3.3%
2025-10-04W62.1%23.8%W94%2.4%
2025-10-11W67.1%18.1%W90.6%1.9%
2025-10-18W70.1%9.6%W81.3%0%
2025-10-25W62.7%23.3%W83.2%4.7%
2025-11-01L47.8%41.2%L63.8%27.6%
2025-11-0869.1%17.1%L60.9%19.6%
2025-11-15L34.9%56.1%W88.6%6.4%
2025-11-22L35.1%53.7%89.7%7.7%
2025-11-29L28.5%61.5%W83.2%8.8%
2025-12-0649.2%35.9%L68.1%25%
2025-12-1362.4%20.8%86.7%13.3%
2025-12-2050.6%35.3%78.4%5.4%
2025-12-27L66.5%24.1%L60.8%27.8%
2026-01-0322.2%67.9%
2026-01-1074.5%17.6%80%0%
2026-01-1744.4%33.3%100%0%

Fingerprint duel

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

CincinnatiMiami (Ohio)
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.
  • Cincinnati Harm: 68th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Cincinnati Identity-Based Abuse: 56th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Cincinnati Explicit Language: 17th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Cincinnati College Sports: 57th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Cincinnati Off-Field Storylines: 82nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Cincinnati Sports Betting: 17th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Cincinnati Team & Front Office: 54th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Miami (Ohio) Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) College Sports: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) 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. Cincinnati's positive share was higher in 2 of 21 shared weeks, Miami (Ohio)'s in 19.

CINM-OH
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: CIN, M-OH
Week ofCINM-OHComments
2025-08-2340.8%85.3%1,192
2025-08-3036.9%57.1%235
2025-09-0668.9%72.4%424
2025-09-1353.2%76.9%378
2025-09-2049.6%51.6%146
2025-09-2773.5%86.7%805
2025-10-0462.1%94%1,267
2025-10-1167.1%90.6%815
2025-10-1870.1%81.3%973
2025-10-2562.7%83.2%1,583
2025-11-0147.8%63.8%885
2025-11-0869.1%60.9%221
2025-11-1534.9%88.6%678
2025-11-2235.1%89.7%873
2025-11-2928.5%83.2%932
2025-12-0649.2%68.1%462
2025-12-1362.4%86.7%193
2025-12-2050.6%78.4%193
2025-12-2766.5%60.8%572
2026-01-0322.2%0%523
2026-01-1074.5%80%334
2026-01-1744.4%100%154
Behind the numbers

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