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
Cincinnati left, TCU 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 | Cincinnati result | Cincinnati positive share | Cincinnati negative share | TCU result | TCU positive share | TCU negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | L | 40.8% | 41.8% | – | 81.1% | 9.4% |
| 2025-08-30 | – | 36.9% | 48.1% | W | 69% | 12.8% |
| 2025-09-06 | W | 68.9% | 23.3% | – | 58.2% | 15.9% |
| 2025-09-13 | W | 53.2% | 31.5% | W | 81.3% | 9.8% |
| 2025-09-20 | – | 49.6% | 41.7% | W L | 78.7% | 11.1% |
| 2025-09-27 | W | 73.5% | 12.6% | – | 42.1% | 46.9% |
| 2025-10-04 | W | 62.1% | 23.8% | W | 76.3% | 15.1% |
| 2025-10-11 | W | 67.1% | 18.1% | L | 51.3% | 36.4% |
| 2025-10-18 | W | 70.1% | 9.6% | W | 68.4% | 18.8% |
| 2025-10-25 | W | 62.7% | 23.3% | W | 69.9% | 18.3% |
| 2025-11-01 | L | 47.8% | 41.2% | – | 74.4% | 12.5% |
| 2025-11-08 | – | 69.1% | 17.1% | L | 35.7% | 54.7% |
| 2025-11-15 | L | 34.9% | 56.1% | L | 52.2% | 41.9% |
| 2025-11-22 | L | 35.1% | 53.7% | W | 66.5% | 24.4% |
| 2025-11-29 | L | 28.5% | 61.5% | W | 80.7% | 11.5% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 49.2% | 35.9% | – | 68% | 16.9% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 62.4% | 20.8% | – | 79.1% | 9.9% |
| 2025-12-20 | – | 50.6% | 35.3% | – | 90.5% | 5.8% |
| 2025-12-27 | L | 66.5% | 24.1% | W | 83% | 9.3% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 22.2% | 67.9% | – | 83.1% | 11% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 74.5% | 17.6% | – | 88.5% | 3.1% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 44.4% | 33.3% | – | 52.4% | 26.6% |
“7 and 5 and a bowl game. Satterfield getting extension he gonna get paid”
“Be nice to snag a win but 2nd half of game and 2nd half of season is not Satterfield strength”
“Game will be broadcast live on: https://www.nrf26.king-cpasports.com/hsfootball.php”
“Here's the link for the streamed: https://combet.king-cpasports.com/hsfootball.php”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- 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
- TCU Harm: 14th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- TCU Identity-Based Abuse: 9th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- TCU Explicit Language: 1st percentile of ranked FBS teams
- TCU College Sports: 5th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- TCU Off-Field Storylines: 60th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- TCU Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- TCU Team & Front Office: 7th 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. Cincinnati's positive share was higher in 5 of 22 shared weeks, TCU's in 17.
| Week of | CIN | TCU | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 40.8% | 81.1% | 1,177 |
| 2025-08-30 | 36.9% | 69% | 1,952 |
| 2025-09-06 | 68.9% | 58.2% | 627 |
| 2025-09-13 | 53.2% | 81.3% | 824 |
| 2025-09-20 | 49.6% | 78.7% | 618 |
| 2025-09-27 | 73.5% | 42.1% | 920 |
| 2025-10-04 | 62.1% | 76.3% | 1,600 |
| 2025-10-11 | 67.1% | 51.3% | 957 |
| 2025-10-18 | 70.1% | 68.4% | 1,302 |
| 2025-10-25 | 62.7% | 69.9% | 1,755 |
| 2025-11-01 | 47.8% | 74.4% | 987 |
| 2025-11-08 | 69.1% | 35.7% | 601 |
| 2025-11-15 | 34.9% | 52.2% | 829 |
| 2025-11-22 | 35.1% | 66.5% | 1,556 |
| 2025-11-29 | 28.5% | 80.7% | 1,165 |
| 2025-12-06 | 49.2% | 68% | 781 |
| 2025-12-13 | 62.4% | 79.1% | 360 |
| 2025-12-20 | 50.6% | 90.5% | 293 |
| 2025-12-27 | 66.5% | 83% | 2,795 |
| 2026-01-03 | 22.2% | 83.1% | 849 |
| 2026-01-10 | 74.5% | 88.5% | 425 |
| 2026-01-17 | 44.4% | 52.4% | 277 |