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
Clemson left, Duke 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 | Clemson result | Clemson positive share | Clemson negative share | Duke result | Duke positive share | Duke negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | – | 76.5% | 10.9% | W | 74% | 15.1% |
| 2025-08-30 | L | 29.6% | 61.3% | – | 85.9% | 9.8% |
| 2025-09-06 | W | 28.8% | 61.3% | L | 58.6% | 30.8% |
| 2025-09-13 | L | 24.3% | 65.8% | L | 62% | 30.7% |
| 2025-09-20 | L | 20.2% | 71.1% | W | 81.7% | 12.2% |
| 2025-09-27 | – | 56.9% | 36.6% | W | 79.3% | 13.1% |
| 2025-10-04 | W | 65% | 26.3% | W | 83% | 10.7% |
| 2025-10-11 | W | 59.3% | 30.7% | – | 87.5% | 7.5% |
| 2025-10-18 | L | 30.3% | 58.7% | L | 61.4% | 30.7% |
| 2025-10-25 | – | 44.1% | 32.1% | – | 73% | 20.9% |
| 2025-11-01 | L | 24.9% | 65.1% | W | 55.7% | 35% |
| 2025-11-08 | W W | 64.4% | 27.2% | L | 55.8% | 34.1% |
| 2025-11-15 | – | 64.1% | 29.1% | L | 54.8% | 39.3% |
| 2025-11-22 | W | 70.3% | 19.8% | W | 74.5% | 18.1% |
| 2025-11-29 | W | 64.6% | 27.3% | W | 64.4% | 25.2% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 43.9% | 38.1% | W | 62.7% | 28.1% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 59.5% | 28.5% | – | 70.8% | 20.8% |
| 2025-12-20 | – | 82.7% | 9.9% | – | 91.8% | 1% |
| 2025-12-27 | L | 40.4% | 50.8% | W | 86.4% | 8.6% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 55.4% | 34.1% | – | 83.1% | 7.9% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 53.4% | 31.9% | – | 59.2% | 31.3% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 52.4% | 35.7% | – | 45.5% | 44.5% |
“Popcorn time and a cold Pepsi. Perfect.”
“A losing team and a bunch of fans stuck in a cult with a coach that is done”
“Tame the tigers!! Or should I say kittens. Go Duke!!!”
“Good luck today against Clemson. Go Duke.”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- Clemson Harm: 79th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Clemson Identity-Based Abuse: 57th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Clemson Explicit Language: 74th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Clemson College Sports: 33rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Clemson Off-Field Storylines: 84th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Clemson Sports Betting: 25th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Clemson Team & Front Office: 43rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Duke Harm: 31st percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Duke Identity-Based Abuse: 4th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Duke Explicit Language: 50th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Duke College Sports: 33rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Duke Off-Field Storylines: 76th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Duke Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- Duke Team & Front Office: 11th 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. Clemson's positive share was higher in 5 of 22 shared weeks, Duke's in 17.
| Week of | CLEM | DUKE | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 76.5% | 74% | 992 |
| 2025-08-30 | 29.6% | 85.9% | 3,379 |
| 2025-09-06 | 28.8% | 58.6% | 3,443 |
| 2025-09-13 | 24.3% | 62% | 3,091 |
| 2025-09-20 | 20.2% | 81.7% | 3,058 |
| 2025-09-27 | 56.9% | 79.3% | 1,108 |
| 2025-10-04 | 65% | 83% | 2,548 |
| 2025-10-11 | 59.3% | 87.5% | 1,507 |
| 2025-10-18 | 30.3% | 61.4% | 1,507 |
| 2025-10-25 | 44.1% | 73% | 498 |
| 2025-11-01 | 24.9% | 55.7% | 3,491 |
| 2025-11-08 | 64.4% | 55.8% | 3,178 |
| 2025-11-15 | 64.1% | 54.8% | 4,133 |
| 2025-11-22 | 70.3% | 74.5% | 3,568 |
| 2025-11-29 | 64.6% | 64.4% | 6,427 |
| 2025-12-06 | 43.9% | 62.7% | 3,187 |
| 2025-12-13 | 59.5% | 70.8% | 669 |
| 2025-12-20 | 82.7% | 91.8% | 1,760 |
| 2025-12-27 | 40.4% | 86.4% | 4,053 |
| 2026-01-03 | 55.4% | 83.1% | 843 |
| 2026-01-10 | 53.4% | 59.2% | 574 |
| 2026-01-17 | 52.4% | 45.5% | 152 |