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, Louisville 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 | Louisville result | Louisville positive share | Louisville negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | – | 76.5% | 10.9% | – | 89.9% | 2.5% |
| 2025-08-30 | L | 29.6% | 61.3% | W W | 72.2% | 16.2% |
| 2025-09-06 | W | 28.8% | 61.3% | – | 47% | 40.9% |
| 2025-09-13 | L | 24.3% | 65.8% | – | 61.1% | 18.5% |
| 2025-09-20 | L | 20.2% | 71.1% | W | 63.9% | 24.2% |
| 2025-09-27 | – | 56.9% | 36.6% | W | 65.4% | 26.4% |
| 2025-10-04 | W | 65% | 26.3% | L | 35.6% | 54.4% |
| 2025-10-11 | W | 59.3% | 30.7% | W | 70.7% | 19.3% |
| 2025-10-18 | L | 30.3% | 58.7% | – | 84% | 9.6% |
| 2025-10-25 | – | 44.1% | 32.1% | W | 69.4% | 16.8% |
| 2025-11-01 | L | 24.9% | 65.1% | W | 75.6% | 13.9% |
| 2025-11-08 | W W | 64.4% | 27.2% | L L | 36.4% | 54.2% |
| 2025-11-15 | – | 64.1% | 29.1% | – | 23.7% | 66.3% |
| 2025-11-22 | W | 70.3% | 19.8% | L | 43.6% | 42.6% |
| 2025-11-29 | W | 64.6% | 27.3% | W | 78.9% | 15.2% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 43.9% | 38.1% | – | 58.8% | 26.8% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 59.5% | 28.5% | – | 81.3% | 11.3% |
| 2025-12-20 | – | 82.7% | 9.9% | W | 70.4% | 21.3% |
| 2025-12-27 | L | 40.4% | 50.8% | – | 76.3% | 13.2% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 55.4% | 34.1% | – | 72.7% | 19.5% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 53.4% | 31.9% | – | 85.2% | 7.4% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 52.4% | 35.7% | – | 84.3% | 9.8% |
“Seemed that the referees were extra careful making their calls tonight. Looking over their shoulders at Dabo the whole game. .”
“Which non-You Tube Channel can we watch the game on? We do have access to ROKU TV! Thanks!”
“Been waitin for UVA to lose for 3 weeks... they finally lose and we 💩 the 🛌 against Cal”
“Mobile had a cannon and flat out balled here congratulations coach #GoCards”
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
- Louisville Harm: 60th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Louisville Identity-Based Abuse: 24th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Louisville Explicit Language: 56th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Louisville College Sports: 20th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Louisville Off-Field Storylines: 54th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Louisville Sports Betting: 63rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Louisville Team & Front Office: 41st 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, Louisville's in 17.
| Week of | CLEM | LOU | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 76.5% | 89.9% | 640 |
| 2025-08-30 | 29.6% | 72.2% | 3,630 |
| 2025-09-06 | 28.8% | 47% | 3,661 |
| 2025-09-13 | 24.3% | 61.1% | 3,020 |
| 2025-09-20 | 20.2% | 63.9% | 2,840 |
| 2025-09-27 | 56.9% | 65.4% | 986 |
| 2025-10-04 | 65% | 35.6% | 2,242 |
| 2025-10-11 | 59.3% | 70.7% | 1,798 |
| 2025-10-18 | 30.3% | 84% | 2,770 |
| 2025-10-25 | 44.1% | 69.4% | 1,134 |
| 2025-11-01 | 24.9% | 75.6% | 2,377 |
| 2025-11-08 | 64.4% | 36.4% | 3,856 |
| 2025-11-15 | 64.1% | 23.7% | 4,996 |
| 2025-11-22 | 70.3% | 43.6% | 2,832 |
| 2025-11-29 | 64.6% | 78.9% | 6,045 |
| 2025-12-06 | 43.9% | 58.8% | 986 |
| 2025-12-13 | 59.5% | 81.3% | 987 |
| 2025-12-20 | 82.7% | 70.4% | 2,541 |
| 2025-12-27 | 40.4% | 76.3% | 2,746 |
| 2026-01-03 | 55.4% | 72.7% | 615 |
| 2026-01-10 | 53.4% | 85.2% | 535 |
| 2026-01-17 | 52.4% | 84.3% | 93 |