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
Duke left, Tulane 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 | Duke result | Duke positive share | Duke negative share | Tulane result | Tulane positive share | Tulane negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | W | 74% | 15.1% | – | 94% | 4% |
| 2025-08-30 | – | 85.9% | 9.8% | W | 87.7% | 4.6% |
| 2025-09-06 | L | 58.6% | 30.8% | W | 76.5% | 15% |
| 2025-09-13 | L | 62% | 30.7% | W | 85.2% | 7.3% |
| 2025-09-20 | W | 81.7% | 12.2% | L | 64.3% | 28.3% |
| 2025-09-27 | W | 79.3% | 13.1% | W | 90.3% | 3% |
| 2025-10-04 | W | 83% | 10.7% | W | 67.1% | 21.8% |
| 2025-10-11 | – | 87.5% | 7.5% | – | 74.8% | 14.5% |
| 2025-10-18 | L | 61.4% | 30.7% | W | 66.9% | 10% |
| 2025-10-25 | – | 73% | 20.9% | L | 64.6% | 24.4% |
| 2025-11-01 | W | 55.7% | 35% | W | 67.7% | 19.3% |
| 2025-11-08 | L | 55.8% | 34.1% | – | 73.6% | 12.7% |
| 2025-11-15 | L | 54.8% | 39.3% | W | 80.2% | 10.4% |
| 2025-11-22 | W | 74.5% | 18.1% | W | 77.7% | 12.7% |
| 2025-11-29 | W | 64.4% | 25.2% | W W | 72.7% | 15.4% |
| 2025-12-06 | W | 62.7% | 28.1% | – | 65.1% | 24.7% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 70.8% | 20.8% | – | 80.3% | 11.8% |
| 2025-12-20 | – | 91.8% | 1% | L | 50.9% | 42.1% |
| 2025-12-27 | W | 86.4% | 8.6% | – | 73.7% | 10.5% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 83.1% | 7.9% | – | 66.7% | 22.2% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 59.2% | 31.3% | – | 48.2% | 33.9% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 45.5% | 44.5% | – | 54.1% | 31.1% |
“It looks like they didn’t even practice. No game plan… defense can’t read anything.”
“Duke is a complete embarrassment this year already...BENCH MENSAH”
“Today's match will be broadcast here 📺𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲”
“Today's game will be broadcast live on https://www.school.sport-affclub.com/hsfootball.php”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- 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
- Tulane Harm: 47th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Identity-Based Abuse: 34th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Explicit Language: 66th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane College Sports: 17th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Off-Field Storylines: 20th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Sports Betting: 49th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Team & Front Office: 35th 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. Duke's positive share was higher in 8 of 22 shared weeks, Tulane's in 14.
| Week of | DUKE | TULN | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 74% | 94% | 600 |
| 2025-08-30 | 85.9% | 87.7% | 751 |
| 2025-09-06 | 58.6% | 76.5% | 853 |
| 2025-09-13 | 62% | 85.2% | 660 |
| 2025-09-20 | 81.7% | 64.3% | 1,153 |
| 2025-09-27 | 79.3% | 90.3% | 1,005 |
| 2025-10-04 | 83% | 67.1% | 1,067 |
| 2025-10-11 | 87.5% | 74.8% | 331 |
| 2025-10-18 | 61.4% | 66.9% | 2,650 |
| 2025-10-25 | 73% | 64.6% | 829 |
| 2025-11-01 | 55.7% | 67.7% | 1,966 |
| 2025-11-08 | 55.8% | 73.6% | 1,254 |
| 2025-11-15 | 54.8% | 80.2% | 1,043 |
| 2025-11-22 | 74.5% | 77.7% | 1,953 |
| 2025-11-29 | 64.4% | 72.7% | 3,411 |
| 2025-12-06 | 62.7% | 65.1% | 5,777 |
| 2025-12-13 | 70.8% | 80.3% | 625 |
| 2025-12-20 | 91.8% | 50.9% | 1,212 |
| 2025-12-27 | 86.4% | 73.7% | 1,402 |
| 2026-01-03 | 83.1% | 66.7% | 401 |
| 2026-01-10 | 59.2% | 48.2% | 203 |
| 2026-01-17 | 45.5% | 54.1% | 184 |