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
East Carolina left, Tulsa 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 | East Carolina result | East Carolina positive share | East Carolina negative share | Tulsa result | Tulsa positive share | Tulsa negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | L | 62.6% | 19.8% | – | 70% | 7.5% |
| 2025-08-30 | – | 76.2% | 12.7% | W | 90% | 1.5% |
| 2025-09-06 | W | 62.8% | 22.1% | L | 79.3% | 15% |
| 2025-09-13 | W | 77.3% | 12% | L W | 74.3% | 16.2% |
| 2025-09-20 | L W | 67.3% | 16.5% | – | 84.9% | 9.7% |
| 2025-09-27 | – | 68.3% | 14.4% | L | 64.7% | 19.1% |
| 2025-10-04 | L | 78.9% | 13.2% | L | 75.6% | 14.4% |
| 2025-10-11 | W | 76% | 14.6% | L | 87.2% | 8.5% |
| 2025-10-18 | – | 75.9% | 11.1% | – | 85.5% | 5.5% |
| 2025-10-25 | – | 76.5% | 10.3% | L | 81.3% | 8.3% |
| 2025-11-01 | W | 87% | 3.7% | – | 87.8% | 2% |
| 2025-11-08 | W | 68.4% | 5.3% | L | 68.8% | 16.3% |
| 2025-11-15 | W | 86.9% | 7% | W | 96.3% | 1.6% |
| 2025-11-22 | L | 58.8% | 31.6% | W | 90.2% | 5% |
| 2025-11-29 | W | 88.5% | 7% | L | 80.9% | 8% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 60% | 20% | – | 95% | 0% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 88.5% | 5.7% | – | 94.7% | 0% |
| 2025-12-20 | – | 83% | 9% | – | 100% | 0% |
| 2025-12-27 | W | 82.8% | 9.3% | – | 64.2% | 14.6% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 92.8% | 4.8% | – | 81.6% | 5.7% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 94.5% | 2.7% | – | 91.3% | 0% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 81.5% | 7.4% | – | 89.4% | 4.5% |
“Game will be broadcast live on: https://www.nrf26.king-cpasports.com/football.php”
“here's the link for the streamd: https://www.four.sport-affclub.com/hsfootball.php”
“Please move the ball in the second half”
“Wishing we could be there to watch you whoop their ass! Will be cheering you on from Tulsa. Reign Cane!!!💙💛”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- East Carolina Harm: 10th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- East Carolina Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
- East Carolina Explicit Language: 25th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- East Carolina College Sports: 29th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- East Carolina Off-Field Storylines: 59th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- East Carolina Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- East Carolina Team & Front Office: 4th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulsa Harm: low volume, not ranked
- Tulsa Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
- Tulsa Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
- Tulsa College Sports: 49th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulsa Off-Field Storylines: 11th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulsa Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- Tulsa Team & Front Office: 3rd 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. East Carolina's positive share was higher in 7 of 22 shared weeks, Tulsa's in 15.
| Week of | ECU | TLSA | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 62.6% | 70% | 524 |
| 2025-08-30 | 76.2% | 90% | 264 |
| 2025-09-06 | 62.8% | 79.3% | 479 |
| 2025-09-13 | 77.3% | 74.3% | 361 |
| 2025-09-20 | 67.3% | 84.9% | 756 |
| 2025-09-27 | 68.3% | 64.7% | 172 |
| 2025-10-04 | 78.9% | 75.6% | 204 |
| 2025-10-11 | 76% | 87.2% | 286 |
| 2025-10-18 | 75.9% | 85.5% | 163 |
| 2025-10-25 | 76.5% | 81.3% | 116 |
| 2025-11-01 | 87% | 87.8% | 504 |
| 2025-11-08 | 68.4% | 68.8% | 665 |
| 2025-11-15 | 86.9% | 96.3% | 1,013 |
| 2025-11-22 | 58.8% | 90.2% | 730 |
| 2025-11-29 | 88.5% | 80.9% | 644 |
| 2025-12-06 | 60% | 95% | 90 |
| 2025-12-13 | 88.5% | 94.7% | 125 |
| 2025-12-20 | 83% | 100% | 332 |
| 2025-12-27 | 82.8% | 64.2% | 810 |
| 2026-01-03 | 92.8% | 81.6% | 325 |
| 2026-01-10 | 94.5% | 91.3% | 202 |
| 2026-01-17 | 81.5% | 89.4% | 93 |