Head to head

Whose comment section wins?

Pick any two fanbases and compare what their comment sections say, stat for stat.

MAC
Miami (Ohio)
RedHawks
vs
Big Ten
Michigan
Wolverines
M-OH sentiment · 1,085 comments
Positive79%
Neutral8.7%
Negative11.6%
Mixed0.7%
MICH sentiment · 133,763 comments
Positive47.2%
Neutral8.7%
Negative42.2%
Mixed1.8%
Mood

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.

Miami (Ohio)
Michigan

Fan Score

789.9 (better)
472.1

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

79% (better)
47.2%

Share of all comments that are positive

Edge

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.

Miami (Ohio)
Michigan

Negativity

116.1 (better)
422.3

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

13.8 (better)
76.4

Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 (lower wins)

Explicit language

1.8 (better)
52.2

Explicit-language comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

Miami (Ohio) left, Michigan right. Tag applications per 1,000 comments, on the same scale across every row. Reported as rates only: this block never picks a winner.

Subject matter

What they talk about

Three topic groups where neither direction is better, just louder. These rows describe a comment section instead of scoring it.

Miami (Ohio)
Michigan

Betting talk

0.9
3.3

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

49.8
164.1

Team and front-office comments per 1,000: coaching, the athletic department, and gameday

NIL & portal talk

3.7
9.6

NIL and Transfer Portal tag applications per 1,000, which may overlap

Shape of the season

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

Weekly comment shares: Miami (Ohio) up, Michigan down
Miami (Ohio) positive ↑Michigan positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
Miami (Ohio) had the happier comment section in 21 of 21 shared weeks, Michigan in 0.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for Miami (Ohio) and Michigan
Week ofMiami (Ohio) resultMiami (Ohio) positive shareMiami (Ohio) negative shareMichigan resultMichigan positive shareMichigan negative share
2025-08-23L85.3%5.9%63%26.6%
2025-08-3057.1%33.3%W54.9%34.6%
2025-09-06L72.4%13.8%L28.6%63.1%
2025-09-1376.9%7.7%W51.1%39.1%
2025-09-20L51.6%29%W48.6%41.3%
2025-09-27W86.7%3.3%56.9%27.7%
2025-10-04W94%2.4%W59.4%32.1%
2025-10-11W90.6%1.9%L25.1%66.8%
2025-10-18W81.3%0%W58.7%32.3%
2025-10-25W83.2%4.7%W52.5%39%
2025-11-01L63.8%27.6%W40.2%49.6%
2025-11-08L60.9%19.6%55.4%31.1%
2025-11-15W88.6%6.4%W43.9%43.3%
2025-11-2289.7%7.7%W67.2%21.8%
2025-11-29W83.2%8.8%L33.5%54.1%
2025-12-06L68.1%25%41.2%44.7%
2025-12-1386.7%13.3%43.6%44.4%
2025-12-2078.4%5.4%52%36.9%
2025-12-27L60.8%27.8%L52.8%37.7%
2026-01-0356.9%30.5%
2026-01-1080%0%61%23.3%
2026-01-17100%0%62.9%24.8%

Fingerprint duel

Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.

Miami (Ohio)Michigan
Harm · Low volumeIdentity-Based Abuse · Low volumeExplicit Language · Low volumeCollege Sports · Low volumeOff-Field Storylines · Low volumeSports Betting · Low volumeTeam & Front Office · Low volume
Each axis is the team's percentile among ranked FBS teams for that tag group; deltas are gaps in percentile points. Low-volume fanbases are excluded from each cohort.
  • Miami (Ohio) Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) College Sports: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Miami (Ohio) Team & Front Office: low volume, not ranked
  • Michigan Harm: 98th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Michigan Identity-Based Abuse: 96th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Michigan Explicit Language: 98th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Michigan College Sports: 41st percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Michigan Off-Field Storylines: 48th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Michigan Sports Betting: 60th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Michigan Team & Front Office: 75th 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. Miami (Ohio)'s positive share was higher in 21 of 21 shared weeks, Michigan's in 0.

M-OHMICH
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: M-OH, MICH
Week ofM-OHMICHComments
2025-08-2385.3%63%3,510
2025-08-3057.1%54.9%9,177
2025-09-0672.4%28.6%10,229
2025-09-1376.9%51.1%5,476
2025-09-2051.6%48.6%5,698
2025-09-2786.7%56.9%1,990
2025-10-0494%59.4%5,095
2025-10-1190.6%25.1%8,552
2025-10-1881.3%58.7%5,927
2025-10-2583.2%52.5%7,160
2025-11-0163.8%40.2%6,805
2025-11-0860.9%55.4%2,235
2025-11-1588.6%43.9%9,989
2025-11-2289.7%67.2%9,850
2025-11-2983.2%33.5%14,934
2025-12-0668.1%41.2%4,200
2025-12-1386.7%43.6%3,395
2025-12-2078.4%52%2,647
2025-12-2760.8%52.8%12,822
2026-01-030%56.9%3,286
2026-01-1080%61%1,156
2026-01-17100%62.9%715
Behind the numbers

Sence read 2,498,712 college-football comments to build this site. It can read yours.