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
MAC
Ohio
Bobcats
On the field
Ohio won 2420 on Nov 4.
The comment sections had their own opinions.
M-OH sentiment · 1,085 comments
Positive79%
Neutral8.7%
Negative11.6%
Mixed0.7%
OHIO sentiment · 5,814 comments
Positive76.8%
Neutral9.8%
Negative12.1%
Mixed1.3%
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)
Ohio

Fan Score

789.9 (better)
768.5

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

79% (better)
76.8%

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)
Ohio

Negativity

116.1 (better)
120.7

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

13.8
(better)13.4

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

Explicit language

1.8 (better)
10.7

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

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

Miami (Ohio) left, Ohio 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)
Ohio

Betting talk

0.9
3.4

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

49.8
91.2

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

NIL & portal talk

3.7
1.7

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, Ohio down
Miami (Ohio) positive ↑Ohio positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
M-OH 20OHIO 24
Miami (Ohio) had the happier comment section in 7 of 21 shared weeks, Ohio in 13. When they met on Nov 4, Ohio won 24–20; Ohio’s comments were the more positive that week.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for Miami (Ohio) and Ohio
Week ofMiami (Ohio) resultMiami (Ohio) positive shareMiami (Ohio) negative shareOhio resultOhio positive shareOhio negative share
2025-08-23L85.3%5.9%L76.1%17%
2025-08-3057.1%33.3%58.2%23.6%
2025-09-06L72.4%13.8%W61.7%17.8%
2025-09-1376.9%7.7%L72.5%14.4%
2025-09-20L51.6%29%W83.6%1.8%
2025-09-27W86.7%3.3%W90%2.4%
2025-10-04W94%2.4%L38.8%53.9%
2025-10-11W90.6%1.9%88.6%2.5%
2025-10-18W81.3%0%W92.3%0.9%
2025-10-25W83.2%4.7%W88.7%4.8%
2025-11-01L63.8%27.6%W89.1%4.4%
2025-11-08L60.9%19.6%L60.4%29.7%
2025-11-15W88.6%6.4%W84%6.6%
2025-11-2289.7%7.7%W89.3%2.6%
2025-11-29W83.2%8.8%90.8%1.3%
2025-12-06L68.1%25%87.7%3.8%
2025-12-1386.7%13.3%83.7%5.8%
2025-12-2078.4%5.4%W88.6%6.2%
2025-12-27L60.8%27.8%88%6%
2026-01-0376.3%16.7%
2026-01-1080%0%97.8%2.2%
2026-01-17100%0%100%0%
Reactions from that night · Nov 4
Miami (Ohio)

Most boring football. Chuck’s style of play is outdated.

negativeCoachingFacebook

A lot of mistakes. Although I generally like the coach, he was way too conservative on offense in the first half.

negativeCoachingFacebook
Ohio

Will watch from SC...if they show it.

neutralBroadcast & MediaFacebook

Humiliate them like you did in Detroit!

negativeOpponent HostilityFacebook

Fingerprint duel

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

Miami (Ohio)Ohio
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
  • Ohio Harm: 14th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Ohio Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Ohio Explicit Language: 27th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Ohio College Sports: 40th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Ohio Off-Field Storylines: 37th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Ohio Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Ohio Team & Front Office: 19th 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 9 of 21 shared weeks, Ohio's in 11.

M-OHOHIO
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: M-OH, OHIO
Week ofM-OHOHIOComments
2025-08-2385.3%76.1%374
2025-08-3057.1%58.2%483
2025-09-0672.4%61.7%1,082
2025-09-1376.9%72.5%438
2025-09-2051.6%83.6%202
2025-09-2786.7%90%241
2025-10-0494%38.8%236
2025-10-1190.6%88.6%132
2025-10-1881.3%92.3%252
2025-10-2583.2%88.7%293
2025-11-0163.8%89.1%490
2025-11-0860.9%60.4%268
2025-11-1588.6%84%397
2025-11-2289.7%89.3%235
2025-11-2983.2%90.8%365
2025-12-0668.1%87.7%202
2025-12-1386.7%83.7%119
2025-12-2078.4%88.6%783
2025-12-2760.8%88%129
2026-01-030%76.3%114
2026-01-1080%97.8%50
2026-01-17100%100%14
Behind the numbers

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