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
Missouri State left, USC 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 | Missouri State result | Missouri State positive share | Missouri State negative share | USC result | USC positive share | USC negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | – | 84.3% | 7.8% | – | 55.9% | 23.9% |
| 2025-08-30 | L | 73.5% | 16.3% | W | 50.6% | 33.7% |
| 2025-09-06 | W | 83.9% | 7.8% | W | 34.6% | 50.5% |
| 2025-09-13 | L | 64.8% | 18.7% | W | 57.9% | 29.1% |
| 2025-09-20 | W | 80.6% | 9.7% | W | 54.1% | 30.3% |
| 2025-09-27 | L | 78.6% | 12.5% | L | 37% | 51% |
| 2025-10-04 | W | 83.5% | 7.2% | – | 54.3% | 27.3% |
| 2025-10-11 | – | 68.8% | 18.8% | W | 69.7% | 16.3% |
| 2025-10-18 | W | 73% | 17.6% | L | 42.7% | 41.8% |
| 2025-10-25 | W | 87.8% | 5% | – | 56.5% | 27.9% |
| 2025-11-01 | – | 84.1% | 6.8% | W W | 60% | 24.8% |
| 2025-11-08 | W | 86.4% | 7.5% | – | 61.3% | 23.7% |
| 2025-11-15 | W | 93.2% | 4.5% | W | 60.5% | 24.7% |
| 2025-11-22 | L | 66.2% | 17.6% | L | 49.9% | 40.3% |
| 2025-11-29 | L | 78.2% | 11.6% | W | 52.5% | 33% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 46.4% | 36.8% | – | 42.2% | 41.4% |
| 2025-12-13 | L | 72.8% | 13.6% | – | 56.7% | 26.2% |
| 2025-12-20 | – | 88.2% | 8.8% | – | 68.5% | 17.7% |
| 2025-12-27 | – | 75% | 25% | L | 20.2% | 70.9% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 73% | 18.9% | – | 49.8% | 34.4% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 100% | 0% | – | 62.2% | 23.4% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 100% | 0% | – | 51.7% | 34.1% |
“And to think….. JJ was a walk on? One of the best football players in SW MO (Rogersville) and wasn’t offered a scholarship in the beginning. Do better MO State!!!”
“Does anyone know how to find this streaming? Is a free network/paid??”
“We should all not get too comfortable there in our seats at United Airlines Field... this is going to be a turbulent ride. ✌️🗡 FIGHT ON”
“What"s the word on stewart is he still 50/50”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- Missouri State Harm: 19th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Missouri State Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
- Missouri State Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
- Missouri State College Sports: 67th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Missouri State Off-Field Storylines: 81st percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Missouri State Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- Missouri State Team & Front Office: 22nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- USC Harm: 81st percentile of ranked FBS teams
- USC Identity-Based Abuse: 76th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- USC Explicit Language: 76th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- USC College Sports: 78th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- USC Off-Field Storylines: 52nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- USC Sports Betting: 68th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- USC Team & Front Office: 57th 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. Missouri State's positive share was higher in 21 of 22 shared weeks, USC's in 1.
| Week of | MOST | USC | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 84.3% | 55.9% | 674 |
| 2025-08-30 | 73.5% | 50.6% | 2,285 |
| 2025-09-06 | 83.9% | 34.6% | 2,996 |
| 2025-09-13 | 64.8% | 57.9% | 2,625 |
| 2025-09-20 | 80.6% | 54.1% | 2,023 |
| 2025-09-27 | 78.6% | 37% | 1,537 |
| 2025-10-04 | 83.5% | 54.3% | 721 |
| 2025-10-11 | 68.8% | 69.7% | 3,359 |
| 2025-10-18 | 73% | 42.7% | 2,171 |
| 2025-10-25 | 87.8% | 56.5% | 516 |
| 2025-11-01 | 84.1% | 60% | 1,694 |
| 2025-11-08 | 86.4% | 61.3% | 2,684 |
| 2025-11-15 | 93.2% | 60.5% | 3,137 |
| 2025-11-22 | 66.2% | 49.9% | 4,380 |
| 2025-11-29 | 78.2% | 52.5% | 3,113 |
| 2025-12-06 | 46.4% | 42.2% | 1,643 |
| 2025-12-13 | 72.8% | 56.7% | 1,955 |
| 2025-12-20 | 88.2% | 68.5% | 538 |
| 2025-12-27 | 75% | 20.2% | 2,742 |
| 2026-01-03 | 73% | 49.8% | 682 |
| 2026-01-10 | 100% | 62.2% | 755 |
| 2026-01-17 | 100% | 51.7% | 201 |