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 left, Texas A&M 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 result | Missouri positive share | Missouri negative share | Texas A&M result | Texas A&M positive share | Texas A&M negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | W | 62.9% | 19.7% | – | 51.6% | 37.5% |
| 2025-08-30 | – | 65.5% | 15.4% | W | 44.9% | 40% |
| 2025-09-06 | W | 78.4% | 12.8% | W | 56.8% | 29.5% |
| 2025-09-13 | W | 63.7% | 13.8% | W | 74.2% | 15.8% |
| 2025-09-20 | W | 66% | 17.4% | – | 64.4% | 16.3% |
| 2025-09-27 | W | 58.9% | 27.9% | W | 55.6% | 29.2% |
| 2025-10-04 | – | 68.4% | 9.5% | W | 58.6% | 26.9% |
| 2025-10-11 | L | 42.3% | 47% | W | 65.8% | 21.8% |
| 2025-10-18 | W | 59.5% | 29% | W | 50.6% | 35.1% |
| 2025-10-25 | L | 43.1% | 43.4% | W | 69.9% | 20.4% |
| 2025-11-01 | – | 59.9% | 20.4% | – | 64.4% | 15.3% |
| 2025-11-08 | L | 40.6% | 43.2% | W | 76.6% | 13% |
| 2025-11-15 | W | 67.3% | 19.6% | W | 58% | 30.1% |
| 2025-11-22 | L | 37.6% | 50.6% | W L | 66.5% | 21.5% |
| 2025-11-29 | W | 56.7% | 32.9% | – | 32.5% | 57.8% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 53.3% | 28.3% | – | 51.6% | 35.7% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 62.3% | 21.4% | – | 62.1% | 24.6% |
| 2025-12-20 | – | 64.7% | 22% | L | 28.8% | 61.2% |
| 2025-12-27 | L | 36.6% | 51.5% | – | 47.1% | 43.1% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 67% | 18.9% | – | 40.4% | 47.4% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 60.9% | 15.9% | – | 41% | 27.8% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 63.7% | 26.5% | – | 50.5% | 4.2% |
“Looking great now let’s get to work on the crappy aluminum bleachers.”
“Maaaaaaaaan I wish I could be there to watch. That place is going to be HYPE! M I Z!!”
“Wait till this team meets the D of the Horns 🤘 !”
“Rick’s better not let them get that 1st quarter bomb that seems to be a trend”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- Missouri Harm: 45th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Missouri Identity-Based Abuse: 16th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Missouri Explicit Language: 7th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Missouri College Sports: 74th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Missouri Off-Field Storylines: 92nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Missouri Sports Betting: 40th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Missouri Team & Front Office: 48th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Texas A&M Harm: 80th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Texas A&M Identity-Based Abuse: 93rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Texas A&M Explicit Language: 83rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Texas A&M College Sports: 15th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Texas A&M Off-Field Storylines: 65th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Texas A&M Sports Betting: 40th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Texas A&M Team & Front Office: 66th 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's positive share was higher in 15 of 22 shared weeks, Texas A&M's in 7.
| Week of | MIZ | TAMU | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 62.9% | 51.6% | 1,271 |
| 2025-08-30 | 65.5% | 44.9% | 1,700 |
| 2025-09-06 | 78.4% | 56.8% | 1,766 |
| 2025-09-13 | 63.7% | 74.2% | 3,117 |
| 2025-09-20 | 66% | 64.4% | 1,541 |
| 2025-09-27 | 58.9% | 55.6% | 2,119 |
| 2025-10-04 | 68.4% | 58.6% | 3,140 |
| 2025-10-11 | 42.3% | 65.8% | 3,680 |
| 2025-10-18 | 59.5% | 50.6% | 4,305 |
| 2025-10-25 | 43.1% | 69.9% | 7,778 |
| 2025-11-01 | 59.9% | 64.4% | 795 |
| 2025-11-08 | 40.6% | 76.6% | 5,024 |
| 2025-11-15 | 67.3% | 58% | 10,643 |
| 2025-11-22 | 37.6% | 66.5% | 6,094 |
| 2025-11-29 | 56.7% | 32.5% | 10,933 |
| 2025-12-06 | 53.3% | 51.6% | 3,928 |
| 2025-12-13 | 62.3% | 62.1% | 1,525 |
| 2025-12-20 | 64.7% | 28.8% | 6,257 |
| 2025-12-27 | 36.6% | 47.1% | 1,726 |
| 2026-01-03 | 67% | 40.4% | 1,195 |
| 2026-01-10 | 60.9% | 41% | 378 |
| 2026-01-17 | 63.7% | 50.5% | 1,021 |