Head to head

Whose comment section wins?

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

Mountain West
New Mexico
Lobos
vs
C-USA
UTEP
Miners
UNM sentiment · 8,500 comments
Positive83.6%
Neutral6.4%
Negative8.5%
Mixed1.4%
UTEP sentiment · 5,198 comments
Positive49.9%
Neutral8.2%
Negative40%
Mixed1.9%
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.

New Mexico
UTEP

Fan Score

836.1 (better)
498.8

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

83.6% (better)
49.9%

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.

New Mexico
UTEP

Negativity

85.4 (better)
400.2

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

10.8 (better)
22.7

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

Explicit language

2.7 (better)
11.4

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

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

New Mexico left, UTEP 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.

New Mexico
UTEP

Betting talk

2
3.5

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

127.5
126

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

NIL & portal talk

2.1
8.7

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: New Mexico up, UTEP down
New Mexico positive ↑UTEP positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
New Mexico had the happier comment section in 21 of 22 shared weeks, UTEP in 1.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for New Mexico and UTEP
Week ofNew Mexico resultNew Mexico positive shareNew Mexico negative shareUTEP resultUTEP positive shareUTEP negative share
2025-08-2377.6%8.5%74.5%12.8%
2025-08-30L79.6%13.7%L58.2%35.2%
2025-09-06W W92.1%1.5%W78.3%13.3%
2025-09-1385.9%8.3%L74.2%16.5%
2025-09-2078.4%8.2%L43.2%48.1%
2025-09-27W L82.5%7.8%L37.4%50.5%
2025-10-0467.8%25.6%L28.7%63.3%
2025-10-11L84.7%6.4%W65.6%24.6%
2025-10-18W80.7%6%67.7%25.8%
2025-10-25W85.8%7.3%L34.1%51.7%
2025-11-01W93.8%2.5%48.9%41.3%
2025-11-0880.3%11%L51.5%37.4%
2025-11-15W82.9%9.2%L50.6%40%
2025-11-22W W89.6%4.5%L32.2%57.9%
2025-11-2985.2%7.8%L36.2%56.3%
2025-12-0672.3%12.9%35.1%62.3%
2025-12-1384.4%4.9%35.7%46.3%
2025-12-20L90.9%3.4%38.7%48.4%
2025-12-2767.6%23.3%66.7%0%
2026-01-0387%4.1%44.4%39.7%
2026-01-1085.5%8.1%70.6%11.8%
2026-01-1768.4%5.3%40.9%47%

Fingerprint duel

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

New MexicoUTEP
Harm · UTEP +36 ptsIdentity-Based Abuse · Low volumeExplicit Language · Low volumeCollege Sports · UTEP +57 ptsOff-Field Storylines · UTEP +16 ptsSports Betting · Low volumeTeam & Front Office · UNM +4 pts
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.
  • New Mexico Harm: 6th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • New Mexico Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • New Mexico Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • New Mexico College Sports: 25th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • New Mexico Off-Field Storylines: 4th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • New Mexico Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • New Mexico Team & Front Office: 57th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • UTEP Harm: 42nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • UTEP Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • UTEP Explicit Language: 30th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • UTEP College Sports: 82nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • UTEP Off-Field Storylines: 20th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • UTEP Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • UTEP Team & Front Office: 53rd 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. New Mexico's positive share was higher in 22 of 22 shared weeks, UTEP's in 0.

UNMUTEP
0%47%94%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: UNM, UTEP
Week ofUNMUTEPComments
2025-08-2377.6%74.5%375
2025-08-3079.6%58.2%996
2025-09-0692.1%78.3%671
2025-09-1385.9%74.2%1,232
2025-09-2078.4%43.2%502
2025-09-2782.5%37.4%535
2025-10-0467.8%28.7%679
2025-10-1184.7%65.6%601
2025-10-1880.7%67.7%451
2025-10-2585.8%34.1%854
2025-11-0193.8%48.9%734
2025-11-0880.3%51.5%434
2025-11-1582.9%50.6%548
2025-11-2289.6%32.2%841
2025-11-2985.2%36.2%1,591
2025-12-0672.3%35.1%481
2025-12-1384.4%35.7%461
2025-12-2090.9%38.7%933
2025-12-2767.6%66.7%410
2026-01-0387%44.4%186
2026-01-1085.5%70.6%79
2026-01-1768.4%40.9%104
Behind the numbers

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