Head to head

Whose comment section wins?

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

Big Ten
Rutgers
Scarlet Knights
vs
American
Temple
Owls
RUTG sentiment · 5,649 comments
Positive50.9%
Neutral9.3%
Negative37.5%
Mixed2.4%
TEM sentiment · 1,915 comments
Positive73.9%
Neutral9.2%
Negative15.9%
Mixed1%
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.

Rutgers
Temple

Fan Score

508.6
(better)738.9

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

50.9%
(better)73.9%

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.

Rutgers
Temple

Negativity

374.6
(better)158.7

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

34.7
(better)16.7

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

Explicit language

13.6
(better)7.3

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

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

Rutgers left, Temple 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.

Rutgers
Temple

Betting talk

5.1
4.7

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

107.6
101.3

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

NIL & portal talk

11.3
5.7

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: Rutgers up, Temple down
Rutgers positive ↑Temple positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
Rutgers had the happier comment section in 5 of 22 shared weeks, Temple in 17.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for Rutgers and Temple
Week ofRutgers resultRutgers positive shareRutgers negative shareTemple resultTemple positive shareTemple negative share
2025-08-23W49.3%35.5%82.2%4.1%
2025-08-3053.6%38.1%W88.7%6.2%
2025-09-06W63.6%23.2%W83.2%6.7%
2025-09-13W L53.8%30.8%L61%25%
2025-09-2036.2%53.3%L78.8%12.9%
2025-09-27L33.9%56.6%88.6%0%
2025-10-04L81.1%10%W80.5%7.3%
2025-10-1127.1%60.2%L63%23.9%
2025-10-18L39.4%48.4%W83%9.4%
2025-10-25W64.5%24.6%W85.2%8.9%
2025-11-01L55.1%34.8%L75.2%17.7%
2025-11-08W63.1%28%L76.2%7.1%
2025-11-1570.7%17.9%87.2%2.6%
2025-11-22L34.8%53%L L68.6%21.6%
2025-11-29L34.6%53.3%75.4%16.9%
2025-12-0669%24.1%24.2%57%
2025-12-1350%0%33.3%0%
2025-12-2066.7%33.3%100%0%
2025-12-2716.7%50%100%0%
2026-01-0374.1%22.2%68.2%18.2%
2026-01-1078.3%8.7%70%10%
2026-01-1770.7%18.7%0%100%

Fingerprint duel

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

RutgersTemple
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.
  • Rutgers Harm: 61st percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Rutgers Identity-Based Abuse: 21st percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Rutgers Explicit Language: 37th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Rutgers College Sports: 87th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Rutgers Off-Field Storylines: 53rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Rutgers Sports Betting: 87th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Rutgers Team & Front Office: 32nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Temple Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • Temple Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Temple Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Temple College Sports: low volume, not ranked
  • Temple Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
  • Temple Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Temple Team & Front Office: low volume, not ranked

The season, felt twice

Weekly positive share for both comment sections on one axis; hover shows the week's combined comment volume. Rutgers's positive share was higher in 6 of 22 shared weeks, Temple's in 16.

RUTGTEM
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: RUTG, TEM
Week ofRUTGTEMComments
2025-08-2349.3%82.2%580
2025-08-3053.6%88.7%279
2025-09-0663.6%83.2%520
2025-09-1353.8%61%645
2025-09-2036.2%78.8%552
2025-09-2733.9%88.6%480
2025-10-0481.1%80.5%254
2025-10-1127.1%63%258
2025-10-1839.4%83%412
2025-10-2564.5%85.2%788
2025-11-0155.1%75.2%251
2025-11-0863.1%76.2%793
2025-11-1570.7%87.2%312
2025-11-2234.8%68.6%266
2025-11-2934.6%75.4%776
2025-12-0669%24.2%215
2025-12-1350%33.3%7
2025-12-2066.7%100%10
2025-12-2716.7%100%8
2026-01-0374.1%68.2%49
2026-01-1078.3%70%33
2026-01-1770.7%0%76
Behind the numbers

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