Head to head

Whose comment section wins?

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

ACC
SMU
Mustangs
vs
American
Tulsa
Golden Hurricane
SMU sentiment · 7,390 comments
Positive68.1%
Neutral10.7%
Negative19.9%
Mixed1.3%
TLSA sentiment · 2,677 comments
Positive83.9%
Neutral7.7%
Negative7.7%
Mixed0.7%
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.

SMU
Tulsa

Fan Score

681.5
(better)839

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

68.1%
(better)83.9%

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.

SMU
Tulsa

Negativity

198.5
(better)77.3

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

21.4
(better)7.1

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

Explicit language

13.3
(better)8.2

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

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

SMU left, Tulsa 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.

SMU
Tulsa

Betting talk

2.8
0

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

77.1
64.3

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

NIL & portal talk

4.6
9.3

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: SMU up, Tulsa down
SMU positive ↑Tulsa positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
SMU had the happier comment section in 5 of 22 shared weeks, Tulsa in 17.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for SMU and Tulsa
Week ofSMU resultSMU positive shareSMU negative shareTulsa resultTulsa positive shareTulsa negative share
2025-08-2375.8%4.6%70%7.5%
2025-08-30W69.7%13.4%W90%1.5%
2025-09-06L43.3%43.6%L79.3%15%
2025-09-13W69.4%18.8%L W74.3%16.2%
2025-09-20L44.5%42.6%84.9%9.7%
2025-09-2780.5%5.1%L64.7%19.1%
2025-10-04W55.5%29.6%L75.6%14.4%
2025-10-11W70.3%17.9%L87.2%8.5%
2025-10-18W80.5%12.7%85.5%5.5%
2025-10-25L48%37.4%L81.3%8.3%
2025-11-01W76.2%13.2%87.8%2%
2025-11-08W84.8%6%L68.8%16.3%
2025-11-1583.9%4%W96.3%1.6%
2025-11-22W84.3%7.4%W90.2%5%
2025-11-29L36.3%54.7%L80.9%8%
2025-12-0667.2%14.9%95%0%
2025-12-1349.5%30.3%94.7%0%
2025-12-2087.8%4.1%100%0%
2025-12-27W79.8%6.4%64.2%14.6%
2026-01-0384.4%8.2%81.6%5.7%
2026-01-1071.6%14.2%91.3%0%
2026-01-1757.9%5.6%89.4%4.5%

Fingerprint duel

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

SMUTulsa
Harm · Low volumeIdentity-Based Abuse · Low volumeExplicit Language · Low volumeCollege Sports · SMU +3 ptsOff-Field Storylines · SMU +24 ptsSports Betting · Low volumeTeam & Front Office · SMU +8 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.
  • SMU Harm: 32nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU Identity-Based Abuse: 11th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU Explicit Language: 35th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU College Sports: 52nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU Off-Field Storylines: 35th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • SMU Team & Front Office: 11th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Tulsa Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • Tulsa Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Tulsa Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Tulsa College Sports: 49th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Tulsa Off-Field Storylines: 11th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Tulsa Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Tulsa Team & Front Office: 3rd 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. SMU's positive share was higher in 5 of 22 shared weeks, Tulsa's in 17.

SMUTLSA
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: SMU, TLSA
Week ofSMUTLSAComments
2025-08-2375.8%70%193
2025-08-3069.7%90%716
2025-09-0643.3%79.3%667
2025-09-1369.4%74.3%440
2025-09-2044.5%84.9%587
2025-09-2780.5%64.7%186
2025-10-0455.5%75.6%364
2025-10-1170.3%87.2%357
2025-10-1880.5%85.5%582
2025-10-2548%81.3%377
2025-11-0176.2%87.8%1,031
2025-11-0884.8%68.8%330
2025-11-1583.9%96.3%314
2025-11-2284.3%90.2%909
2025-11-2936.3%80.9%775
2025-12-0667.2%95%154
2025-12-1349.5%94.7%147
2025-12-2087.8%100%69
2025-12-2779.8%64.2%485
2026-01-0384.4%81.6%952
2026-01-1071.6%91.3%240
2026-01-1757.9%89.4%192
Behind the numbers

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