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
South Alabama left, Tulane 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 | South Alabama result | South Alabama positive share | South Alabama negative share | Tulane result | Tulane positive share | Tulane negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | – | 72.9% | 2.4% | – | 94% | 4% |
| 2025-08-30 | W | 81.2% | 6.1% | W | 87.7% | 4.6% |
| 2025-09-06 | L | 87.7% | 0.8% | W | 76.5% | 15% |
| 2025-09-13 | L | 89.5% | 2.2% | W | 85.2% | 7.3% |
| 2025-09-20 | L | 93.7% | 4.8% | L | 64.3% | 28.3% |
| 2025-09-27 | L | 83% | 8.5% | W | 90.3% | 3% |
| 2025-10-04 | L | 78.9% | 17.1% | W | 67.1% | 21.8% |
| 2025-10-11 | L | 52.9% | 30.9% | – | 74.8% | 14.5% |
| 2025-10-18 | W | 79.5% | 9.1% | W | 66.9% | 10% |
| 2025-10-25 | – | 77.8% | 8.3% | L | 64.6% | 24.4% |
| 2025-11-01 | L | 57.7% | 15.4% | W | 67.7% | 19.3% |
| 2025-11-08 | – | 66.7% | 10% | – | 73.6% | 12.7% |
| 2025-11-15 | W | 93.9% | 3.1% | W | 80.2% | 10.4% |
| 2025-11-22 | W | 81.7% | 13% | W | 77.7% | 12.7% |
| 2025-11-29 | L | 90.7% | 7.2% | W W | 72.7% | 15.4% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 81.3% | 12.5% | – | 65.1% | 24.7% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 0% | 0% | – | 80.3% | 11.8% |
| 2025-12-20 | – | – | – | L | 50.9% | 42.1% |
| 2025-12-27 | – | – | – | – | 73.7% | 10.5% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 66.7% | 16.7% | – | 66.7% | 22.2% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 83.3% | 16.7% | – | 48.2% | 33.9% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 48.1% | 14.8% | – | 54.1% | 31.1% |
“Here's the link for the streamed 🔴🎥 livescore.scorestream4k.com/ncaa-football.php”
“Mike N. Bama ESPN+ You can also listen to it on Sports Talk 99.5.”
“🏈 #OHSAA Greenville Green Wave vs. Piqua Indians 📺 https://bit.ly/3Um0UIS The Piqua (OH) varsity football team has a home conference game vs. Greenville (OH) on Friday, September 5 @ 7p.”
“🏈 #OHSAA Greenville Green Wave vs. Piqua Indians 📺 https://bit.ly/3Um0UIS The Piqua (OH) varsity football team has a home conference game vs. Greenville (OH) on Friday, September 5 @ 7p.”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- South Alabama Harm: low volume, not ranked
- South Alabama Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
- South Alabama Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
- South Alabama College Sports: low volume, not ranked
- South Alabama Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
- South Alabama Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- South Alabama Team & Front Office: low volume, not ranked
- Tulane Harm: 47th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Identity-Based Abuse: 34th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Explicit Language: 66th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane College Sports: 17th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Off-Field Storylines: 20th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Sports Betting: 49th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- Tulane Team & Front Office: 35th 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. South Alabama's positive share was higher in 11 of 20 shared weeks, Tulane's in 8.
| Week of | USA | TULN | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 72.9% | 94% | 135 |
| 2025-08-30 | 81.2% | 87.7% | 676 |
| 2025-09-06 | 87.7% | 76.5% | 616 |
| 2025-09-13 | 89.5% | 85.2% | 709 |
| 2025-09-20 | 93.7% | 64.3% | 469 |
| 2025-09-27 | 83% | 90.3% | 330 |
| 2025-10-04 | 78.9% | 67.1% | 407 |
| 2025-10-11 | 52.9% | 74.8% | 199 |
| 2025-10-18 | 79.5% | 66.9% | 2,448 |
| 2025-10-25 | 77.8% | 64.6% | 750 |
| 2025-11-01 | 57.7% | 67.7% | 218 |
| 2025-11-08 | 66.7% | 73.6% | 897 |
| 2025-11-15 | 93.9% | 80.2% | 869 |
| 2025-11-22 | 81.7% | 77.7% | 965 |
| 2025-11-29 | 90.7% | 72.7% | 1,660 |
| 2025-12-06 | 81.3% | 65.1% | 3,192 |
| 2025-12-13 | 0% | 80.3% | 554 |
| 2025-12-20 | 0% | 50.9% | 1,115 |
| 2025-12-27 | 0% | 73.7% | 57 |
| 2026-01-03 | 66.7% | 66.7% | 51 |
| 2026-01-10 | 83.3% | 48.2% | 62 |
| 2026-01-17 | 48.1% | 54.1% | 101 |