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
Texas A&M left, UTSA 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 | Texas A&M result | Texas A&M positive share | Texas A&M negative share | UTSA result | UTSA positive share | UTSA negative share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | – | 51.6% | 37.5% | – | 79.2% | 6.7% |
| 2025-08-30 | W | 44.9% | 40% | L | 75.2% | 16.3% |
| 2025-09-06 | W | 56.8% | 29.5% | L | 38.8% | 48.1% |
| 2025-09-13 | W | 74.2% | 15.8% | W | 79.4% | 13.7% |
| 2025-09-20 | – | 64.4% | 16.3% | W | 59.9% | 27.9% |
| 2025-09-27 | W | 55.6% | 29.2% | – | 56.8% | 11.4% |
| 2025-10-04 | W | 58.6% | 26.9% | L | 50.3% | 38.4% |
| 2025-10-11 | W | 65.8% | 21.8% | W | 78.6% | 7.1% |
| 2025-10-18 | W | 50.6% | 35.1% | L | 26.2% | 61.9% |
| 2025-10-25 | W | 69.9% | 20.4% | W | 79.9% | 8.5% |
| 2025-11-01 | – | 64.4% | 15.3% | L | 77.3% | 17.4% |
| 2025-11-08 | W | 76.6% | 13% | – | 75% | 20% |
| 2025-11-15 | W | 58% | 30.1% | W | 76% | 13.4% |
| 2025-11-22 | W L | 66.5% | 21.5% | W | 73.8% | 15.9% |
| 2025-11-29 | – | 32.5% | 57.8% | L | 57% | 32.5% |
| 2025-12-06 | – | 51.6% | 35.7% | – | 73.5% | 15.7% |
| 2025-12-13 | – | 62.1% | 24.6% | – | 88.9% | 3.7% |
| 2025-12-20 | L | 28.8% | 61.2% | W | 62% | 16.9% |
| 2025-12-27 | – | 47.1% | 43.1% | – | 76.7% | 15% |
| 2026-01-03 | – | 40.4% | 47.4% | – | 82.1% | 10.7% |
| 2026-01-10 | – | 41% | 27.8% | – | 71.9% | 4.7% |
| 2026-01-17 | – | 50.5% | 4.2% | – | 38.5% | 38.5% |
“Still time to dump the DJ and high school light show”
“Would love to watch but do not have ESPN”
“Looking good, can't wait to watch on TV 📺”
“Let’s go boys! Give those Aggies a fight they will remember.”
Fingerprint duel
Each fanbase's national percentile on the seven comment-topic groups, overlaid.
- 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
- UTSA Harm: 34th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- UTSA Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
- UTSA Explicit Language: 47th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- UTSA College Sports: 88th percentile of ranked FBS teams
- UTSA Off-Field Storylines: 32nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
- UTSA Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
- UTSA Team & Front Office: 44th 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. Texas A&M's positive share was higher in 6 of 22 shared weeks, UTSA's in 16.
| Week of | TAMU | UTSA | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-23 | 51.6% | 79.2% | 765 |
| 2025-08-30 | 44.9% | 75.2% | 1,698 |
| 2025-09-06 | 56.8% | 38.8% | 1,080 |
| 2025-09-13 | 74.2% | 79.4% | 2,742 |
| 2025-09-20 | 64.4% | 59.9% | 1,023 |
| 2025-09-27 | 55.6% | 56.8% | 1,615 |
| 2025-10-04 | 58.6% | 50.3% | 3,086 |
| 2025-10-11 | 65.8% | 78.6% | 2,763 |
| 2025-10-18 | 50.6% | 26.2% | 3,278 |
| 2025-10-25 | 69.9% | 79.9% | 6,941 |
| 2025-11-01 | 64.4% | 77.3% | 905 |
| 2025-11-08 | 76.6% | 75% | 3,894 |
| 2025-11-15 | 58% | 76% | 9,750 |
| 2025-11-22 | 66.5% | 73.8% | 5,105 |
| 2025-11-29 | 32.5% | 57% | 10,025 |
| 2025-12-06 | 51.6% | 73.5% | 3,339 |
| 2025-12-13 | 62.1% | 88.9% | 1,220 |
| 2025-12-20 | 28.8% | 62% | 6,044 |
| 2025-12-27 | 47.1% | 76.7% | 739 |
| 2026-01-03 | 40.4% | 82.1% | 1,024 |
| 2026-01-10 | 41% | 71.9% | 291 |
| 2026-01-17 | 50.5% | 38.5% | 958 |