Head to head

Whose comment section wins?

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

Sun Belt
UL Monroe
Warhawks
vs
C-USA
UTEP
Miners
On the field
UL Monroe won 3125 on Sep 20.
The comment sections had their own opinions.
ULM sentiment · 943 comments
Positive74.1%
Neutral11.8%
Negative12.3%
Mixed1.8%
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.

UL Monroe
UTEP

Fan Score

741.3 (better)
498.8

Positive comments per 1,000 (higher wins)

Positive share

74.1% (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.

UL Monroe
UTEP

Negativity

123 (better)
400.2

Negative comments per 1,000 (lower wins)

Toxicity

11.7 (better)
22.7

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

Explicit language

5.3 (better)
11.4

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

Identity-based abuse, tag by tag

Tag applications per 1,000 comments

UL Monroe 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.

UL Monroe
UTEP

Betting talk

0
3.5

Sports-betting comments per 1,000

Team & front office talk

83.8
126

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

NIL & portal talk

6.4
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: UL Monroe up, UTEP down
UL Monroe positive ↑UTEP positive ↓Negative shareHover a W or L for that week’s result
ULM 31UTEP 25
UL Monroe had the happier comment section in 18 of 22 shared weeks, UTEP in 4. When they met on Sep 20, UL Monroe won 31–25; UL Monroe’s comments were the more positive that week.
Weekly positive and negative comment shares for UL Monroe and UTEP
Week ofUL Monroe resultUL Monroe positive shareUL Monroe negative shareUTEP resultUTEP positive shareUTEP negative share
2025-08-23W76.8%4.2%74.5%12.8%
2025-08-3078.5%6.3%L58.2%35.2%
2025-09-06L84%8%W78.3%13.3%
2025-09-1381.8%9.1%L74.2%16.5%
2025-09-20W82.4%4.5%L43.2%48.1%
2025-09-27W88.4%5.4%L37.4%50.5%
2025-10-04L80.4%15.2%L28.7%63.3%
2025-10-11L47.6%11.9%W65.6%24.6%
2025-10-18L48%24%67.7%25.8%
2025-10-25L70.8%16.7%L34.1%51.7%
2025-11-01L47.5%35.6%48.9%41.3%
2025-11-0866.7%0%L51.5%37.4%
2025-11-15L30.8%57.7%L50.6%40%
2025-11-22L48.9%37.8%L32.2%57.9%
2025-11-29L61.9%16.7%L36.2%56.3%
2025-12-06100%0%35.1%62.3%
2025-12-13100%0%35.7%46.3%
2025-12-20100%0%38.7%48.4%
2025-12-27100%0%66.7%0%
2026-01-0383.3%16.7%44.4%39.7%
2026-01-1080%0%70.6%11.8%
2026-01-170%100%40.9%47%
Reactions from that night · Sep 20
UL Monroe

Some questionable play calls toward the end, but good win. Talons out

positiveCoachingFacebook

Holy shit did we try to give that one away. Shoulda been 60-7 but I’ll take it

mixedExplicit WordsFacebook
UTEP

Would love to see UTEP add in some TE action on the field. Army full of WR as if that’s the only plays in the playbook. Limited action options will always produce limited results.

negativeCoachingFacebook

Let's Go Miners! 🏈 Every elementary school in El Paso should have a UTEP inspired wall. These photos of the fans are fantastic! Picks up!⛏️

positiveCrowd & AttendanceFacebook

Fingerprint duel

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

UL MonroeUTEP
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.
  • UL Monroe Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • UL Monroe Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • UL Monroe Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • UL Monroe College Sports: low volume, not ranked
  • UL Monroe Off-Field Storylines: low volume, not ranked
  • UL Monroe Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • UL Monroe Team & Front Office: low volume, not ranked
  • 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. UL Monroe's positive share was higher in 17 of 22 shared weeks, UTEP's in 5.

ULMUTEP
0%50%100%Aug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: ULM, UTEP
Week ofULMUTEPComments
2025-08-2376.8%74.5%189
2025-08-3078.5%58.2%409
2025-09-0684%78.3%480
2025-09-1381.8%74.2%642
2025-09-2082.4%43.2%581
2025-09-2788.4%37.4%476
2025-10-0480.4%28.7%436
2025-10-1147.6%65.6%408
2025-10-1848%67.7%56
2025-10-2570.8%34.1%314
2025-11-0147.5%48.9%151
2025-11-0866.7%51.5%209
2025-11-1530.8%50.6%281
2025-11-2248.9%32.2%442
2025-11-2961.9%36.2%420
2025-12-06100%35.1%83
2025-12-13100%35.7%349
2025-12-20100%38.7%41
2025-12-27100%66.7%16
2026-01-0383.3%44.4%69
2026-01-1080%70.6%22
2026-01-170%40.9%67
Behind the numbers

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