Army

Black Knights · 7–6 in 2025–26

Fan Score
745.9
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
10,320
2025–26 season
Positive share
74.6%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
10.5
harm + identity abuse per 1,000 · lower is better
Part one

Who they are

The shape of one comment section: the mix of what gets talked about, how it splits by sentiment, and the subjects Army fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Harm: 1st percentile · College Sports: 1st percentile · Off-Field Storylines: 14th percentileLow volume (not ranked), omitted from the shape: Sports Betting.Percentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • Army Harm: 1st percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Army Identity-Based Abuse: 17th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Army Explicit Language: 28th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Army College Sports: 1st percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Army Off-Field Storylines: 14th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Army Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Army Team & Front Office: 59th percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive74.6%7,698
Neutral6.9%715
Negative16.8%1,738
Mixed1.6%169

Signature subtags

What Army fans bring up more than anyone, vs all 138 FBS fanbases.

Team & Front Office
2.6×

Mentioned Opponent Respect at 2.6× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

18.1 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
2.2×

Mentioned Opponent Hostility at 2.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

62.9 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
0.9×

Mentioned Stadium Experience at 0.9× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

4.2 per 1,000 comments

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

Part two

How the season felt

Week by week, with every game marked. The comment section keeps its own scoreboard, and it does not always agree with the one on the field.

Season heartbeat

Net comment mood by week (green above the baseline, red below) with every game marked on it. Click a game for that week’s story.

+100%+50%−50%−100%0%Peak: +91% · W 31–13 at UABLow: −2% · L 25–26 vs TulsaAug 29: L 27–30 (2OT) vs Tarleton StLSep 6: W 24–21 at Kansas StateWSep 20: L 38–45 (OT) vs North TexasLSep 25: L 6–28 at East CarolinaLOct 4: W 31–13 at UABWOct 11: W 24–7 vs CharlotteWOct 18: L 17–24 at TulaneLNov 1: W 20–17 at Air ForceWNov 8: W 14–13 vs TempleWNov 22: L 25–26 vs TulsaLNov 29: W 27–24 at UTSAWDec 13: L 16–17 vs NavyLDec 27: W 41–16 vs UConnWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+83%26613304L 27–30 (2OT) vs Tarleton St
2025-08-30+9%250199564No game
2025-09-06+77%928831,092W 24–21 at Kansas State
2025-09-13+87%79289No game
2025-09-20+23%272163478L 38–45 (OT) vs North Texas; L 6–28 at East Carolina
2025-09-27+46%7724114No game
2025-10-04+91%2899309W 31–13 at UAB
2025-10-11+79%35425415W 24–7 vs Charlotte
2025-10-18+63%16833216L 17–24 at Tulane
2025-10-25+83%938103No game
2025-11-01+84%54836609W 20–17 at Air Force
2025-11-08+59%7591411,039W 14–13 vs Temple
2025-11-15+65%25340328No game
2025-11-22−2%220228485L 25–26 vs Tulsa
2025-11-29+71%54782656W 27–24 at UTSA
2025-12-06+50%647195904No game
2025-12-13+22%432261777L 16–17 vs Navy
2025-12-20+87%2188241No game
2025-12-27+78%1,0831071,258W 41–16 vs UConn
2026-01-03+30%11656203No game
2026-01-10+58%711695No game
2026-01-17+46%28941No game
Fan mood fell 74 points the week of Aug 30.

Season trend

Weekly share of positive and negative comments with every game marked: click a dot for that week's story.

PositiveNegative
0%47%94%Aug 29: L 27–30 (2OT) vs Tarleton StLSep 6: W 24–21 at Kansas StateWSep 20: L 38–45 (OT) vs North TexasLSep 25: L 6–28 at East CarolinaLOct 4: W 31–13 at UABWOct 11: W 24–7 vs CharlotteWOct 18: L 17–24 at TulaneLNov 1: W 20–17 at Air ForceWNov 8: W 14–13 vs TempleWNov 22: L 25–26 vs TulsaLNov 29: W 27–24 at UTSAWDec 13: L 16–17 vs NavyLDec 27: W 41–16 vs UConnWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2387.5%4.3%304
2025-08-3044.3%35.3%564
2025-09-0685%7.6%1,092
2025-09-1388.8%2.2%89
2025-09-2056.9%34.1%478
2025-09-2767.5%21.1%114
2025-10-0493.5%2.9%309
2025-10-1185.3%6%415
2025-10-1877.8%15.3%216
2025-10-2590.3%7.8%103
2025-11-0190%5.9%609
2025-11-0873.1%13.6%1,039
2025-11-1577.1%12.2%328
2025-11-2245.4%47%485
2025-11-2983.4%12.5%656
2025-12-0671.6%21.6%904
2025-12-1355.6%33.6%777
2025-12-2090.5%3.3%241
2025-12-2786.1%8.5%1,258
2026-01-0357.1%27.6%203
2026-01-1074.7%16.8%95
2026-01-1768.3%22%41

Season timeline

Part three

What they actually said

The language, the moderation load, and the comments themselves, exactly as they were posted.

Comment insights

Classified comments per 1,000, by system-tag group.

Harm6.6 per 1,000 · 68
Personal Attacks 50Group Hate 13Sexual Content 3Harm Wish 4
Identity-Based Abuse3.9 per 1,000 · 40
LGBTQIA+ 7Physical Appearance 11Age 2Race 7Gender 7Disability 6Religion 2
Explicit Language11.1 per 1,000 · 115
Explicit Emoji 7Explicit Words 93Violent Language 7Explicit Acronym 12
College Sports2.9 per 1,000 · 30
NIL 3Transfer Portal 10Recruiting 4Band 9Student Section 2Conference Realignment 2
Off-Field Storylines17.2 per 1,000 · 178
Officiating 71Broadcast & Media 89Injuries 15Politics & Activism 3Player Conduct 1
Sports Betting2.1 per 1,000 · 22
Gambling 18Prop Bet 1Moneyline 2Parlay 1
Team & Front Office128.4 per 1,000 · 1,325
Opponent Hostility 649Crowd & Attendance 32Coaching 422Opponent Respect 187Stadium Experience 43Front Office 1

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

28th percentile
115 explicit comments11.1 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words93
  • Explicit Acronym12
  • Explicit Emoji7
  • Violent Language7

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 11.1 of every 1,000 comments on this page: 73rd of 100 nationally, the 28th percentile.

Moderation snapshot

Harm & identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments · by week
season avg 10.533.7 per 1,000 · no game that week (week of Aug 30)LWLLWWLWWLWLW2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-233.3L 27–30 (2OT) vs Tarleton St
2025-08-3033.7No game
2025-09-062.7W 24–21 at Kansas State
2025-09-130No game
2025-09-208.4L 38–45 (OT) vs North Texas; L 6–28 at East Carolina
2025-09-270No game
2025-10-043.2W 31–13 at UAB
2025-10-119.6W 24–7 vs Charlotte
2025-10-180L 17–24 at Tulane
2025-10-259.7No game
2025-11-010W 20–17 at Air Force
2025-11-0821.2W 14–13 vs Temple
2025-11-156.1No game
2025-11-2220.6L 25–26 vs Tulsa
2025-11-294.6W 27–24 at UTSA
2025-12-065.5No game
2025-12-1321.9L 16–17 vs Navy
2025-12-2012.4No game
2025-12-275.6W 41–16 vs UConn
2026-01-0324.6No game
2026-01-100No game
2026-01-1724.4No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 33.7 per 1,000 comments (no game that week (week of Aug 30)) against a season average of 10.5 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

Season totals of the classifications Sence applied to comments on this page.

Harm
  • Personal Attacks50
  • Group Hate13
  • Harm Wish4
  • Sexual Content3
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Physical Appearance11
  • Gender7
  • LGBTQIA+7
  • Race7
  • Disability6
  • Age2
  • Religion2

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Sence flags these in real time so page owners can act before fans see them.

From the comment section

Let’s Go Army Football! 🖤🏈 💛

positiveFacebook

Nobody talks about the struggle them cameramen endure 😅

positiveBroadcast & MediaFacebook

Choke. Navy is going to demolish us.

negativeFacebook

Brutally elegant. Navy should probably stay home.

mixedOpponent HostilityFacebook
Behind the numbers

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