Baylor

Bears · 5–7 in 2025–26

Fan Score
606.5
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
8,814
2025–26 season
Positive share
60.7%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
18.6
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 Baylor fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Identity-Based Abuse: 4th percentile · Off-Field Storylines: 89th percentile · Harm: 27th percentileLow volume (not ranked), omitted from the shape: Explicit Language, Sports Betting.Percentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • Baylor Harm: 27th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Baylor Identity-Based Abuse: 4th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Baylor Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Baylor College Sports: 44th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Baylor Off-Field Storylines: 89th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Baylor Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Baylor Team & Front Office: 71st percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive60.7%5,346
Neutral6.6%580
Negative31%2,735
Mixed1.7%153

Signature subtags

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

Team & Front Office
7.8×

Mentioned Athletic Department at 7.8× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

3.9 per 1,000 comments
Off-Field Storylines
1.9×

Mentioned Injuries at 1.9× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

11.6 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
1.5×

Mentioned Coaching at 1.5× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

128.2 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.

+90%+45%−45%−90%0%Peak: +87% · L 24–38 vs AuburnLow: −28% · L 20–41 at CincinnatiAug 29: L 24–38 vs AuburnLSep 6: W 48–45 (2OT) at SMUWSep 13: W 42–7 vs SamfordWSep 20: L 24–27 vs Arizona StateLSep 27: W 45–27 at Oklahoma StateWOct 4: W 35–34 vs Kansas StateWOct 18: L 36–42 at TCULOct 25: L 20–41 at CincinnatiLNov 1: W 30–3 vs UCFWNov 15: L 28–55 vs UtahLNov 22: L 17–41 at ArizonaLNov 29: L 24–31 vs HoustonLAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+87%1443162L 24–38 vs Auburn
2025-08-30−2%270282630No game
2025-09-06+59%8011781,058W 48–45 (2OT) at SMU
2025-09-13+57%22549308W 42–7 vs Samford
2025-09-20+5%249224523L 24–27 vs Arizona State
2025-09-27+51%29788407W 45–27 at Oklahoma State
2025-10-04+40%476184733W 35–34 vs Kansas State
2025-10-11+85%88696No game
2025-10-18−15%196275526L 36–42 at TCU
2025-10-25−28%139265451L 20–41 at Cincinnati
2025-11-01+73%50864607W 30–3 vs UCF
2025-11-08+60%22647297No game
2025-11-15−18%163247460L 28–55 vs Utah
2025-11-22−13%294389731L 17–41 at Arizona
2025-11-29+39%6892881,041L 24–31 vs Houston
2025-12-06+48%15049212No game
2025-12-13+42%592288No game
2025-12-20+63%41852No game
2025-12-27+14%201537No game
2026-01-03+0%112No game
2026-01-10+77%65677No game
2026-01-17+63%24545316No game
Fan mood jumped 101 points the week they beat UCF by 27.

Season trend

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

PositiveNegative
0%46%92%Aug 29: L 24–38 vs AuburnLSep 6: W 48–45 (2OT) at SMUWSep 13: W 42–7 vs SamfordWSep 20: L 24–27 vs Arizona StateLSep 27: W 45–27 at Oklahoma StateWOct 4: W 35–34 vs Kansas StateWOct 18: L 36–42 at TCULOct 25: L 20–41 at CincinnatiLNov 1: W 30–3 vs UCFWNov 15: L 28–55 vs UtahLNov 22: L 17–41 at ArizonaLNov 29: L 24–31 vs HoustonLAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2388.9%1.9%162
2025-08-3042.9%44.8%630
2025-09-0675.7%16.8%1,058
2025-09-1373.1%15.9%308
2025-09-2047.6%42.8%523
2025-09-2773%21.6%407
2025-10-0464.9%25.1%733
2025-10-1191.7%6.3%96
2025-10-1837.3%52.3%526
2025-10-2530.8%58.8%451
2025-11-0183.7%10.5%607
2025-11-0876.1%15.8%297
2025-11-1535.4%53.7%460
2025-11-2240.2%53.2%731
2025-11-2966.2%27.7%1,041
2025-12-0670.8%23.1%212
2025-12-1367%25%88
2025-12-2078.8%15.4%52
2025-12-2754.1%40.5%37
2026-01-0350%50%2
2026-01-1084.4%7.8%77
2026-01-1777.5%14.2%316

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.

Harm15.7 per 1,000 · 138
Personal Attacks 131Group Hate 5Sexual Content 2Harm Wish 1
Identity-Based Abuse2.9 per 1,000 · 26
Disability 3Religion 4Gender 9Physical Appearance 5LGBTQIA+ 2Race 1Age 2
Explicit Language2.6 per 1,000 · 23
Explicit Words 8Explicit Acronym 14Violent Language 1
College Sports14.9 per 1,000 · 131
Recruiting 54Band 7Conference Realignment 1NIL 34Transfer Portal 34Student Section 6
Off-Field Storylines42 per 1,000 · 370
Broadcast & Media 108Injuries 102Officiating 163Player Conduct 1
Sports Betting1.7 per 1,000 · 15
Gambling 14Prop Bet 1
Team & Front Office154.4 per 1,000 · 1,361
Stadium Experience 19Crowd & Attendance 76Opponent Respect 53Opponent Hostility 46Coaching 1,130Front Office 42Athletic Department 34

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

Low volume

Too few comments to rank nationally.

23 explicit comments2.6 per 1,000
  • Explicit Acronym14
  • Explicit Words8
  • Violent Language1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 2.6 of every 1,000 comments on this page, too little volume here for a national rank.

Moderation snapshot

Harm & identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments · by week
season avg 18.647.2 per 1,000 · no game that week (week of Dec 6)LWWLWWLLWLLL2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-230L 24–38 vs Auburn
2025-08-3028.6No game
2025-09-067.6W 48–45 (2OT) at SMU
2025-09-136.5W 42–7 vs Samford
2025-09-2022.9L 24–27 vs Arizona State
2025-09-2714.7W 45–27 at Oklahoma State
2025-10-0415W 35–34 vs Kansas State
2025-10-1110.4No game
2025-10-1824.7L 36–42 at TCU
2025-10-2535.5L 20–41 at Cincinnati
2025-11-019.9W 30–3 vs UCF
2025-11-0826.9No game
2025-11-1519.6L 28–55 vs Utah
2025-11-2227.4L 17–41 at Arizona
2025-11-2915.4L 24–31 vs Houston
2025-12-0647.2No game
2025-12-1322.7No game
2025-12-200No game
2025-12-270No game
2026-01-030No game
2026-01-1013No game
2026-01-1715.8No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 47.2 per 1,000 comments (no game that week (week of Dec 6)) against a season average of 18.6 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks131
  • Group Hate5
  • Sexual Content2
  • Harm Wish1
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Gender9
  • Physical Appearance5
  • Religion4
  • Disability3
  • Age2
  • LGBTQIA+2
  • Race1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

I’m so ready! 🐻💚💛 Sic Em!

positiveFacebook

Welcome to Bear Country Daniel!!! Sic’em Bears!!!💚🐻💛🐻💚🐻💛

positiveFacebook

Can’t win without a good line. They have skill positions but both lines stink.

negativeFacebook

Loved the win and the exciting game, but the emptiness of Mc Lane at the end of the game was sad to see ... sad for the team ... embarrassing for BU ... bordering on inexcusable!

mixedCrowd & AttendanceFacebook
Behind the numbers

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