Boston College

Eagles · 2–10 in 2025–26

Compare Boston College with…
Fan Score
462
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
3,381
2025–26 season
Positive share
46.2%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
21.3
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 Boston College fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out College Sports: 99th percentile · Sports Betting: 98th percentile · Harm: 31st percentileLow volume (not ranked), omitted from the shape: Identity-Based Abuse.Percentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • Boston College Harm: 31st percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Boston College Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Boston College Explicit Language: 48th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Boston College College Sports: 99th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Boston College Off-Field Storylines: 54th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Boston College Sports Betting: 98th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Boston College Team & Front Office: 55th percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive46.2%1,562
Neutral9%303
Negative42.9%1,449
Mixed2%67

Signature subtags

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

College Sports
6.2×

Mentioned Conference Realignment at 6.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

11.8 per 1,000 comments
College Sports
3.3×

Mentioned NIL at 3.3× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

12.7 per 1,000 comments
Sports Betting
3.1×

Mentioned Gambling at 3.1× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

8.3 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% · week of Dec 20Low: −51% · L 7–48 at PittsburghAug 30: W 66–10 vs FordhamWSep 6: L 40–42 (2OT) at Michigan StateLSep 13: L 20–30 at StanfordLSep 27: L 24–28 vs CaliforniaLOct 4: L 7–48 at PittsburghLOct 11: L 10–41 vs ClemsonLOct 18: L 23–38 vs UConnLOct 25: L 24–38 at LouisvilleLNov 1: L 10–25 vs Notre DameLNov 8: L 13–45 vs SMULNov 15: L 34–36 vs Georgia TechLNov 29: W 34–12 at SyracuseWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+43%371356No game
2025-08-30+52%12931190W 66–10 vs Fordham
2025-09-06+14%12389248L 40–42 (2OT) at Michigan State
2025-09-13−44%47132192L 20–30 at Stanford
2025-09-20+43%10414No game
2025-09-27−28%64122206L 24–28 vs California
2025-10-04−51%72252352L 7–48 at Pittsburgh
2025-10-11−14%347L 10–41 vs Clemson
2025-10-18−44%80236357L 23–38 vs UConn
2025-10-25−20%96152281L 24–38 at Louisville
2025-11-01+18%11979221L 10–25 vs Notre Dame
2025-11-08−24%82147275L 13–45 vs SMU
2025-11-15+20%8857157L 34–36 vs Georgia Tech
2025-11-22+58%8619115No game
2025-11-29+63%19337249W 34–12 at Syracuse
2025-12-06+57%511170No game
2025-12-13+31%281349No game
2025-12-20+87%43346No game
2025-12-27+84%50455No game
2026-01-03+42%8227132No game
2026-01-10+59%721596No game
2026-01-17+38%7213No game
Fan mood jumped 87 points the week of Sep 20.

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 30: W 66–10 vs FordhamWSep 6: L 40–42 (2OT) at Michigan StateLSep 13: L 20–30 at StanfordLSep 27: L 24–28 vs CaliforniaLOct 4: L 7–48 at PittsburghLOct 11: L 10–41 vs ClemsonLOct 18: L 23–38 vs UConnLOct 25: L 24–38 at LouisvilleLNov 1: L 10–25 vs Notre DameLNov 8: L 13–45 vs SMULNov 15: L 34–36 vs Georgia TechLNov 29: W 34–12 at SyracuseWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2366.1%23.2%56
2025-08-3067.9%16.3%190
2025-09-0649.6%35.9%248
2025-09-1324.5%68.8%192
2025-09-2071.4%28.6%14
2025-09-2731.1%59.2%206
2025-10-0420.5%71.6%352
2025-10-1142.9%57.1%7
2025-10-1822.4%66.1%357
2025-10-2534.2%54.1%281
2025-11-0153.8%35.7%221
2025-11-0829.8%53.5%275
2025-11-1556.1%36.3%157
2025-11-2274.8%16.5%115
2025-11-2977.5%14.9%249
2025-12-0672.9%15.7%70
2025-12-1357.1%26.5%49
2025-12-2093.5%6.5%46
2025-12-2790.9%7.3%55
2026-01-0362.1%20.5%132
2026-01-1075%15.6%96
2026-01-1753.8%15.4%13

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.

Harm17.5 per 1,000 · 59
Personal Attacks 55Group Hate 4Harm Wish 1
Identity-Based Abuse3.8 per 1,000 · 13
Physical Appearance 1Disability 3Race 2Gender 3Age 3LGBTQIA+ 2
Explicit Language17.5 per 1,000 · 59
Explicit Acronym 15Explicit Words 43Violent Language 1
College Sports48.8 per 1,000 · 165
Recruiting 42NIL 43Conference Realignment 40Transfer Portal 33Student Section 6Band 6
Off-Field Storylines29.9 per 1,000 · 101
Broadcast & Media 45Injuries 28Officiating 26Player Conduct 3
Sports Betting9.2 per 1,000 · 31
Prop Bet 3Gambling 28
Team & Front Office126.9 per 1,000 · 429
Coaching 331Stadium Experience 20Crowd & Attendance 37Athletic Department 11Opponent Hostility 18Front Office 20Opponent Respect 8

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

48th percentile
59 explicit comments17.5 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words43
  • Explicit Acronym15
  • Violent Language1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 17.5 of every 1,000 comments on this page: 53rd of 100 nationally, the 48th percentile.

Moderation snapshot

Harm & identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments · by week
season avg 21.376.9 per 1,000 · no game that week (week of Jan 17)WLLLLLLLLLLW2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-230No game
2025-08-3021.1W 66–10 vs Fordham
2025-09-0636.3L 40–42 (2OT) at Michigan State
2025-09-1320.8L 20–30 at Stanford
2025-09-200No game
2025-09-2743.7L 24–28 vs California
2025-10-0428.4L 7–48 at Pittsburgh
2025-10-110L 10–41 vs Clemson
2025-10-1833.6L 23–38 vs UConn
2025-10-257.1L 24–38 at Louisville
2025-11-0136.2L 10–25 vs Notre Dame
2025-11-0810.9L 13–45 vs SMU
2025-11-150L 34–36 vs Georgia Tech
2025-11-228.7No game
2025-11-2912W 34–12 at Syracuse
2025-12-060No game
2025-12-130No game
2025-12-200No game
2025-12-270No game
2026-01-0322.7No game
2026-01-1031.3No game
2026-01-1776.9No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 76.9 per 1,000 comments (no game that week (week of Jan 17)) against a season average of 21.3 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks55
  • Group Hate4
  • Harm Wish1
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Disability3
  • Age3
  • Gender3
  • LGBTQIA+2
  • Race2
  • Physical Appearance1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

Great pics, well done Andy.

positiveFacebook

A GOD SENT MAN FOR DEDICATING UR LIFE FOR THE PEOPLE. ALL GLORY BE TO GOD.

positiveFacebook

I used to live and die by BC Athletics. Now I just don’t care. Clearly the school doesn’t care either. Give it up and drop to FCS.

negativeFacebook

As ugly as it gets. Twelve injured starters?? Wasn’t sure how many. Let’s hope the rest of the seasons goes better. Still love my Eagles 🏈

mixedInjuriesFacebook
Behind the numbers

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