Bowling Green

Falcons · 4–8 in 2025–26

Fan Score
782.6
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
3,685
2025–26 season
Positive share
78.3%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
12.8
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 Bowling Green fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Harm: 3rd percentile · Off-Field Storylines: 8th percentile · Team & Front Office: 10th percentileLow volume (not ranked), omitted from the shape: Identity-Based Abuse, Explicit Language, Sports Betting.Percentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • Bowling Green Harm: 3rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Bowling Green Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Bowling Green Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Bowling Green College Sports: 38th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Bowling Green Off-Field Storylines: 8th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Bowling Green Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Bowling Green Team & Front Office: 10th percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive78.3%2,884
Neutral14.2%525
Negative6.9%254
Mixed0.6%22

Signature subtags

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

College Sports
3.2×

Mentioned Band at 3.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

4.1 per 1,000 comments
Identity-Based Abuse
2.1×

Mentioned Physical Appearance at 2.1× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

4.6 per 1,000 comments
College Sports
1.3×

Mentioned Recruiting at 1.3× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

6.2 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: +95% · week of Jan 10Low: +46% · L 3–28 vs BuffaloAug 28: W 26–7 vs LafayetteWSep 6: L 20–34 at CincinnatiLSep 13: W 23–13 vs LibertyWSep 20: L 17–40 at LouisvilleLSep 27: L 20–35 at OhioLOct 11: W 28–23 vs ToledoWOct 18: L 6–27 vs Central MichiganLOct 25: L 21–24 at Kent StateLNov 1: L 3–28 vs BuffaloLNov 8: L 21–27 at Eastern MichiganLNov 18: L 16–19 vs AkronLNov 25: W 45–14 at UMassWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+74%36425456W 26–7 vs Lafayette
2025-08-30+67%27520381No game
2025-09-06+60%15010233L 20–34 at Cincinnati
2025-09-13+73%15810203W 23–13 vs Liberty
2025-09-20+85%3837444L 17–40 at Louisville
2025-09-27+56%10021141L 20–35 at Ohio
2025-10-04+54%13122203No game
2025-10-11+77%31821387W 28–23 vs Toledo
2025-10-18+72%56571L 6–27 vs Central Michigan
2025-10-25+62%47863L 21–24 at Kent State
2025-11-01+46%7324107L 3–28 vs Buffalo
2025-11-08+77%37344L 21–27 at Eastern Michigan
2025-11-15+67%55969L 16–19 vs Akron
2025-11-22+84%1538173W 45–14 at UMass
2025-11-29+72%30436No game
2025-12-06+72%15322183No game
2025-12-13+88%81488No game
2025-12-20+49%381057No game
2025-12-27+69%11511150No game
2026-01-03+69%839108No game
2026-01-10+95%41043No game
2026-01-17+93%43145No game
Fan mood fell 38 points the week of Dec 20.

Season trend

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

PositiveNegative
0%48%96%Aug 28: W 26–7 vs LafayetteWSep 6: L 20–34 at CincinnatiLSep 13: W 23–13 vs LibertyWSep 20: L 17–40 at LouisvilleLSep 27: L 20–35 at OhioLOct 11: W 28–23 vs ToledoWOct 18: L 6–27 vs Central MichiganLOct 25: L 21–24 at Kent StateLNov 1: L 3–28 vs BuffaloLNov 8: L 21–27 at Eastern MichiganLNov 18: L 16–19 vs AkronLNov 25: W 45–14 at UMassWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2379.8%5.5%456
2025-08-3072.2%5.2%381
2025-09-0664.4%4.3%233
2025-09-1377.8%4.9%203
2025-09-2086.3%1.6%444
2025-09-2770.9%14.9%141
2025-10-0464.5%10.8%203
2025-10-1182.2%5.4%387
2025-10-1878.9%7%71
2025-10-2574.6%12.7%63
2025-11-0168.2%22.4%107
2025-11-0884.1%6.8%44
2025-11-1579.7%13%69
2025-11-2288.4%4.6%173
2025-11-2983.3%11.1%36
2025-12-0683.6%12%183
2025-12-1392%4.5%88
2025-12-2066.7%17.5%57
2025-12-2776.7%7.3%150
2026-01-0376.9%8.3%108
2026-01-1095.3%0%43
2026-01-1795.6%2.2%45

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.

Harm7.6 per 1,000 · 28
Personal Attacks 28Harm Wish 1
Identity-Based Abuse5.2 per 1,000 · 19
Physical Appearance 17Race 1Age 1
Explicit Language1.1 per 1,000 · 4
Explicit Acronym 2Explicit Words 2
College Sports13.8 per 1,000 · 51
Recruiting 23Band 15NIL 8Transfer Portal 5
Off-Field Storylines14.1 per 1,000 · 52
Broadcast & Media 38Injuries 11Politics & Activism 3
Sports Betting0.8 per 1,000 · 3
Prop Bet 2Parlay 1
Team & Front Office75.2 per 1,000 · 277
Coaching 207Stadium Experience 11Crowd & Attendance 31Opponent Hostility 6Front Office 8Opponent Respect 16

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

Low volume

Too few comments to rank nationally.

4 explicit comments1.1 per 1,000
  • Explicit Acronym2
  • Explicit Words2

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 1.1 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 12.838.6 per 1,000 · L 20–34 at CincinnatiWLWLLWLLLLLW2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-2330.7W 26–7 vs Lafayette
2025-08-3028.9No game
2025-09-0638.6L 20–34 at Cincinnati
2025-09-130W 23–13 vs Liberty
2025-09-200L 17–40 at Louisville
2025-09-2714.2L 20–35 at Ohio
2025-10-040No game
2025-10-112.6W 28–23 vs Toledo
2025-10-180L 6–27 vs Central Michigan
2025-10-250L 21–24 at Kent State
2025-11-019.3L 3–28 vs Buffalo
2025-11-080L 21–27 at Eastern Michigan
2025-11-1514.5L 16–19 vs Akron
2025-11-220W 45–14 at UMass
2025-11-290No game
2025-12-0632.8No game
2025-12-130No game
2025-12-200No game
2025-12-276.7No game
2026-01-030No game
2026-01-100No game
2026-01-1722.2No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 38.6 per 1,000 comments (L 20–34 at Cincinnati) against a season average of 12.8 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks28
  • Harm Wish1
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Physical Appearance17
  • Age1
  • 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

Let⚡ Falcon goooooo⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡‼️ 🟠⚪🟤

positiveFacebook

Welcome to the family buddy. God bless you. You’re gonna love it here.

positiveFacebook

Gotta learn how to shut them down after a big lead boys! 💪

negativeFacebook

OMG enough w the cat already. GO FALCONS!!!!

mixedFacebook
Behind the numbers

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