BYU

Cougars · 12–2 in 2025–26

Fan Score
595.6
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
32,975
2025–26 season
Positive share
59.6%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
36.1
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 BYU fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Off-Field Storylines: 96th percentile · Explicit Language: 8th percentile · Identity-Based Abuse: 84th percentilePercentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • BYU Harm: 49th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • BYU Identity-Based Abuse: 84th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • BYU Explicit Language: 8th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • BYU College Sports: 21st percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • BYU Off-Field Storylines: 96th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • BYU Sports Betting: 60th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • BYU Team & Front Office: 73rd percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive59.6%19,641
Neutral9%2,952
Negative29.1%9,605
Mixed2.4%777

Signature subtags

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

Identity-Based Abuse
29.5×

Mentioned Religion at 29.5× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

5.9 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
5.4×

Mentioned Opponent Respect at 5.4× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

37.8 per 1,000 comments
Sports Betting
3×

Mentioned Moneyline at 3× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

0.6 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.

+70%+35%−35%−70%0%Peak: +65% · week of Jan 10Low: −3% · week of Jan 17Aug 30: W 69–0 vs Portland StWSep 6: W 27–3 vs StanfordWSep 20: W 34–13 at East CarolinaWSep 27: W 24–21 at ColoradoWOct 3: W 38–24 vs West VirginiaWOct 11: W 33–27 (2OT) at ArizonaWOct 18: W 24–21 vs UtahWOct 25: W 41–27 at Iowa StateWNov 8: L 7–29 at Texas TechLNov 15: W 44–13 vs TCUWNov 22: W 26–14 at CincinnatiWNov 29: W 41–21 vs UCFWDec 6: L 7–34 vs Texas TechLDec 27: W 25–21 vs Georgia TechWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+48%14843218No game
2025-08-30+17%6484371,255W 69–0 vs Portland St
2025-09-06+7%452387951W 27–3 vs Stanford
2025-09-13+37%10545161No game
2025-09-20+38%7763171,206W 34–13 at East Carolina
2025-09-27+29%8344251,414W 24–21 at Colorado; W 38–24 vs West Virginia
2025-10-04+16%7034841,372No game
2025-10-11+21%1,3828522,554W 33–27 (2OT) at Arizona
2025-10-18+38%1,7416992,778W 24–21 vs Utah
2025-10-25+38%1,6146412,557W 41–27 at Iowa State
2025-11-01+43%488168749No game
2025-11-08+5%1,0489372,269L 7–29 at Texas Tech
2025-11-15+32%9334241,578W 44–13 vs TCU
2025-11-22+39%1,3235182,051W 26–14 at Cincinnati
2025-11-29+41%2,4279253,670W 41–21 vs UCF
2025-12-06+6%1,3851,2002,859L 7–34 vs Texas Tech
2025-12-13+60%31163412No game
2025-12-20+19%319200633No game
2025-12-27+54%2,4166313,319W 25–21 vs Georgia Tech
2026-01-03+53%23652348No game
2026-01-10+65%23632312No game
2026-01-17−3%116125309No game
Fan mood fell 68 points the week of Jan 17.

Season trend

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

PositiveNegative
0%38%76%Aug 30: W 69–0 vs Portland StWSep 6: W 27–3 vs StanfordWSep 20: W 34–13 at East CarolinaWSep 27: W 24–21 at ColoradoWOct 3: W 38–24 vs West VirginiaWOct 11: W 33–27 (2OT) at ArizonaWOct 18: W 24–21 vs UtahWOct 25: W 41–27 at Iowa StateWNov 8: L 7–29 at Texas TechLNov 15: W 44–13 vs TCUWNov 22: W 26–14 at CincinnatiWNov 29: W 41–21 vs UCFWDec 6: L 7–34 vs Texas TechLDec 27: W 25–21 vs Georgia TechWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2367.9%19.7%218
2025-08-3051.6%34.8%1,255
2025-09-0647.5%40.7%951
2025-09-1365.2%28%161
2025-09-2064.3%26.3%1,206
2025-09-2759%30.1%1,414
2025-10-0451.2%35.3%1,372
2025-10-1154.1%33.4%2,554
2025-10-1862.7%25.2%2,778
2025-10-2563.1%25.1%2,557
2025-11-0165.2%22.4%749
2025-11-0846.2%41.3%2,269
2025-11-1559.1%26.9%1,578
2025-11-2264.5%25.3%2,051
2025-11-2966.1%25.2%3,670
2025-12-0648.4%42%2,859
2025-12-1375.5%15.3%412
2025-12-2050.4%31.6%633
2025-12-2772.8%19%3,319
2026-01-0367.8%14.9%348
2026-01-1075.6%10.3%312
2026-01-1737.5%40.5%309

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.

Harm25.7 per 1,000 · 848
Personal Attacks 725Sexual Content 33Group Hate 96Harm Wish 12Violent Threat 2Death Threat 1
Identity-Based Abuse10.4 per 1,000 · 344
Religion 196Disability 41Gender 28Age 30Race 16Physical Appearance 30LGBTQIA+ 9
Explicit Language6.2 per 1,000 · 204
Explicit Acronym 67Violent Language 28Explicit Words 94Explicit Emoji 15
College Sports10.5 per 1,000 · 347
NIL 59Band 32Conference Realignment 35Student Section 30Recruiting 170Transfer Portal 31
Off-Field Storylines53.8 per 1,000 · 1,774
Injuries 413Broadcast & Media 632Player Conduct 21Officiating 703Politics & Activism 27
Sports Betting3.3 per 1,000 · 109
Moneyline 21Parlay 7Prop Bet 7Gambling 74
Team & Front Office158.5 per 1,000 · 5,225
Opponent Hostility 985Opponent Respect 1,247Coaching 2,542Crowd & Attendance 373Front Office 35Stadium Experience 143Athletic Department 10

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

8th percentile
204 explicit comments6.2 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words94
  • Explicit Acronym67
  • Violent Language28
  • Explicit Emoji15

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 6.2 of every 1,000 comments on this page: 93rd of 100 nationally, the 8th percentile.

Moderation snapshot

Harm & identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments · by week
season avg 36.174.5 per 1,000 · no game that week (week of Sep 13)WWWWWWWWLWWWLW2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-2345.9No game
2025-08-3066.9W 69–0 vs Portland St
2025-09-0633.6W 27–3 vs Stanford
2025-09-1374.5No game
2025-09-2031.5W 34–13 at East Carolina
2025-09-2723.3W 24–21 at Colorado; W 38–24 vs West Virginia
2025-10-0441.5No game
2025-10-1132.1W 33–27 (2OT) at Arizona
2025-10-1833.5W 24–21 vs Utah
2025-10-2526.6W 41–27 at Iowa State
2025-11-0130.7No game
2025-11-0835.7L 7–29 at Texas Tech
2025-11-1541.2W 44–13 vs TCU
2025-11-2235.6W 26–14 at Cincinnati
2025-11-2941.1W 41–21 vs UCF
2025-12-0642.3L 7–34 vs Texas Tech
2025-12-1343.7No game
2025-12-2019No game
2025-12-2727.7W 25–21 vs Georgia Tech
2026-01-0334.5No game
2026-01-1041.7No game
2026-01-1771.2No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 74.5 per 1,000 comments (no game that week (week of Sep 13)) against a season average of 36.1 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks725
  • Group Hate96
  • Sexual Content33
  • Harm Wish12
  • Violent Threat2
  • Death Threat1
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Religion196
  • Disability41
  • Age30
  • Physical Appearance30
  • Gender28
  • Race16
  • LGBTQIA+9

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

With him everything is possible.

positiveFacebook

Making history. Let’s go.

positiveFacebook

That was embarrassing...I expected a loss, but not a beat down. Hopefully they won't repeat next week. #GoCougs

negativeFacebook

We were beaten by the better team. But maybe we can take this opportunity to retire to sailer logo on the helmets. Don’t mess with the stretch Y —it’s iconic.

mixedFacebook
Behind the numbers

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