Central Michigan

Chippewas · 7–6 in 2025–26

Compare Central Michigan with…
Fan Score
803.3
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
3,899
2025–26 season
Positive share
80.3%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
14.1
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 Central Michigan fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Team & Front Office: 4th percentile · Explicit Language: 9th percentile · Harm: 15th percentileLow volume (not ranked), omitted from the shape: Identity-Based Abuse, Sports Betting.Percentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • Central Michigan Harm: 15th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Central Michigan Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Central Michigan Explicit Language: 9th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Central Michigan College Sports: 25th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Central Michigan Off-Field Storylines: 16th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Central Michigan Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Central Michigan Team & Front Office: 4th percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive80.3%3,132
Neutral7.9%308
Negative10.7%418
Mixed1.1%41

Signature subtags

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

College Sports
3.9×

Mentioned Band at 3.9× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

5.1 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
1.8×

Mentioned Crowd & Attendance at 1.8× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

17.7 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
1.3×

Mentioned Stadium Experience at 1.3× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

6.4 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: −2% · week of Jan 17Aug 29: W 16–14 at San Jose StateWSep 6: L 17–45 at PittsburghLSep 13: L 3–63 at MichiganLSep 20: W 49–10 vs WagnerWSep 27: W 24–13 vs Eastern MichiganWOct 4: L 22–28 at AkronLOct 18: W 27–6 at Bowling GreenWOct 25: W 38–13 vs UMassWNov 1: L 21–24 at Western MichiganLNov 12: W 38–19 vs BuffaloWNov 19: W 28–16 at Kent StateWNov 29: L 3–21 vs ToledoLDec 26: L 7–34 vs NorthwesternLAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+43%18562285W 16–14 at San Jose State
2025-08-30+84%27818311No game
2025-09-06+51%10731150L 17–45 at Pittsburgh
2025-09-13+61%15630205L 3–63 at Michigan
2025-09-20+75%10810130W 49–10 vs Wagner
2025-09-27+75%19016233W 24–13 vs Eastern Michigan
2025-10-04+50%8325115L 22–28 at Akron
2025-10-11+41%381556No game
2025-10-18+80%25517299W 27–6 at Bowling Green
2025-10-25+78%25623300W 38–13 vs UMass
2025-11-01+76%55566L 21–24 at Western Michigan
2025-11-08+72%28233346W 38–19 vs Buffalo
2025-11-15+83%23715266W 28–16 at Kent State
2025-11-22+81%1197139No game
2025-11-29+75%25524310L 3–21 vs Toledo
2025-12-06+62%13119181No game
2025-12-13+35%12520No game
2025-12-20+70%25737313L 7–34 vs Northwestern
2025-12-27+78%819No game
2026-01-03+88%61168No game
2026-01-10+95%36038No game
2026-01-17−2%232459No game
Fan mood fell 96 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%47%95%Aug 29: W 16–14 at San Jose StateWSep 6: L 17–45 at PittsburghLSep 13: L 3–63 at MichiganLSep 20: W 49–10 vs WagnerWSep 27: W 24–13 vs Eastern MichiganWOct 4: L 22–28 at AkronLOct 18: W 27–6 at Bowling GreenWOct 25: W 38–13 vs UMassWNov 1: L 21–24 at Western MichiganLNov 12: W 38–19 vs BuffaloWNov 19: W 28–16 at Kent StateWNov 29: L 3–21 vs ToledoLDec 26: L 7–34 vs NorthwesternLAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2364.9%21.8%285
2025-08-3089.4%5.8%311
2025-09-0671.3%20.7%150
2025-09-1376.1%14.6%205
2025-09-2083.1%7.7%130
2025-09-2781.5%6.9%233
2025-10-0472.2%21.7%115
2025-10-1167.9%26.8%56
2025-10-1885.3%5.7%299
2025-10-2585.3%7.7%300
2025-11-0183.3%7.6%66
2025-11-0881.5%9.5%346
2025-11-1589.1%5.6%266
2025-11-2285.6%5%139
2025-11-2982.3%7.7%310
2025-12-0672.4%10.5%181
2025-12-1360%25%20
2025-12-2082.1%11.8%313
2025-12-2788.9%11.1%9
2026-01-0389.7%1.5%68
2026-01-1094.7%0%38
2026-01-1739%40.7%59

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.

Harm11.3 per 1,000 · 44
Personal Attacks 38Sexual Content 2Group Hate 5Harm Wish 1
Identity-Based Abuse2.8 per 1,000 · 11
Physical Appearance 4Race 4Gender 1Age 2Disability 1
Explicit Language6.4 per 1,000 · 25
Explicit Words 21Explicit Acronym 5
College Sports11.5 per 1,000 · 45
Recruiting 6Band 20Student Section 12NIL 2Transfer Portal 7Conference Realignment 1
Off-Field Storylines17.7 per 1,000 · 69
Politics & Activism 14Broadcast & Media 43Player Conduct 2Injuries 3Officiating 7
Sports Betting1.5 per 1,000 · 6
Gambling 6
Team & Front Office64.9 per 1,000 · 253
Stadium Experience 25Crowd & Attendance 69Coaching 119Front Office 5Opponent Hostility 31Opponent Respect 10

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

9th percentile
25 explicit comments6.4 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words21
  • Explicit Acronym5

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 6.4 of every 1,000 comments on this page: 92nd of 100 nationally, the 9th percentile.

Moderation snapshot

Harm & identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments · by week
season avg 14.1135.6 per 1,000 · no game that week (week of Jan 17)WLLWWLWWLWWLL2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-2317.5W 16–14 at San Jose State
2025-08-300No game
2025-09-060L 17–45 at Pittsburgh
2025-09-1319.5L 3–63 at Michigan
2025-09-200W 49–10 vs Wagner
2025-09-278.6W 24–13 vs Eastern Michigan
2025-10-0426.1L 22–28 at Akron
2025-10-1171.4No game
2025-10-183.3W 27–6 at Bowling Green
2025-10-2510W 38–13 vs UMass
2025-11-0115.2L 21–24 at Western Michigan
2025-11-0826W 38–19 vs Buffalo
2025-11-153.8W 28–16 at Kent State
2025-11-220No game
2025-11-290L 3–21 vs Toledo
2025-12-0633.1No game
2025-12-130No game
2025-12-2025.6L 7–34 vs Northwestern
2025-12-270No game
2026-01-030No game
2026-01-100No game
2026-01-17135.6No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 135.6 per 1,000 comments (no game that week (week of Jan 17)) against a season average of 14.1 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks38
  • Group Hate5
  • Sexual Content2
  • Harm Wish1
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Physical Appearance4
  • Race4
  • Age2
  • Disability1
  • Gender1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

Anyone going to the San Jose State game? I am hoping I am not the only Chip in the crowd

positiveCrowd & AttendanceFacebook

This is awesome! We better inside in November!

positiveFacebook

Max L Dyga No kidding. 15 years now of terrible football. My other degree is from Indiana Max---so for me, not all is lost. My other degree is from the number 3-ranked team.

negativeFacebook

Wow.....blank Michigan! Cheaters and best. Fire up!

mixedFacebook
Behind the numbers

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