Middle Tennessee

Blue Raiders · 3–9 in 2025–26

Compare Middle Tennessee with…
Fan Score
603.7
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
2,998
2025–26 season
Positive share
60.4%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
17.7
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 Middle Tennessee fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Off-Field Storylines: 2nd percentile · College Sports: 85th percentile · Team & Front Office: 84th 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.
  • Middle Tennessee Harm: 28th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Middle Tennessee Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Middle Tennessee Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Middle Tennessee College Sports: 85th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Middle Tennessee Off-Field Storylines: 2nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Middle Tennessee Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Middle Tennessee Team & Front Office: 84th percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive60.4%1,810
Neutral6.1%183
Negative31.9%956
Mixed1.6%49

Signature subtags

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

Team & Front Office
4.3×

Mentioned Front Office at 4.3× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

14.7 per 1,000 comments
College Sports
2.8×

Mentioned Conference Realignment at 2.8× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

5.3 per 1,000 comments
College Sports
2.2×

Mentioned Recruiting at 2.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

10.3 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.

+100%+50%−50%−100%0%Peak: +100% · week of Jan 3Low: −35% · L 30–56 vs FIUAug 30: L 14–34 vs Austin PeayLSep 6: L 10–42 at WisconsinLSep 13: W 14–13 at NevadaWSep 20: L 28–42 vs MarshallLSep 27: L 16–24 at Kennesaw StateLOct 8: L 20–22 vs Missouri StateLOct 22: L 28–31 at DelawareLOct 29: L 21–24 vs Jacksonville StateLNov 8: L 30–56 vs FIULNov 15: L 26–42 at WKULNov 22: W 31–17 vs Sam HoustonWNov 29: W 31–24 (OT) at New Mexico StateWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+72%41057No game
2025-08-30−18%189281521L 14–34 vs Austin Peay
2025-09-06+70%14322174L 10–42 at Wisconsin
2025-09-13+83%22616252W 14–13 at Nevada
2025-09-20+43%13351192L 28–42 vs Marshall
2025-09-27−10%6885171L 16–24 at Kennesaw State
2025-10-04+6%9381187L 20–22 vs Missouri State
2025-10-11+70%46756No game
2025-10-18+1%8382182L 28–31 at Delaware
2025-10-25−2%7780182L 21–24 vs Jacksonville State
2025-11-01+53%23632No game
2025-11-08−35%48108171L 30–56 vs FIU
2025-11-15+13%9873186L 26–42 at WKU
2025-11-22+65%17834221W 31–17 vs Sam Houston
2025-11-29+83%20017221W 31–24 (OT) at New Mexico State
2025-12-06+53%40860No game
2025-12-13+92%24125No game
2025-12-20+84%23225No game
2025-12-27+75%718No game
2026-01-03+100%11011No game
2026-01-10+87%34138No game
2026-01-17+96%25026No game
Mood climbed for 3 straight weeks after the week they lost by 26 to FIU, gaining 118 points.

Season trend

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

PositiveNegative
0%50%100%Aug 30: L 14–34 vs Austin PeayLSep 6: L 10–42 at WisconsinLSep 13: W 14–13 at NevadaWSep 20: L 28–42 vs MarshallLSep 27: L 16–24 at Kennesaw StateLOct 8: L 20–22 vs Missouri StateLOct 22: L 28–31 at DelawareLOct 29: L 21–24 vs Jacksonville StateLNov 8: L 30–56 vs FIULNov 15: L 26–42 at WKULNov 22: W 31–17 vs Sam HoustonWNov 29: W 31–24 (OT) at New Mexico StateWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2371.9%0%57
2025-08-3036.3%53.9%521
2025-09-0682.2%12.6%174
2025-09-1389.7%6.3%252
2025-09-2069.3%26.6%192
2025-09-2739.8%49.7%171
2025-10-0449.7%43.3%187
2025-10-1182.1%12.5%56
2025-10-1845.6%45.1%182
2025-10-2542.3%44%182
2025-11-0171.9%18.8%32
2025-11-0828.1%63.2%171
2025-11-1552.7%39.2%186
2025-11-2280.5%15.4%221
2025-11-2990.5%7.7%221
2025-12-0666.7%13.3%60
2025-12-1396%4%25
2025-12-2092%8%25
2025-12-2787.5%12.5%8
2026-01-03100%0%11
2026-01-1089.5%2.6%38
2026-01-1796.2%0%26

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.

Harm16.7 per 1,000 · 50
Personal Attacks 49Group Hate 1
Identity-Based Abuse1 per 1,000 · 3
Disability 1Age 2
Explicit Language2.7 per 1,000 · 8
Explicit Acronym 3Explicit Words 4Violent Language 1
College Sports28.4 per 1,000 · 85
Recruiting 31NIL 24Band 6Conference Realignment 16Transfer Portal 8Student Section 1
Off-Field Storylines10 per 1,000 · 30
Politics & Activism 2Broadcast & Media 9Player Conduct 2Officiating 13Injuries 4
Sports Betting1 per 1,000 · 3
Gambling 2Moneyline 1
Team & Front Office176.8 per 1,000 · 530
Coaching 422Crowd & Attendance 48Athletic Department 13Stadium Experience 18Front Office 44Opponent Respect 6Opponent Hostility 8

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

Low volume

Too few comments to rank nationally.

8 explicit comments2.7 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words4
  • Explicit Acronym3
  • Violent Language1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 2.7 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 17.746.8 per 1,000 · L 30–56 vs FIULLWLLLLLLLWW2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-230No game
2025-08-3042.2L 14–34 vs Austin Peay
2025-09-060L 10–42 at Wisconsin
2025-09-130W 14–13 at Nevada
2025-09-2020.8L 28–42 vs Marshall
2025-09-2729.2L 16–24 at Kennesaw State
2025-10-0410.7L 20–22 vs Missouri State
2025-10-1117.9No game
2025-10-180L 28–31 at Delaware
2025-10-2527.5L 21–24 vs Jacksonville State
2025-11-010No game
2025-11-0846.8L 30–56 vs FIU
2025-11-150L 26–42 at WKU
2025-11-2218.1W 31–17 vs Sam Houston
2025-11-299W 31–24 (OT) at New Mexico State
2025-12-060No game
2025-12-130No game
2025-12-200No game
2025-12-270No game
2026-01-030No game
2026-01-100No game
2026-01-170No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 46.8 per 1,000 comments (L 30–56 vs FIU) against a season average of 17.7 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks49
  • Group Hate1
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Age2
  • Disability1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

Happy birthday God Bless .

positiveFacebook

Welcome to the True Blue Family 💙🏈🙌🏻

positiveFacebook

The minute Mason got fired from Vandy they started winning. Maybe we should do the same.

negativeCoachingFacebook

Backup quarterback look good should have left him in

mixedCoachingFacebook
Behind the numbers

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