New Mexico

Lobos · 9–4 in 2025–26

Fan Score
836.1
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
8,500
2025–26 season
Positive share
83.6%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
10.8
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 New Mexico fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Off-Field Storylines: 4th percentile · Harm: 6th percentile · College Sports: 25th 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.
  • New Mexico Harm: 6th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • New Mexico Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • New Mexico Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • New Mexico College Sports: 25th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • New Mexico Off-Field Storylines: 4th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • New Mexico Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • New Mexico Team & Front Office: 57th percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive83.6%7,107
Neutral6.4%548
Negative8.5%726
Mixed1.4%119

Signature subtags

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

Team & Front Office
3.4×

Mentioned Crowd & Attendance at 3.4× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

33.4 per 1,000 comments
College Sports
1.6×

Mentioned Conference Realignment at 1.6× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

3.1 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
1.6×

Mentioned Stadium Experience at 1.6× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

7.6 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.

+100%+50%−50%−100%0%Peak: +91% · W 40–35 at UNLVLow: +42% · week of Oct 4Aug 30: L 17–34 at MichiganLSep 6: W 32–22 vs Idaho StWSep 12: W 35–10 at UCLAWSep 27: W 38–20 vs New Mexico StateWOct 3: L 28–35 at San Jose StateLOct 11: L 25–41 at Boise StateLOct 18: W 24–22 vs NevadaWOct 25: W 33–14 vs Utah StateWNov 1: W 40–35 at UNLVWNov 15: W 20–17 vs Colorado StateWNov 22: W 20–3 at Air ForceWNov 28: W 23–17 (2OT) vs San Diego StateWDec 26: L 17–20 (OT) vs MinnesotaLAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+69%21824281No game
2025-08-30+66%53091666L 17–34 at Michigan
2025-09-06+91%2454266W 32–22 vs Idaho St; W 35–10 at UCLA
2025-09-13+78%51650601No game
2025-09-20+70%76897No game
2025-09-27+75%17016206W 38–20 vs New Mexico State; L 28–35 at San Jose State
2025-10-04+42%19674289No game
2025-10-11+78%19915235L 25–41 at Boise State
2025-10-18+75%33925420W 24–22 vs Nevada
2025-10-25+79%48441564W 33–14 vs Utah State
2025-11-01+91%60216642W 40–35 at UNLV
2025-11-08+69%18325228No game
2025-11-15+74%24327293W 20–17 vs Colorado State
2025-11-22+85%39820444W 20–3 at Air Force; W 23–17 (2OT) vs San Diego State
2025-11-29+77%1,034951,213No game
2025-12-06+59%29252404No game
2025-12-13+80%1036122No game
2025-12-20+87%82031902L 17–20 (OT) vs Minnesota
2025-12-27+44%27394404No game
2026-01-03+83%1075123No game
2026-01-10+77%53562No game
2026-01-17+63%26238No game
Fan mood fell 43 points the week of Dec 27.

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: L 17–34 at MichiganLSep 6: W 32–22 vs Idaho StWSep 12: W 35–10 at UCLAWSep 27: W 38–20 vs New Mexico StateWOct 3: L 28–35 at San Jose StateLOct 11: L 25–41 at Boise StateLOct 18: W 24–22 vs NevadaWOct 25: W 33–14 vs Utah StateWNov 1: W 40–35 at UNLVWNov 15: W 20–17 vs Colorado StateWNov 22: W 20–3 at Air ForceWNov 28: W 23–17 (2OT) vs San Diego StateWDec 26: L 17–20 (OT) vs MinnesotaLAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2377.6%8.5%281
2025-08-3079.6%13.7%666
2025-09-0692.1%1.5%266
2025-09-1385.9%8.3%601
2025-09-2078.4%8.2%97
2025-09-2782.5%7.8%206
2025-10-0467.8%25.6%289
2025-10-1184.7%6.4%235
2025-10-1880.7%6%420
2025-10-2585.8%7.3%564
2025-11-0193.8%2.5%642
2025-11-0880.3%11%228
2025-11-1582.9%9.2%293
2025-11-2289.6%4.5%444
2025-11-2985.2%7.8%1,213
2025-12-0672.3%12.9%404
2025-12-1384.4%4.9%122
2025-12-2090.9%3.4%902
2025-12-2767.6%23.3%404
2026-01-0387%4.1%123
2026-01-1085.5%8.1%62
2026-01-1768.4%5.3%38

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.

Harm8.6 per 1,000 · 73
Personal Attacks 61Group Hate 9Harm Wish 3Sexual Content 3
Identity-Based Abuse2.2 per 1,000 · 19
Age 1Gender 5Physical Appearance 8Disability 3Race 2
Explicit Language2.7 per 1,000 · 23
Explicit Acronym 8Explicit Emoji 5Explicit Words 7Violent Language 3
College Sports11.5 per 1,000 · 98
Student Section 13Band 10NIL 7Recruiting 32Transfer Portal 11Conference Realignment 26
Off-Field Storylines12.2 per 1,000 · 104
Injuries 9Officiating 16Broadcast & Media 73Politics & Activism 6
Sports Betting2 per 1,000 · 17
Gambling 16Parlay 1
Team & Front Office127.5 per 1,000 · 1,084
Stadium Experience 65Coaching 599Opponent Respect 52Crowd & Attendance 284Opponent Hostility 108Front Office 17Athletic Department 5

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

Low volume

Too few comments to rank nationally.

23 explicit comments2.7 per 1,000
  • Explicit Acronym8
  • Explicit Words7
  • Explicit Emoji5
  • Violent Language3

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 10.868 per 1,000 · W 38–20 vs New Mexico State · L 28–35 at San Jose StateLWWWLLWWWWWWL2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-230No game
2025-08-3013.5L 17–34 at Michigan
2025-09-063.8W 32–22 vs Idaho St; W 35–10 at UCLA
2025-09-1313.3No game
2025-09-2020.6No game
2025-09-2768W 38–20 vs New Mexico State; L 28–35 at San Jose State
2025-10-0413.8No game
2025-10-114.3L 25–41 at Boise State
2025-10-182.4W 24–22 vs Nevada
2025-10-258.9W 33–14 vs Utah State
2025-11-014.7W 40–35 at UNLV
2025-11-0813.2No game
2025-11-153.4W 20–17 vs Colorado State
2025-11-226.8W 20–3 at Air Force; W 23–17 (2OT) vs San Diego State
2025-11-297.4No game
2025-12-0614.9No game
2025-12-1324.6No game
2025-12-203.3L 17–20 (OT) vs Minnesota
2025-12-2737.1No game
2026-01-038.1No game
2026-01-100No game
2026-01-170No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 68 per 1,000 comments (W 38–20 vs New Mexico State · L 28–35 at San Jose State) against a season average of 10.8 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks61
  • Group Hate9
  • Harm Wish3
  • Sexual Content3
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Physical Appearance8
  • Gender5
  • Disability3
  • Race2
  • Age1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

Incredible! We. Are. New. Mexico. 🐺❤️🔥

positiveFacebook

Congratulations Luke!!!🏉🐾🐺

positiveFacebook

P.S. in today’s world, being eligible / playing in a bowl game is much like acknowledging everyone, even the losers. i.e. graduating kindergarten

negativeFacebook

I’m glad you guys won and all…but can someone explain the logic in NOT winning the game in the 1st OT?!?!? Especially with so much on the line ?!?!!?

mixedFacebook
Behind the numbers

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