SMU

Mustangs · 9–4 in 2025–26

Fan Score
681.5
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
7,390
2025–26 season
Positive share
68.1%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
21.4
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 SMU fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Identity-Based Abuse: 11th percentile · Team & Front Office: 11th percentile · Harm: 32nd percentileLow volume (not ranked), omitted from the shape: Sports Betting.Percentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • SMU Harm: 32nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU Identity-Based Abuse: 11th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU Explicit Language: 35th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU College Sports: 52nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU Off-Field Storylines: 35th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • SMU Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • SMU Team & Front Office: 11th percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive68.1%5,036
Neutral10.7%788
Negative19.9%1,467
Mixed1.3%99

Signature subtags

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

College Sports
5.6×

Mentioned Student Section at 5.6× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

3.9 per 1,000 comments
College Sports
2.1×

Mentioned Band at 2.1× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

2.7 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
2×

Mentioned Stadium Experience at 2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

9.6 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.

+90%+45%−45%−90%0%Peak: +84% · week of Dec 20Low: −18% · L 35–38 at CaliforniaAug 30: W 42–13 vs E Texas A&MWSep 6: L 45–48 (2OT) vs BaylorLSep 13: W 28–10 at Missouri StateWSep 20: L 24–35 at TCULOct 4: W 31–18 vs SyracuseWOct 11: W 34–10 vs StanfordWOct 18: W 35–24 at ClemsonWOct 25: L 12–13 at Wake ForestLNov 1: W 26–20 (OT) vs MiamiWNov 8: W 45–13 at Boston CollegeWNov 22: W 38–6 vs LouisvilleWNov 29: L 35–38 at CaliforniaLJan 2: W 24–19 vs ArizonaWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+71%1167153No game
2025-08-30+56%35969515W 42–13 vs E Texas A&M
2025-09-06−0%228230527L 45–48 (2OT) vs Baylor
2025-09-13+51%21157304W 28–10 at Missouri State
2025-09-20+2%114109256L 24–35 at TCU
2025-09-27+75%956118No game
2025-10-04+26%15281274W 31–18 vs Syracuse
2025-10-11+52%18547263W 34–10 vs Stanford
2025-10-18+68%42467527W 35–24 at Clemson
2025-10-25+11%158123329L 12–13 at Wake Forest
2025-11-01+63%748130982W 26–20 (OT) vs Miami
2025-11-08+79%21215250W 45–13 at Boston College
2025-11-15+80%1045124No game
2025-11-22+77%39635470W 38–6 vs Louisville
2025-11-29−18%209315576L 35–38 at California
2025-12-06+52%9020134No game
2025-12-13+19%5433109No game
2025-12-20+84%43249No game
2025-12-27+73%28923362W 24–19 vs Arizona
2026-01-03+76%67065794No game
2026-01-10+57%10621148No game
2026-01-17+52%737126No game
Fan mood fell 95 points the week they lost by 3 at California.

Season trend

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

PositiveNegative
0%44%88%Aug 30: W 42–13 vs E Texas A&MWSep 6: L 45–48 (2OT) vs BaylorLSep 13: W 28–10 at Missouri StateWSep 20: L 24–35 at TCULOct 4: W 31–18 vs SyracuseWOct 11: W 34–10 vs StanfordWOct 18: W 35–24 at ClemsonWOct 25: L 12–13 at Wake ForestLNov 1: W 26–20 (OT) vs MiamiWNov 8: W 45–13 at Boston CollegeWNov 22: W 38–6 vs LouisvilleWNov 29: L 35–38 at CaliforniaLJan 2: W 24–19 vs ArizonaWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2375.8%4.6%153
2025-08-3069.7%13.4%515
2025-09-0643.3%43.6%527
2025-09-1369.4%18.8%304
2025-09-2044.5%42.6%256
2025-09-2780.5%5.1%118
2025-10-0455.5%29.6%274
2025-10-1170.3%17.9%263
2025-10-1880.5%12.7%527
2025-10-2548%37.4%329
2025-11-0176.2%13.2%982
2025-11-0884.8%6%250
2025-11-1583.9%4%124
2025-11-2284.3%7.4%470
2025-11-2936.3%54.7%576
2025-12-0667.2%14.9%134
2025-12-1349.5%30.3%109
2025-12-2087.8%4.1%49
2025-12-2779.8%6.4%362
2026-01-0384.4%8.2%794
2026-01-1071.6%14.2%148
2026-01-1757.9%5.6%126

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.

Harm17.9 per 1,000 · 132
Personal Attacks 118Group Hate 8Sexual Content 4Harm Wish 4
Identity-Based Abuse3.5 per 1,000 · 26
Gender 5LGBTQIA+ 1Race 6Physical Appearance 6Disability 6Age 2
Explicit Language13.3 per 1,000 · 98
Explicit Acronym 18Explicit Words 76Violent Language 4
College Sports16.5 per 1,000 · 122
Conference Realignment 9Student Section 29Recruiting 33NIL 26Transfer Portal 8Band 20
Off-Field Storylines23.1 per 1,000 · 171
Broadcast & Media 106Injuries 25Officiating 38Player Conduct 2
Sports Betting2.8 per 1,000 · 21
Gambling 14Moneyline 3Parlay 4
Team & Front Office77.1 per 1,000 · 570
Coaching 238Opponent Hostility 108Crowd & Attendance 120Stadium Experience 71Opponent Respect 29Athletic Department 9Front Office 6

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

35th percentile
98 explicit comments13.3 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words76
  • Explicit Acronym18
  • Violent Language4

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 13.3 of every 1,000 comments on this page: 67th of 100 nationally, the 35th percentile.

Moderation snapshot

Harm & identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments · by week
season avg 21.443.8 per 1,000 · W 31–18 vs SyracuseWLWLWWWLWWWLW2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-236.5No game
2025-08-3011.7W 42–13 vs E Texas A&M
2025-09-0634.2L 45–48 (2OT) vs Baylor
2025-09-139.9W 28–10 at Missouri State
2025-09-2039.1L 24–35 at TCU
2025-09-270No game
2025-10-0443.8W 31–18 vs Syracuse
2025-10-1122.8W 34–10 vs Stanford
2025-10-1841.7W 35–24 at Clemson
2025-10-2512.2L 12–13 at Wake Forest
2025-11-0141.8W 26–20 (OT) vs Miami
2025-11-0812W 45–13 at Boston College
2025-11-150No game
2025-11-222.1W 38–6 vs Louisville
2025-11-2934.7L 35–38 at California
2025-12-067.5No game
2025-12-139.2No game
2025-12-200No game
2025-12-272.8W 24–19 vs Arizona
2026-01-036.3No game
2026-01-1013.5No game
2026-01-177.9No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 43.8 per 1,000 comments (W 31–18 vs Syracuse) against a season average of 21.4 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks118
  • Group Hate8
  • Harm Wish4
  • Sexual Content4
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Disability6
  • Physical Appearance6
  • Race6
  • Gender5
  • Age2
  • LGBTQIA+1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

We saw you working in that Dallas heat…Now go get that Chip

positiveFacebook

he was the shit in the pro'$ also

positiveExplicit WordsFacebook

🐎really showed their 🫏 last night.

negativeFacebook

Love y’all SMU, but y’all are cooked

mixedFacebook
Behind the numbers

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