Texas State

Bobcats · 7–6 in 2025–26

Fan Score
707.8
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
2,245
2025–26 season
Positive share
70.8%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
8.9
harm + identity abuse per 1,000 · lower is better
Low volume, not ranked
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 Texas State fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Team & Front Office: 13th percentile · Off-Field Storylines: 45th percentile · Explicit Language: 47th percentileLow volume (not ranked), omitted from the shape: Harm, Identity-Based Abuse, Sports Betting.Percentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • Texas State Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • Texas State Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Texas State Explicit Language: 47th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Texas State College Sports: 52nd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Texas State Off-Field Storylines: 45th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Texas State Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Texas State Team & Front Office: 13th percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive70.8%1,589
Neutral9.4%211
Negative18.6%418
Mixed1.2%27

Signature subtags

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

College Sports
5.4×

Mentioned Conference Realignment at 5.4× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

10.2 per 1,000 comments
Off-Field Storylines
1.8×

Mentioned Broadcast & Media at 1.8× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

21.4 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
1.2×

Mentioned Crowd & Attendance at 1.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

11.6 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: +100% · week of Dec 6Low: −27% · L 39–42 at LouisianaAug 30: W 52–27 vs Eastern MichiganWSep 6: W 43–36 at UTSAWSep 13: L 15–34 at Arizona StateLSep 20: W 35–3 vs NichollsWOct 4: L 30–31 at Arkansas StateLOct 11: L 41–48 (OT) vs TroyLOct 18: L 37–40 (2OT) at MarshallLOct 28: L 20–52 vs James MadisonLNov 8: L 39–42 at LouisianaLNov 15: W 41–14 at Southern MissWNov 22: W 31–14 vs UL MonroeWNov 29: W 49–26 vs South AlabamaWJan 2: W 41–10 vs RiceWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+77%10013No game
2025-08-30+76%1623210W 52–27 vs Eastern Michigan
2025-09-06+86%40813457W 43–36 at UTSA
2025-09-13+51%7821112L 15–34 at Arizona State
2025-09-20+70%72793W 35–3 vs Nicholls
2025-09-27+60%6010No game
2025-10-04−15%4665123L 30–31 at Arkansas State
2025-10-11−22%4066119L 41–48 (OT) vs Troy
2025-10-18−23%4780143L 37–40 (2OT) at Marshall
2025-10-25−8%425099L 20–52 vs James Madison
2025-11-01+32%301450No game
2025-11-08−27%325794L 39–42 at Louisiana
2025-11-15+75%9711115W 41–14 at Southern Miss
2025-11-22+87%55162W 31–14 vs UL Monroe
2025-11-29+86%1774201W 49–26 vs South Alabama
2025-12-06+100%18018No game
2025-12-13+83%506No game
2025-12-20+88%708No game
2025-12-27+66%12018154W 41–10 vs Rice
2026-01-03+87%68375No game
2026-01-10No comments000No game
2026-01-17+77%69583No game
Mood climbed for 2 straight weeks after the week they lost by 3 at Louisiana, gaining 114 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: W 52–27 vs Eastern MichiganWSep 6: W 43–36 at UTSAWSep 13: L 15–34 at Arizona StateLSep 20: W 35–3 vs NichollsWOct 4: L 30–31 at Arkansas StateLOct 11: L 41–48 (OT) vs TroyLOct 18: L 37–40 (2OT) at MarshallLOct 28: L 20–52 vs James MadisonLNov 8: L 39–42 at LouisianaLNov 15: W 41–14 at Southern MissWNov 22: W 31–14 vs UL MonroeWNov 29: W 49–26 vs South AlabamaWJan 2: W 41–10 vs RiceWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2376.9%0%13
2025-08-3077.1%1.4%210
2025-09-0689.3%2.8%457
2025-09-1369.6%18.8%112
2025-09-2077.4%7.5%93
2025-09-2760%0%10
2025-10-0437.4%52.8%123
2025-10-1133.6%55.5%119
2025-10-1832.9%55.9%143
2025-10-2542.4%50.5%99
2025-11-0160%28%50
2025-11-0834%60.6%94
2025-11-1584.3%9.6%115
2025-11-2288.7%1.6%62
2025-11-2988.1%2%201
2025-12-06100%0%18
2025-12-1383.3%0%6
2025-12-2087.5%0%8
2025-12-2777.9%11.7%154
2026-01-0390.7%4%75
2026-01-100%0%0
2026-01-1783.1%6%83

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.

Harm7.6 per 1,000 · 17
Personal Attacks 17
Identity-Based Abuse1.3 per 1,000 · 3
Gender 2Physical Appearance 1
Explicit Language17.4 per 1,000 · 39
Explicit Words 34Violent Language 1Explicit Acronym 5
College Sports16.5 per 1,000 · 37
Conference Realignment 23Transfer Portal 4Student Section 2NIL 2Recruiting 4Band 2
Off-Field Storylines28.5 per 1,000 · 64
Broadcast & Media 48Officiating 13Injuries 2Player Conduct 1Politics & Activism 1
Sports Betting3.1 per 1,000 · 7
Gambling 6Prop Bet 1
Team & Front Office84.2 per 1,000 · 189
Coaching 135Stadium Experience 8Crowd & Attendance 26Opponent Respect 9Opponent Hostility 16Front Office 1

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

47th percentile
39 explicit comments17.4 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words34
  • Explicit Acronym5
  • Violent Language1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 17.4 of every 1,000 comments on this page: 54th of 100 nationally, the 47th percentile.

Moderation snapshot

Harm & identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments · by week
season avg 8.949 per 1,000 · L 37–40 (2OT) at MarshallWWLWLLLLLWWWW2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-230No game
2025-08-300W 52–27 vs Eastern Michigan
2025-09-060W 43–36 at UTSA
2025-09-1317.9L 15–34 at Arizona State
2025-09-200W 35–3 vs Nicholls
2025-09-270No game
2025-10-040L 30–31 at Arkansas State
2025-10-1125.2L 41–48 (OT) vs Troy
2025-10-1849L 37–40 (2OT) at Marshall
2025-10-2520.2L 20–52 vs James Madison
2025-11-0120No game
2025-11-080L 39–42 at Louisiana
2025-11-158.7W 41–14 at Southern Miss
2025-11-220W 31–14 vs UL Monroe
2025-11-290W 49–26 vs South Alabama
2025-12-060No game
2025-12-130No game
2025-12-200No game
2025-12-2719.5W 41–10 vs Rice
2026-01-0313.3No game
2026-01-100No game
2026-01-170No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 49 per 1,000 comments (L 37–40 (2OT) at Marshall) against a season average of 8.9 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks17
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Gender2
  • Physical Appearance1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

@james15jordan 💪🏾💯 2026 LB king High 👀👀👀

positiveFacebook

Get em Coach! Here’s to a great year! ❤️

positiveCoachingFacebook

Recruits are going to walk away. Pac 12 here we come. SMH

negativeFacebook

Not good, 😡 Let's regroup and stay focused, bobcats 👍

mixedFacebook
Behind the numbers

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