Sence
Sence Fan Index
College Football
American

Tulane

Green Wave · 11–3 in 2025–26

Compare Tulane with…
Fan Score
699.3
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
14,993
2025–26 season
Positive share
69.9%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
29
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 Tulane fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out College Sports: 17th percentile · Off-Field Storylines: 20th percentile · Identity-Based Abuse: 34th percentilePercentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • Tulane Harm: 47th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Tulane Identity-Based Abuse: 34th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Tulane Explicit Language: 66th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Tulane College Sports: 17th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Tulane Off-Field Storylines: 20th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Tulane Sports Betting: 49th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Tulane Team & Front Office: 35th percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive69.9%10,484
Neutral10.3%1,542
Negative18%2,706
Mixed1.7%261

Signature subtags

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

Team & Front Office
1.6×

Mentioned Opponent Respect at 1.6× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

11.4 per 1,000 comments
Explicit Language
1.2×

Mentioned Explicit Acronym at 1.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

6.2 per 1,000 comments
Identity-Based Abuse
1.2×

Mentioned Gender at 1.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

2.4 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.

+90%+45%−45%−90%0%Peak: +90% · week of Aug 23Low: +9% · L 10–41 at Ole MissAug 30: W 23–3 vs NorthwesternWSep 6: W 33–31 at South AlabamaWSep 13: W 34–27 vs DukeWSep 20: L 10–45 at Ole MissLSep 27: W 31–14 at TulsaWOct 9: W 26–19 vs East CarolinaWOct 18: W 24–17 vs ArmyWOct 30: L 26–48 at UTSALNov 7: W 38–32 at MemphisWNov 15: W 35–24 vs Florida AtlanticWNov 22: W 37–13 at TempleWNov 29: W 27–0 vs CharlotteWDec 5: W 34–21 vs North TexasWDec 20: L 10–41 at Ole MissLAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+90%47250No game
2025-08-30+83%43423495W 23–3 vs Northwestern
2025-09-06+62%37273486W 33–31 at South Alabama
2025-09-13+78%41035481W 34–27 vs Duke
2025-09-20+36%261115406L 10–45 at Ole Miss
2025-09-27+87%2137236W 31–14 at Tulsa
2025-10-04+45%22272331W 26–19 vs East Carolina
2025-10-11+60%9819131No game
2025-10-18+57%1,5782352,360W 24–17 vs Army
2025-10-25+40%461174714L 26–48 at UTSA
2025-11-01+48%13037192W 38–32 at Memphis
2025-11-08+61%638110867No game
2025-11-15+70%61880771W 35–24 vs Florida Atlantic
2025-11-22+65%648106834W 37–13 at Temple
2025-11-29+57%1,1372401,563W 27–0 vs Charlotte; W 34–21 vs North Texas
2025-12-06+40%2,0677863,176No game
2025-12-13+69%44465553No game
2025-12-20+9%5674691,115L 10–41 at Ole Miss
2025-12-27+63%42657No game
2026-01-03+44%301045No game
2026-01-10+14%271956No game
2026-01-17+23%402374No game
Fan mood fell 60 points the week they lost by 31 at Ole Miss.

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: W 23–3 vs NorthwesternWSep 6: W 33–31 at South AlabamaWSep 13: W 34–27 vs DukeWSep 20: L 10–45 at Ole MissLSep 27: W 31–14 at TulsaWOct 9: W 26–19 vs East CarolinaWOct 18: W 24–17 vs ArmyWOct 30: L 26–48 at UTSALNov 7: W 38–32 at MemphisWNov 15: W 35–24 vs Florida AtlanticWNov 22: W 37–13 at TempleWNov 29: W 27–0 vs CharlotteWDec 5: W 34–21 vs North TexasWDec 20: L 10–41 at Ole MissLAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2394%4%50
2025-08-3087.7%4.6%495
2025-09-0676.5%15%486
2025-09-1385.2%7.3%481
2025-09-2064.3%28.3%406
2025-09-2790.3%3%236
2025-10-0467.1%21.8%331
2025-10-1174.8%14.5%131
2025-10-1866.9%10%2,360
2025-10-2564.6%24.4%714
2025-11-0167.7%19.3%192
2025-11-0873.6%12.7%867
2025-11-1580.2%10.4%771
2025-11-2277.7%12.7%834
2025-11-2972.7%15.4%1,563
2025-12-0665.1%24.7%3,176
2025-12-1380.3%11.8%553
2025-12-2050.9%42.1%1,115
2025-12-2773.7%10.5%57
2026-01-0366.7%22.2%45
2026-01-1048.2%33.9%56
2026-01-1754.1%31.1%74

Season timeline

  1. Aug 30W 23–3vs Northwestern
  2. Sep 6W 33–31at South Alabama
  3. Sep 13W 34–27vs Duke
  4. Sep 20L 10–45at Ole Miss
  5. Sep 27W 31–14at Tulsa
  6. Oct 9W 26–19vs East Carolina
  7. Oct 18W 24–17vs Army
  8. Oct 30L 26–48at UTSA
  9. Nov 7W 38–32at Memphis
  10. Nov 15W 35–24vs Florida Atlantic
  11. Nov 22W 37–13at Temple
  12. Nov 29W 27–0vs Charlotte
  13. Dec 5W 34–21vs North Texas
  14. Dec 20L 10–41at Ole Miss
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.

Harm23.5 per 1,000 · 353
Personal Attacks 328Sexual Content 17Harm Wish 5Group Hate 15Violent Threat 1
Identity-Based Abuse5.5 per 1,000 · 82
Disability 11Age 6Gender 36Race 7Religion 2Physical Appearance 17LGBTQIA+ 6
Explicit Language28.3 per 1,000 · 424
Explicit Words 353Explicit Acronym 93Violent Language 4Explicit Emoji 5
College Sports9.9 per 1,000 · 149
NIL 35Conference Realignment 29Student Section 13Recruiting 59Band 4Transfer Portal 16
Off-Field Storylines19 per 1,000 · 285
Broadcast & Media 188Injuries 20Officiating 70Player Conduct 5Politics & Activism 3
Sports Betting3 per 1,000 · 45
Gambling 36Moneyline 7Prop Bet 1Parlay 1
Team & Front Office110.3 per 1,000 · 1,654
Opponent Hostility 252Crowd & Attendance 121Front Office 54Coaching 1,049Stadium Experience 46Opponent Respect 171Athletic Department 2

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

66th percentile
424 explicit comments28.3 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words353
  • Explicit Acronym93
  • Explicit Emoji5
  • Violent Language4

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 28.3 of every 1,000 comments on this page: 35th of 100 nationally, the 66th percentile.

Moderation snapshot

Harm & identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments · by week
season avg 29196.4 per 1,000 · no game that week (week of Jan 10)WWWLWWWLWWWWWL2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-230No game
2025-08-300W 23–3 vs Northwestern
2025-09-064.1W 33–31 at South Alabama
2025-09-138.3W 34–27 vs Duke
2025-09-2022.2L 10–45 at Ole Miss
2025-09-270W 31–14 at Tulsa
2025-10-040W 26–19 vs East Carolina
2025-10-1122.9No game
2025-10-1810.2W 24–17 vs Army
2025-10-2526.6L 26–48 at UTSA
2025-11-0110.4W 38–32 at Memphis
2025-11-0816.1No game
2025-11-156.5W 35–24 vs Florida Atlantic
2025-11-2226.4W 37–13 at Temple
2025-11-2915.4W 27–0 vs Charlotte; W 34–21 vs North Texas
2025-12-0641.9No game
2025-12-1314.5No game
2025-12-20124.7L 10–41 at Ole Miss
2025-12-2752.6No game
2026-01-0388.9No game
2026-01-10196.4No game
2026-01-17121.6No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 196.4 per 1,000 comments (no game that week (week of Jan 10)) against a season average of 29 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks328
  • Sexual Content17
  • Group Hate15
  • Harm Wish5
  • Violent Threat1
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Gender36
  • Physical Appearance17
  • Disability11
  • Race7
  • Age6
  • LGBTQIA+6
  • Religion2

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

“Great to see the #NFLWave in action 👍”

positiveFacebook

“Cannot believe how negative you are. I certainly believe Coach Hall deserves a chance. My hunch is that he will do well at TU.”

positiveCoachingFacebook

“At least he won’t have to worry about player GPAs while recruiting anymore!!! 🤣🫢🤪”

negativeRecruitingFacebook

“Coach you have to see your building something special here. Please think about what you are doing. Dont do this to us.”

mixedFacebook
Behind the numbers

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

See Sence on your communityAbout the data