Utah

Utes · 11–2 in 2025–26

Fan Score
559.4
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
16,435
2025–26 season
Positive share
55.9%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
48.9
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 Utah fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Off-Field Storylines: 88th percentile · Team & Front Office: 83rd percentile · Explicit Language: 81st percentilePercentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • Utah Harm: 77th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Utah Identity-Based Abuse: 73rd percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Utah Explicit Language: 81st percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Utah College Sports: 46th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Utah Off-Field Storylines: 88th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Utah Sports Betting: 25th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Utah Team & Front Office: 83rd percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive55.9%9,194
Neutral9.1%1,489
Negative33%5,425
Mixed2%327

Signature subtags

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

Identity-Based Abuse
6×

Mentioned Religion at 6× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

1.2 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
2.2×

Mentioned Opponent Respect at 2.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

15.6 per 1,000 comments
Identity-Based Abuse
2.2×

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

1.3 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.

+70%+35%−35%−70%0%Peak: +65% · W 43–10 at UCLALow: −33% · L 10–34 vs Texas TechAug 30: W 43–10 at UCLAWSep 6: W 63–9 vs Cal PolyWSep 13: W 31–6 at WyomingWSep 20: L 10–34 vs Texas TechLSep 27: W 48–14 at West VirginiaWOct 11: W 42–10 vs Arizona StateWOct 18: L 21–24 at BYULOct 25: W 53–7 vs ColoradoWNov 1: W 45–14 vs CincinnatiWNov 15: W 55–28 at BaylorWNov 22: W 51–47 vs Kansas StateWNov 28: W 31–21 at KansasWDec 31: W 44–22 vs NebraskaWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+43%10236155No game
2025-08-30+65%634108805W 43–10 at UCLA
2025-09-06+30%518248890W 63–9 vs Cal Poly
2025-09-13+21%474288901W 31–6 at Wyoming
2025-09-20−33%4399641,571L 10–34 vs Texas Tech
2025-09-27+42%332129488W 48–14 at West Virginia
2025-10-04+23%10658206No game
2025-10-11+53%36994517W 42–10 vs Arizona State
2025-10-18−12%367476913L 21–24 at BYU
2025-10-25+15%5854101,148W 53–7 vs Colorado
2025-11-01+35%596262961W 45–14 vs Cincinnati
2025-11-08+10%8063163No game
2025-11-15+45%554184829W 55–28 at Baylor
2025-11-22+6%1,0369072,165W 51–47 vs Kansas State; W 31–21 at Kansas
2025-11-29+14%252182500No game
2025-12-06+44%489158752No game
2025-12-13+59%669144891No game
2025-12-20+0%6617No game
2025-12-27+47%9733071,417W 44–22 vs Nebraska
2026-01-03+28%437229752No game
2026-01-10−2%142150330No game
2026-01-17+19%342264No game
Fan mood jumped 75 points the week they beat West Virginia by 34.

Season trend

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

PositiveNegative
0%39%79%Aug 30: W 43–10 at UCLAWSep 6: W 63–9 vs Cal PolyWSep 13: W 31–6 at WyomingWSep 20: L 10–34 vs Texas TechLSep 27: W 48–14 at West VirginiaWOct 11: W 42–10 vs Arizona StateWOct 18: L 21–24 at BYULOct 25: W 53–7 vs ColoradoWNov 1: W 45–14 vs CincinnatiWNov 15: W 55–28 at BaylorWNov 22: W 51–47 vs Kansas StateWNov 28: W 31–21 at KansasWDec 31: W 44–22 vs NebraskaWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2365.8%23.2%155
2025-08-3078.8%13.4%805
2025-09-0658.2%27.9%890
2025-09-1352.6%32%901
2025-09-2027.9%61.4%1,571
2025-09-2768%26.4%488
2025-10-0451.5%28.2%206
2025-10-1171.4%18.2%517
2025-10-1840.2%52.1%913
2025-10-2551%35.7%1,148
2025-11-0162%27.3%961
2025-11-0849.1%38.7%163
2025-11-1566.8%22.2%829
2025-11-2247.9%41.9%2,165
2025-11-2950.4%36.4%500
2025-12-0665%21%752
2025-12-1375.1%16.2%891
2025-12-2035.3%35.3%17
2025-12-2768.7%21.7%1,417
2026-01-0358.1%30.5%752
2026-01-1043%45.5%330
2026-01-1753.1%34.4%64

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.

Harm40.1 per 1,000 · 659
Personal Attacks 600Violent Threat 3Harm Wish 8Sexual Content 20Group Hate 52
Identity-Based Abuse8.8 per 1,000 · 144
Physical Appearance 30Disability 28Gender 21Age 17Religion 20Race 21LGBTQIA+ 16
Explicit Language35.3 per 1,000 · 580
Explicit Words 488Explicit Acronym 76Violent Language 14Explicit Emoji 16
College Sports15.2 per 1,000 · 249
Recruiting 83Conference Realignment 39Transfer Portal 40NIL 36Band 39Student Section 17
Off-Field Storylines40 per 1,000 · 658
Broadcast & Media 298Injuries 83Player Conduct 5Officiating 271Politics & Activism 9
Sports Betting2.4 per 1,000 · 40
Gambling 30Prop Bet 6Moneyline 2Parlay 2
Team & Front Office175.1 per 1,000 · 2,877
Opponent Hostility 593Crowd & Attendance 209Stadium Experience 92Coaching 1,735Opponent Respect 257Athletic Department 15Front Office 28

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

81st percentile
580 explicit comments35.3 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words488
  • Explicit Acronym76
  • Explicit Emoji16
  • Violent Language14

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 35.3 of every 1,000 comments on this page: 22nd of 100 nationally, the 81st percentile.

Moderation snapshot

Harm & identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments · by week
season avg 48.9117.6 per 1,000 · no game that week (week of Dec 20)WWWLWWLWWWWWW2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-2371No game
2025-08-3032.3W 43–10 at UCLA
2025-09-0664W 63–9 vs Cal Poly
2025-09-1338.8W 31–6 at Wyoming
2025-09-2050.3L 10–34 vs Texas Tech
2025-09-2759.4W 48–14 at West Virginia
2025-10-0429.1No game
2025-10-1125.1W 42–10 vs Arizona State
2025-10-1870.1L 21–24 at BYU
2025-10-2548.8W 53–7 vs Colorado
2025-11-0168.7W 45–14 vs Cincinnati
2025-11-0892No game
2025-11-1543.4W 55–28 at Baylor
2025-11-2242W 51–47 vs Kansas State; W 31–21 at Kansas
2025-11-2982No game
2025-12-0619.9No game
2025-12-1350.5No game
2025-12-20117.6No game
2025-12-2751.5W 44–22 vs Nebraska
2026-01-0338.6No game
2026-01-1042.4No game
2026-01-170No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 117.6 per 1,000 comments (no game that week (week of Dec 20)) against a season average of 48.9 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks600
  • Group Hate52
  • Sexual Content20
  • Harm Wish8
  • Violent Threat3
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Physical Appearance30
  • Disability28
  • Gender21
  • Race21
  • Religion20
  • Age17
  • LGBTQIA+16

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

Let's go Utah, it's game time! 🏈

positiveFacebook

Can’t wait for the rivalry week game vs rival West Virginia! Should be a good one!

positiveFacebook

I know, we lose every time they show up

negativeFacebook

Intense game. Glad they won. Some of you all either need a new hobby or stop gambling. Cause you all take it way to seriously

mixedGamblingFacebook
Behind the numbers

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