Utah State

Aggies · 6–7 in 2025–26

Fan Score
782.3
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
2,439
2025–26 season
Positive share
78.2%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
13.5
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 State fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Harm: 17th percentile · Team & Front Office: 21st percentile · Off-Field Storylines: 36th percentileLow volume (not ranked), omitted from the shape: Identity-Based Abuse, Explicit Language, College Sports, Sports Betting.Percentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • Utah State Harm: 17th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Utah State Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • Utah State Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • Utah State College Sports: low volume, not ranked
  • Utah State Off-Field Storylines: 36th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • Utah State Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • Utah State Team & Front Office: 21st percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive78.2%1,908
Neutral5.6%136
Negative14.7%359
Mixed1.5%36

Signature subtags

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

Team & Front Office
1.2×

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

11.5 per 1,000 comments
Off-Field Storylines
0.8×

Mentioned Broadcast & Media at 0.8× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

9 per 1,000 comments
Off-Field Storylines
0.8×

Mentioned Officiating at 0.8× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

10.3 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.

+100%+50%−50%−100%0%Peak: +93% · week of Aug 23Low: +0% · week of Nov 29Aug 30: W 28–16 vs UTEPWSep 6: L 22–44 at Texas A&MLSep 13: W 49–30 vs Air ForceWSep 20: W 48–7 vs McNeeseWSep 27: L 35–55 at VanderbiltLOct 11: L 26–44 at HawaiiLOct 17: W 30–25 vs San Jose StateWOct 25: L 14–33 at New MexicoLNov 8: W 51–14 vs NevadaWNov 15: L 26–29 (2OT) at UNLVLNov 22: W 28–17 at Fresno StateWNov 28: L 24–25 vs Boise StateLDec 22: L 21–34 vs Washington StateLAug 23Jan 10
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+93%78183No game
2025-08-30+88%2228242W 28–16 vs UTEP
2025-09-06+82%946107L 22–44 at Texas A&M
2025-09-13+80%1126132W 49–30 vs Air Force
2025-09-20+64%13626172W 48–7 vs McNeese
2025-09-27+79%43252L 35–55 at Vanderbilt
2025-10-04+90%87294No game
2025-10-11+47%471666L 26–44 at Hawaii; W 30–25 vs San Jose State
2025-10-18+86%1047113No game
2025-10-25+41%7629115L 14–33 at New Mexico
2025-11-01+77%44353No game
2025-11-08+85%1538170W 51–14 vs Nevada
2025-11-15+62%8716115L 26–29 (2OT) at UNLV
2025-11-22+84%23314261W 28–17 at Fresno State; L 24–25 vs Boise State
2025-11-29+0%116115258No game
2025-12-06+48%381254No game
2025-12-13+84%45251No game
2025-12-20+16%8459156L 21–34 vs Washington State
2025-12-27+67%516No game
2026-01-03+55%9825132No game
2026-01-10+71%617No game
Fan mood fell 84 points the week of Nov 29.

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 28–16 vs UTEPWSep 6: L 22–44 at Texas A&MLSep 13: W 49–30 vs Air ForceWSep 20: W 48–7 vs McNeeseWSep 27: L 35–55 at VanderbiltLOct 11: L 26–44 at HawaiiLOct 17: W 30–25 vs San Jose StateWOct 25: L 14–33 at New MexicoLNov 8: W 51–14 vs NevadaWNov 15: L 26–29 (2OT) at UNLVLNov 22: W 28–17 at Fresno StateWNov 28: L 24–25 vs Boise StateLDec 22: L 21–34 vs Washington StateLAug 23Jan 10
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2394%1.2%83
2025-08-3091.7%3.3%242
2025-09-0687.9%5.6%107
2025-09-1384.8%4.5%132
2025-09-2079.1%15.1%172
2025-09-2782.7%3.8%52
2025-10-0492.6%2.1%94
2025-10-1171.2%24.2%66
2025-10-1892%6.2%113
2025-10-2566.1%25.2%115
2025-11-0183%5.7%53
2025-11-0890%4.7%170
2025-11-1575.7%13.9%115
2025-11-2289.3%5.4%261
2025-11-2945%44.6%258
2025-12-0670.4%22.2%54
2025-12-1388.2%3.9%51
2025-12-2053.8%37.8%156
2025-12-2783.3%16.7%6
2026-01-0374.2%18.9%132
2026-01-1085.7%14.3%7

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.

Harm11.9 per 1,000 · 29
Personal Attacks 27Group Hate 2
Identity-Based Abuse1.6 per 1,000 · 4
Race 1Religion 1Physical Appearance 1Age 1
Explicit Language9 per 1,000 · 22
Explicit Words 21Explicit Acronym 1
College Sports8.6 per 1,000 · 21
Recruiting 7Conference Realignment 5Transfer Portal 5Band 4NIL 1
Off-Field Storylines23.4 per 1,000 · 57
Broadcast & Media 22Officiating 25Injuries 10Politics & Activism 1Player Conduct 1
Sports Betting1.6 per 1,000 · 4
Gambling 4
Team & Front Office95.1 per 1,000 · 232
Coaching 154Stadium Experience 14Opponent Hostility 26Crowd & Attendance 28Opponent Respect 11Front Office 2

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

Low volume

Too few comments to rank nationally.

22 explicit comments9 per 1,000
  • Explicit Words21
  • Explicit Acronym1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 9 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 13.557.7 per 1,000 · L 21–34 vs Washington StateWLWWLLWLWLWLL2025-08-232026-01-10
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-2312No game
2025-08-304.1W 28–16 vs UTEP
2025-09-069.3L 22–44 at Texas A&M
2025-09-137.6W 49–30 vs Air Force
2025-09-205.8W 48–7 vs McNeese
2025-09-270L 35–55 at Vanderbilt
2025-10-040No game
2025-10-1130.3L 26–44 at Hawaii; W 30–25 vs San Jose State
2025-10-180No game
2025-10-250L 14–33 at New Mexico
2025-11-010No game
2025-11-080W 51–14 vs Nevada
2025-11-150L 26–29 (2OT) at UNLV
2025-11-220W 28–17 at Fresno State; L 24–25 vs Boise State
2025-11-2954.3No game
2025-12-0637No game
2025-12-130No game
2025-12-2057.7L 21–34 vs Washington State
2025-12-270No game
2026-01-037.6No game
2026-01-100No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 57.7 per 1,000 comments (L 21–34 vs Washington State) against a season average of 13.5 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks27
  • Group Hate2
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Age1
  • Physical Appearance1
  • Race1
  • Religion1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

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

From the comment section

Ah my great grandfather would be proud!

positiveFacebook

He taught me how to throw spiral

positiveFacebook

Boise also had to beat a horrible refereeing crew lots of bad calls.

negativeOfficiatingFacebook

Awesome game! You guys killed it! Way to lose !

mixedFacebook
Behind the numbers

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