WKU

Hilltoppers · 9–4 in 2025–26

Fan Score
822.2
positive per 1,000 comments
Comments analyzed
2,689
2025–26 season
Positive share
82.2%
of all fan comments
Toxicity
5.2
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 WKU fans raise more than anyone else.

Comment-section fingerprint

Stands out Team & Front Office: 1st percentile · Off-Field Storylines: 10th percentile · College Sports: 38th percentileLow volume (not ranked), omitted from the shape: Harm, Identity-Based Abuse, Explicit Language, Sports Betting.Percentile of ranked FBS teams per tag group; low-volume fanbases excluded from each cohort.
  • WKU Harm: low volume, not ranked
  • WKU Identity-Based Abuse: low volume, not ranked
  • WKU Explicit Language: low volume, not ranked
  • WKU College Sports: 38th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • WKU Off-Field Storylines: 10th percentile of ranked FBS teams
  • WKU Sports Betting: low volume, not ranked
  • WKU Team & Front Office: 1st percentile of ranked FBS teams

Sentiment

Positive82.2%2,211
Neutral8%216
Negative8.6%230
Mixed1.2%32

Signature subtags

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

Off-Field Storylines
0.9×

Mentioned Broadcast & Media at 0.9× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

10.8 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
0.2×

Mentioned Coaching at 0.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

17.9 per 1,000 comments
Team & Front Office
0.2×

Mentioned Opponent Hostility at 0.2× the rate of the average classified fanbase.

6.3 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: +100% · week of Dec 13Low: −6% · L 6–25 vs FIUAug 23: W 41–24 vs Sam HoustonWAug 30: W 55–6 vs North AlabamaWSep 6: L 21–45 at ToledoLSep 20: W 31–16 vs NevadaWSep 27: W 27–22 at Missouri StateWOct 3: W 27–24 at DelawareWOct 14: L 6–25 vs FIULOct 21: W 28–27 (OT) at Louisiana TechWNov 1: W 35–16 vs New Mexico StateWNov 15: W 42–26 vs Middle TennesseeWNov 22: L 10–13 at LSULNov 29: L 34–37 at Jacksonville StateLDec 23: W 27–16 vs Southern MissWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly net fan mood with positive, negative, and total comment counts
Week ofNet moodPositiveNegativeCommentsGames
2025-08-23+74%13712168W 41–24 vs Sam Houston
2025-08-30+81%1536181W 55–6 vs North Alabama
2025-09-06+38%401566L 21–45 at Toledo
2025-09-13+55%15322No game
2025-09-20+90%77086W 31–16 vs Nevada
2025-09-27+80%1369158W 27–22 at Missouri State; W 27–24 at Delaware
2025-10-04+76%15115178No game
2025-10-11−6%3945104L 6–25 vs FIU
2025-10-18+78%16013188W 28–27 (OT) at Louisiana Tech
2025-10-25+90%18020No game
2025-11-01+99%72073W 35–16 vs New Mexico State
2025-11-08+70%24133No game
2025-11-15+64%11916161W 42–26 vs Middle Tennessee
2025-11-22+57%23154313L 10–13 at LSU
2025-11-29+71%10713132L 34–37 at Jacksonville State
2025-12-06+83%83594No game
2025-12-13+100%57057No game
2025-12-20+87%52421580W 27–16 vs Southern Miss
2025-12-27+92%35038No game
2026-01-03+75%14216No game
2026-01-10+88%14016No game
2026-01-17+100%505No game
Mood climbed for 3 straight weeks after the week they lost by 19 to FIU, gaining 104 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 23: W 41–24 vs Sam HoustonWAug 30: W 55–6 vs North AlabamaWSep 6: L 21–45 at ToledoLSep 20: W 31–16 vs NevadaWSep 27: W 27–22 at Missouri StateWOct 3: W 27–24 at DelawareWOct 14: L 6–25 vs FIULOct 21: W 28–27 (OT) at Louisiana TechWNov 1: W 35–16 vs New Mexico StateWNov 15: W 42–26 vs Middle TennesseeWNov 22: L 10–13 at LSULNov 29: L 34–37 at Jacksonville StateLDec 23: W 27–16 vs Southern MissWAug 23Jan 17
Weekly values: Positive, Negative
Week ofPositiveNegativeComments
2025-08-2381.5%7.1%168
2025-08-3084.5%3.3%181
2025-09-0660.6%22.7%66
2025-09-1368.2%13.6%22
2025-09-2089.5%0%86
2025-09-2786.1%5.7%158
2025-10-0484.8%8.4%178
2025-10-1137.5%43.3%104
2025-10-1885.1%6.9%188
2025-10-2590%0%20
2025-11-0198.6%0%73
2025-11-0872.7%3%33
2025-11-1573.9%9.9%161
2025-11-2273.8%17.3%313
2025-11-2981.1%9.8%132
2025-12-0688.3%5.3%94
2025-12-13100%0%57
2025-12-2090.3%3.6%580
2025-12-2792.1%0%38
2026-01-0387.5%12.5%16
2026-01-1087.5%0%16
2026-01-17100%0%5

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.

Harm4.1 per 1,000 · 11
Sexual Content 1Personal Attacks 6Group Hate 3Harm Wish 1
Identity-Based Abuse1.1 per 1,000 · 3
Physical Appearance 1Disability 2
Explicit Language1.5 per 1,000 · 4
Explicit Words 1Explicit Acronym 2Violent Language 1
College Sports13.8 per 1,000 · 37
Recruiting 11Conference Realignment 10Transfer Portal 7Band 6NIL 4Student Section 1
Off-Field Storylines14.5 per 1,000 · 39
Politics & Activism 1Broadcast & Media 29Injuries 6Player Conduct 2Officiating 1
Sports Betting3.7 per 1,000 · 10
Gambling 7Parlay 1Prop Bet 2
Team & Front Office38.7 per 1,000 · 104
Coaching 48Opponent Respect 12Stadium Experience 11Opponent Hostility 17Crowd & Attendance 8Front Office 9

Subtag counts are tag applications, which may overlap.

The Swear Jar

Low volume

Too few comments to rank nationally.

4 explicit comments1.5 per 1,000
  • Explicit Acronym2
  • Explicit Words1
  • Violent Language1

Tag applications, which may overlap.

Explicit language shows up in 1.5 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 5.225.3 per 1,000 · W 27–22 at Missouri State · W 27–24 at DelawareWWLWWWLWWWLLW2025-08-232026-01-17
Harm and identity-based abuse per 1,000 comments, by week
Week ofRate per 1,000Games
2025-08-230W 41–24 vs Sam Houston
2025-08-300W 55–6 vs North Alabama
2025-09-0615.2L 21–45 at Toledo
2025-09-130No game
2025-09-200W 31–16 vs Nevada
2025-09-2725.3W 27–22 at Missouri State; W 27–24 at Delaware
2025-10-0411.2No game
2025-10-119.6L 6–25 vs FIU
2025-10-1810.6W 28–27 (OT) at Louisiana Tech
2025-10-250No game
2025-11-010W 35–16 vs New Mexico State
2025-11-080No game
2025-11-150W 42–26 vs Middle Tennessee
2025-11-223.2L 10–13 at LSU
2025-11-290L 34–37 at Jacksonville State
2025-12-060No game
2025-12-130No game
2025-12-205.2W 27–16 vs Southern Miss
2025-12-270No game
2026-01-030No game
2026-01-100No game
2026-01-170No game
Harm and identity-based abuse peaked at 25.3 per 1,000 comments (W 27–22 at Missouri State · W 27–24 at Delaware) against a season average of 5.2 per 1,000.

Season subtag split

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

Harm
  • Personal Attacks6
  • Group Hate3
  • Harm Wish1
  • Sexual Content1
Identity-Based Abuse
  • Disability2
  • 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

I gotta get my son to a game this year

positiveFacebook

Great job. Focus on the Goal- Graduation!!!!

positiveFacebook

13 point lead down the drain. Way to blow it

negativeFacebook

Offensive play calling is suspect! Defense is keeping us in the game. Let’s go Tops!!

mixedCoachingFacebook
Behind the numbers

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