KANSAS CITY, Mo. – [First and Second Round Schedule and Results | Bracket]The first and second rounds of the NAIA Women’s Soccer National Championship, presented by Select Sport America, gets underway at 16 sites around the nation on Thursday, Nov. 20, with eight matches. The action will continue on Saturday, Nov. 22, with 16 second-round matches. Each second-round match winner will then pack a bag to play some soccer at the beach starting on December 1 at Ashton Brosnaham Soccer Complex in Pensacola, Fla..

Select games will air on Urban Edge Network throughout the first and second rounds, carrying matches on campuses that elected to opt-in to UEN coverage in the postseason. The NAIA Women's Soccer National Championship final site will air on both NAIA Network and Urban Edge Network, with links to URLs, apps, and smart TV information at www.naia.org/watch.

Let's dive into each of the first- and second-round matches.

First-Round Matches

St. Ambrose (Iowa) vs. Aquinas (Mich.)

St. Ambrose enters with a steady, balanced attack and a résumé that’s held up throughout the fall. Aquinas brings one of the more active attacks in the field, averaging around 2.5 goals per match with shot totals that can overwhelm opponents. The Saints’ volume going forward is real, and St. Ambrose will need to stay organized in the run of play. This one likely comes down to which keeper settles in first and who can finish their limited chances.

Mid-America Christian (Okla.) vs. Talladega (Ala.)

MACU has been consistent all year, scoring at a strong clip while spreading production across several attackers. Talladega arrives with momentum after a strong postseason push, even if its sample size is smaller. The contrast is clear: MACU’s week-to-week sharpness against a Talladega group playing with confidence. If the Evangels stay disciplined defensively, they’ll control the tempo.

Northwestern Ohio (UNOH) vs. The Master’s (Calif.)

UNOH put up another high-scoring season, backing it with one of the better win-loss marks in the WHAC. The Racers can stretch games quickly and punish mistakes in transition. The Master’s comes in off a 14-4-2 campaign, leaning on shape, possession, and a measured pace to stay in matches. Expect UNOH to dictate tempo early, with TMU trying to absorb pressure and counter when possible.

Hastings (Neb.) vs. Friends (Kan.)

Hastings brings its usual attacking profile into the tournament, capable of creating chances in bunches. Friends, meanwhile, may be the stingiest team in this pod — low goals allowed, substantial defensive numbers, and a 14-3-4 overall mark built on structure. It’s a classic contrast: Hastings looking to break lines, Friends looking to close space and win the edges. Set pieces could ultimately be the separator.

Campbellsville (Ky.) vs. Xavier (La.)

Campbellsville earned its way in with a balanced front line and a solid run through the conference tournament. Xavier features a top-end scoring threat capable of changing games on her own, making the Gold Nuggets dangerous in a knockout setting. The Tigers will need a big day in goal; if Campbellsville keeps XULA’s primary scorer quiet, they’ll like their chances.

Southern Oregon vs. Morningside (Iowa)

Southern Oregon enters off a record-breaking season — 14-2-2, a program wins mark, and a top 25 RPI profile. They’re efficient on the ball and organized defensively. Morningside brings the opposite kind of danger: tournament experience, low goals-against average, and the ability to grind out results. It’s easily one of the best matchups of the round, pitting SOU’s momentum against a Mustangs team built for tight postseason games.

Eastern Oregon vs. Oakland City (Ind.)

Eastern Oregon put together a solid conference season and is comfortable playing through vast areas. Oakland City has been statistical fireworks all fall — huge goal totals, lopsided shot margins, and the ability to turn matches into track meets. For EOU, the path is clear: slow the game down and limit the chances. If it gets stretched, Oakland City’s depth in the attack becomes hard to manage.

Spring Arbor (Mich.) vs. Holy Cross (Ind.)

Spring Arbor comes in with a steady, blue-collar résumé — not flashy but disciplined in the shot and set-piece phases. Holy Cross closed the season firmly behind solid defensive work and an 8-1-3 conference record. Both sides can make this a low-margin game. Expect something cagey, where one moment on a restart or a one-on-one duel swings it.

Second-Round Matches

Marian (Ind.) vs. Winner of First Round

Marian rolls into the second round with another top-tier résumé — balanced scoring, a veteran back line, and one of the more stable possession teams in the field. Whoever advances into this matchup will have to solve a Knights group that rarely beats itself. Marian’s spacing and ability to control tempo typically force opponents into long defensive spells, and the Knights’ efficiency in the final third will make them tough to chase if they strike early.

Taylor (Ind.) vs. Central Methodist (Mo.)

Taylor has been one of the year’s true grinders — strong defensively, organized in midfield, and comfortable in low-possession matches. Central Methodist counters with one of the more dynamic attacks in the NAIA, capable of stretching the game and creating quality chances at pace. The difference may come down to how well Taylor disrupts CMU’s rhythm in the middle third. If the Trojans keep it compact, they’re right in it; if CMU gets into space, they’ve shown they can run away from teams.

Science & Arts (Okla.) vs. MidAmerica Nazarene (Kan.)

USAO enters with its usual efficiency: disciplined at the back and clinical around the goal. MidAmerica Nazarene brings a strong tournament profile and a group that thrives on transitional moments. This one has the makings of a methodical, tactical match — USAO looking to manage tempo and MNU hoping to force mistakes. It’s a razor-thin margin: whichever side finishes the few real chances on offer likely moves on.

Oklahoma Wesleyan vs. Winner of First Round

Oklahoma Wesleyan’s attacking numbers stand out again this season, and they combine that with a defense that doesn’t give away many cheap chances. The Eagles typically impose their style on matchups at this stage — relentless forward pressure and a commitment to winning second balls. The first round winner stepping in will need to absorb waves early and be efficient on the counter. If OKWU gets comfortable in the attacking half, they tend to dictate the rest of the game.

Cumberlands (Ky.) vs. Columbia (Mo.)

Cumberlands has been rock-solid all season, leaning on structure, timely scoring, and one of the most reliable defenses in the field. Columbia counters with a technical group capable of long spells of possession and precision in buildup play. Both teams are challenging to break down, and the margins are expected to be thin throughout. Cumberlands usually thrives in these controlled environments, but Columbia has the personnel to make this one a chess match.

Life (Ga.) vs. Tennessee Wesleyan

Life enters with good momentum and an attack that can find goals from multiple spots. Tennessee Wesleyan brings a more defensive-minded profile but can be effective in tight matches and has shown real discipline in their shape. Expect a slower tempo as both sides adjust to the pace. If Life’s press forces errors, they’ll tilt the field; if TWU drags this into a half-field, low-tempo contest, they’re capable of grinding out a result.

John Brown (Ark.) vs. Winner of First Round

John Brown is battle-tested — a stingy defensive unit, a veteran midfield, and an attack that can create just enough separation to tilt close games. JBU rarely opens itself up, especially in tournament play, and that makes it extremely difficult to chase. Their opponent will have to be patient and selective, as JBU’s structure doesn’t allow many clean looks. If the Golden Eagles score first, they often control the match from there.

William Carey (Miss.) vs. Winner of First Round

William Carey enters as one of the most complete teams in the NAIA: depth, pace, and high-end talent across all lines. They can play fast or methodical, and they don’t give away much defensively. The first round winner advancing will have to find a way to break their rhythm early. The Lady Crusaders’ ability to switch fields and generate quality chances in waves usually forces opponents into survival mode if they fall behind.

Embry-Riddle (Ariz.) vs. Westcliff (Calif.)

Embry-Riddle carries a strong defensive profile into this round and has demonstrated its ability to close out tight matches. Westcliff brings a more aggressive identity — one that is willing to push numbers forward and trust its pace out wide. This matchup likely tilts on whether ERAU can slow Westcliff’s wide channels. If they do, their organization should hold. If Westcliff turns this into a vertical, transition-heavy match, it becomes far more unpredictable.

Truett McConnell (Ga.) vs. Cumberland (Tenn.)

Truett McConnell’s strength is its balance — steady at the back and opportunistic in front of the goal. Cumberland features a handful of attacking pieces that can quickly turn half-chances into real chances. TMU generally thrives in structure, while Cumberland is most dangerous when matches break open. Whichever team controls the tempo will dictate the flow; TMU wants a tight game, CU prefers something with more open lanes.

Grace (Ind.) vs. Winner of First Round

Grace is built for tournament play — sound defensively, calm in possession, and tough to rattle. They don’t need high shot volume to be effective because their chance creation is usually high quality. The victor from the first round will have to stay switched on for 90 minutes; Grace rarely allows clean looks and punishes lapses. Expect a controlled match where discipline and patience matter.

Indiana Wesleyan vs. Winner of First Round

Indiana Wesleyan enters with a potent combination of athleticism and composure. The Wildcats defend well in space and transition quickly into the attack. Their profile makes them difficult for most first-round winners to match up with physically. IWU’s ability to dictate pace, primarily through midfield, usually determines whether a game stays competitive or begins to tilt.

Keiser (Fla.) vs. Georgia Gwinnett

Keiser remains one of the most consistently dangerous programs in the nation — capable of stretching teams with speed and precision while staying organized behind the ball. Georgia Gwinnett, meanwhile, brings grit and physicality, plus enough firepower to make this a real test. Keiser tends to take control if they find their rhythm early; if GGC can disrupt that flow and turn it into a scrappy match, this becomes a much tighter contest.

Southeastern (Fla.) vs. Lindsey Wilson (Ky.)

Southeastern’s attack is its calling card — creative, fast, and able to generate repeat chances. Lindsey Wilson counters with experience, defensive discipline, and a program history of showing up well in the postseason. SEU will try to dictate tempo and keep the game stretched. If Lindsey Wilson keeps it compact and forces Southeastern into tough angles, the margins tighten significantly.

Missouri Valley vs. Winner of First Round

Missouri Valley has the pieces to make a deep run — they defend with urgency, play clean in midfield, and capitalize on small windows to create real opportunities. They’re challenging to unsettle and even harder to chase when they’re in front. The first-round winner will need efficiency and organization to push MVC off script. If Missouri Valley gets comfortable, they tend to manage matches well from ahead.

College of Idaho vs Winner of First Round

The Yotes are no strangers to the first and second rounds of the national championship, making their eighth appearance after putting together a stellar regular season, claiming both the Cascade regular season and tournament titles. The team that advances out of the first round and into this matchup will need to capitalize on their chances, as the College of Idaho has only allowed 15 goals this season. The key for the Yotes is to continue doing what they have done all season long. With 62 goals scored, they are one of the top offensive teams in the postseason.