Aaron

There was always the chance the offense could win them a title, or the defense and goalkeeping could cost them their first game. Right now, they have one half to try to keep it from being the negative one. Regardless, they must find a top-level goalie and a couple more backline players in the offseason. SLU is the anti-IU with an elite D and goalie, and minimal attack. While Brown and the SLU goalie had similar chances with tough but savable shots, the SLU guy made them all, and Brown could not bail his side out and reason it is 1-0 bad guys. While the D is the primary culprit in the goal, the lack of being able to be bailed out by a top-flight keeper, as SLU was, is the difference. Whether it is Michelle who has promise but is raw, or a portal or elite freshman guy, this level of keeping meets many sides' standards, but not IU. If the Hoosiers want to remain elite, this is a must-fix. The evaluation of Brown I see with his size, but it was a clear misevaluation for the elite awareness needed and must be addressed in the offseason to be a serious contender. Not mad at IU, but a clear upgrade and correction is needed to be a serious contender going forward as well as plugging a hole or two on the backline. While ideally you want both size and awareness, I'll take Harms' awareness last year and lack of size over Brown's inverse any day. Brown is a finished product who rivals only Souderland in 2013 and Caulfield in early 2019 in terms of awareness issues. Michelle is either that or Louis Soffener, who was awful his first couple of years due to Freitag being an awful coach, and Yeagley developed him into a top-level goalie by the end. We will know by next year if Michelle has the awareness and if he does Yeagley will get it out of him.

I was pretty close on my predictions but not perfect. Great draw and first game will be a rematch with a team IU has already beaten. When I saw San Diego announced at the nine seed early, I was fairly confident Hoosiers would get that Top-8 as I knew Bryant was falling beyond 10 with their poor metrics despite elite RPI. With tournament regionalized and them announcing UK and SLU above IU first as the feed in game, I was very confident that IU was being put at 6 before the official announcement. Also, having mid-majors powers all the way through or a home game in Elite Eight is ideal. That first game with rematch is almost certainly toughest game of the tourney until College Cup if IU makes it. Taking on the aforementioned paper tiger Bryant in Sweet 16 is ideal if they make it that far but could be upset by Seton Hall who is probably a better and more tested squad (doubt Sienna is good enough to go anywhere if they beat Seton Hall). Elite Eight in worst case scenario a trip to a mid-major power in Princeton (who is a legit mid-major unlike Bryant but still rather play them then an ACC, Sunbelt, Big East or Big Ten squad again which are the power conferences in soccer). However, an upset by Akron which is possible, or one of the unseeded squads (Duke, Notre Dame, FDU Duke) allows Hoosiers to host if they make it that far as Tigers draw is brutal compared to IU. One thing to note is if IU gets this far and gets to host the Elite Eight, fitting a game in between volleyball's likely NCAA hosting, and IU's games against Ohio State and Louisville in football and basketball on that Friday or Saturday will be quite the juggling act for Indiana but one no one would complain. While anything can happen, this is first time since 2022 when they lost in national title game where I can easily see a path to College Cup without anything crazy happening. Having that guaranteed second home game with victory for the first time since 2019 is also huge. As I have said, I could see offense winning IU a title or the lack of goalie or defensive play causing a loss to UK or SLU which I will continue to believe is toughest game until the College Cup given the familiarity and draw. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As for how it was seeded compared to what I thought I was close but not perfect with Top 16 (parenthesis is actual seed): 1. Princeton (3) 2. Vermont (1) 3. Virginia (2) 4. SMU (5) 5. San Diego (9) 6. Maryland (4) 7. Georgetown (7) 8. Portland (8) 9. IU (6) 10. Bryant (11) 11. Akron (14) 12. UConn (13) 13. Stanford (12) 14. Seton Hall (No Seed, Highpoint was 10) 15. NC State (15) 16. Marshall (No Seed, Furman) They used Top 16 to a tee for seeds which is rare and was wrong about the bumping of Highpoint and Furman out which were the big misses by me. Biggest other miss was over seeding San Diego by four spots. Thought their metrics were excellent and they won their conference tourney so surprised they fell. Everything else is within a couple of seed lines or so and pretty much what I thought.

Selection Show 1pm today on NCAA.com Expect IU to be the 8-10 seed. RPI is ten. Top seven based on metrics will likely be in some order: 1. Princeton 2. Vermont 3. Virginia 4. SMU 5. San Diego 6. Maryland 7. Georgetown These seven have top nine RPI's and metrics in the top 40 with their SOS and OSS and all but Virginia and Maryland won their conference tourney. The eight, nine and ten Seeds will almost certainly come down to: 8. Portland, IU, and Bryant That coveted eight seed and second guaranteed home game will likely come down to Bryant's six RPI but 38 SOS and 83 OSS, vs. Portland's eight RPI but 50 SOS and nine OSS, and IU's 10 RPI but four SOS and 13 OSS. None won their conference tournaments. Objectively, if I had to predict Portland's metrics are the most balanced but its close so I would go: 8. Portland 9. IU 10. Bryant (Note they could fall a couple spots lower even but only other team who has case for top eight) Note they may flip Portland and Georgetown for geography with Georgetown having RPI one spot higher. Rest of top 16 will likely be based on metrics: 11. Akron 12. UConn 13. Stanford 14. Seton Hall 15. NC State 16. Marshall Furman and High Point despite being Top 16 in RPI will likely be bumped and replaced at 17 and 18 by Seton Hall and Marshall due to much better metrics. We will see soon if I am right: https://rpiupdatemenssoccer.blogspot.com/

Can I remind people this team actually lost these same games last year to Harvard and Butler and figured it out? While Marshall is not quite as strong as these two, Moren teams have a tendency to correct issues and get better as year goes on. A season similar to last year seems reasonable as a back end tournament team. If the team can beat some of the better competition upcoming they are actually ahead of last year with close wins rather than bad losses in games two and three. What we can say is Spreen, Kiaku (which doesn't surprise me) are not good enough to play at this level and this will once again be the tight eight person rotation that is Moren's signature with Shay, Caffey, Z, and Lenee as starters with Valentina or Makalusky playing off the bench with the other starting along with Phoenix and Odessa. Also we might see Faith from time to time. This is a typical Moren squad and once it matures and adds the elite recruits program should be fine.

They will very likely match the rankings. You already see it with Caffey and Makalusky being higher ranked than previous recruits and two of next years are even higher. Those rankings are not perfect but very good guides similar to a weather forecast and with two top-40 players this year and two top-30 next year the difference will be noticeable. This is how it is supposed to work with recruiting when winning and it took Moren coming to terms that her culture was not an end-all be-all for recruiting and NIL is needed and also replacing an ineffective assistant with effective one. Most coaches when they start winning don't have to look in mirror at how they run things. Moren did and glad she made the necessary changes or this program was heading off a cliff. Now it's in good hands again.

Not really. Especially with all the second-tier international players infiltrating college soccer. It's why random mid-majors have suddenly become elite.

11 teams in men vs. all 18 in women. Both exclude about same number of teams for this year. Men was top-eight till now but was condensed down to four for some reason this fall.

Totally different. In 2013, IU had to win the Big Ten Tournament to make the NCAA Tournament and was the only time finishing below .500 overall since going varsity in 1973. They then lost in the first round on the road and one of only three times they were not seeded in the last couple of decades and only time since 2001 without at least one home game in the postseason. This time, they will absolutely be seeded with a top-10 RPI and undefeated in non-conference. The only question is if they can get a top-8 seed and get that second home game for the Sweet 16. The round of 32 is a locked-in home game. The year you should compare not to 2013 but one year later, in 2014. In 2014, they ran the table in the non-conference and were mid-pack in the Big Ten, but got a very high NCAA seed off the non-conference games, which will happen again. However, don't want to repeat the NCAA results as the Hoosiers were upset by Xavier in the round of 32, and this is the last time they didn't win a postseason game and make at least the Sweet 16. Could literally see the squad use their scoring to get to the college cup, or the struggling backline and goalie knock them out in the first game. Both outcomes are equally likely for this iteration of the team. You may have also meant 2012 when the team struggled down the stretch, but won their last national title by getting hot in the postseason. That team was the final one earning a seed at no. 16. I expect them to be inside the top-10 this time, if not top-8, for that second home game to be guaranteed.

See everyone for the NCAA Tournament. IU will still host at least one game and maybe two, as they are right on the fringe of the top eight. The Big Ten Tourney has zero to do with NCAA seeding. In general, though, college soccer is not fun to watch right now. The talent drain and basically no defense across the board feels like watching the FIFA Video game instead of real soccer, with the amount of scoring and easy shots. While I love cheering for IU, watching the sport at the college level is painful. Either the sport needs to listen to the USA Soccer Federation and work with them to take their recommendations to get the top talent again, or fold up shop. Right now product is unbearable, and this is no fault of Indiana. They get the top talent of those making it to college, but that starts pretty far down the rankings.

Michigan is most relevant and equivalent example in Big Ten right now.

That could be a reason and legitimate. However, would you have dropped if team was ranked and won nearly 30 games. If you were going to drop anyways you may have hit on a factor. If being less then excellent caused you not to renew and would have otherwise, that is something you are certainly entitled to do but that behavior (better or worse) sheds some light on how fan base thinks. Don't blame you for your specific case. We would need to hear from others and cross reference with other schools to find the smoking gun for this pattern but your particular case def sheds a tiny bit of light.

Michigan has all the buffet of sports options as Indiana and lost no season ticket holders for its women's basketball program after one good season that was slightly less than others. Its a conundrum that the athletic department has to figure out. Nowhere else loses 30-40% of ticket holders over a women's season like last.

This survey is important since no other school wins 20 games and loses mass numbers of season ticket holders. There is clearly something unique about our fan base being more front running than others. Our athletic department needs to get to bottom of it if it does not want to lose a large percentage of season ticket holders after good but not great seasons when nowhere else does.

Exactly when we were ranked and times were the most sunny attendance grew and grew. Now one 20-13 season loses 40% of season ticket holders. Iowa with similar success recently has sold out last two seasons even without Caitlin Clark. Michigan whose path has mirrored IU each season recently including last, lost no season ticket holders last year and Michigan's sports options are no different than Indiana's. This proves my point that our fan base even in equivalent spots in equivalent sports has always had more frontrunners.

Totally agree with all of that. However, no program like women's basketball should have to endure losing nearly 40% of its season ticket holders over a 20-13 team with an NCAA appearance. That doesn't happen at most if any other places after five straight years of being ranked each week and then one solid top-30 season not ranked. This is where the problem comes in and is not an issue at most schools. Michigan women had a worse season than usual last year and equivalent rise of IU before that and lost almost no season ticket holders. Meanwhile, Iowa has sold out its next two non-Caitlin Clark seasons recently that saw similar results to IU last year. I get IU is competing with more sports here, but it shows our fans priority for our fan base in general.

A five year run of being ranked each and every week is pretty 'elite' and matched only 1-2 others. Iowa has sold out season tickets post Caitlin Clark each of the last two seasons and their recent run is similar to IU. A 20-13 season does not warrant losing 40% of season ticket holders and would not anywhere else. Attendance absolutely is tied to winning but definition of 'winning' needs to be upped by our lot of fans if we want constant success in any program. Losing nearly 40% of season ticket holders in IU women tells me our fans view of what constitutes 'winning' is not consistent with elsewhere.

Again I agree with most of what you are saying and hope you are right and I am wrong. Proof will be in pudding though and history says otherwise. Really hope football's likely eight win season next yr is a new leaf for our fan base but past precedent says otherwise. Really hope you turn out right. No one more than me is rooting for that.

And you are entitled to that opinion, but it answers why last night was sparse and 3k season ticket holders were lost in offseason. There is a big different between hoping for 23-24 wins and less than 10 losses (which is perfectly acceptable) and considering not getting there with only 20 wins a failure and losing nearly 40% of ticketholders. This is where problem is. Not "hoping for more' which every rational fan absolutely should and zero reason to lower expectations.

Don't disagree with a lot of you are saying. However, it does mean a lot more work to get butts in seats at IU compared to most, hence the empty ones seen last night. There is nothing in the women's b-ball product last year that should have caused team to lose roughly 3k of its 8k season ticket holders. No where else loses nearly 40% of its season ticket holders from last years products and generally maintains steady or gains. Yes its still light years ahead of past, but if you bleed at this number or even half of it over 2-3 more 20 win seasons, it is no higher than Pre-Moren. Hopefully the most front running fans were weeded out, but if a similar season to last loses another 1-2k which is possible my point is well proven. Almost any other school with two 20-win seasons with NCAA appearance with an 8k ticket base would hold steady or gain not shrink by nearly half. Here it is considered a failure and bleeds support. We need a lot more people in this fan base to stop considering these 20-win seasons (or in football's case 8 wins) not enough. You want long sustained success for a program outside soccer? A big part of it is not losing 40% of a fan base over a top-30 NCAA appearance. You will see my point when next years eight-win 'rebuilding' football season wins 8 games and loses 20-40% of season ticket holders which will absolutely happen here and not anywhere else. Prove me wrong. I hope I am wrong, but every historical perspective here including with Mallory, and now with women's basketball and more recently baseball, makes me very skeptical you won't lose thousands of ticket holders over a solid season which does not happen elsewhere.

And this attitude proves my point. In any other fan bases world, constant 20 win seasons is celebrated, not asking for more. You are entitled to feel that way but this attitude answers my question in my mind even if some might disagree.

I warned about this in another thread and its not the ticket distribution. You can easily buy them for a few $$$ on Seatgeek and plenty available higher up. This is because a much larger percentage of our fan base then most others is especially front running compared to other college fan bases and this is a massive issue across the board issue when it comes to IU. This is not a problem with people on the board or devout fan, but the number of people in our fan base who refuse to support anything less than a top 5-10 team in that sport is why you see this. I deal with this everyday with fellow Hoosier fans. Ask other fan bases about their decent postseason squads and if they go and the answer is 'yes'. Ask an IU fan about women's basketball or baseball now and they will tell you they followed them a couple of years ago when they were elite and in Schwarber days respectively. This is not normal behavior from a fan base and generally once a team has great seasons and become elite, a slight fall off to constant postseason squads is enough to maintain a fan base but not at IU. Until our casual fans change their behavior to mirror what other schools do, you won't see a football stadium expansion or top NIL money available. I am very skeptical yearly eight win Cignetti teams can draw more than 35k as the Mallory years showed and was partially (although not completely) responsible for fall off. We have a good number of loyal fans (and the people on this board are amongst that), but the amount of casual fans who will maintain their interest for a winning but non-elite squad is much higher than a normal college fan base. My estimates at most schools is its about 60% front running 40% loyal. At IU its 90% front running and 10% loyal. Until 30% more casuals like many I know become loyal, this problem isn't going away. We better hope Moren's new elite recruits make them top-10 teams yearly and Cignetti's "next emerging super power" is true. Anything less, like a 20-13 postseason squad or eight win bowl team will not be supported much better than a losing 13-20 or four win football team seen through most of the programs history. IU has a serious front-running fan problem that is far greater than most schools and I don't have a good answer as to why, other than it being a very real thing. This 20-win postseason women's team bleeding attendance is unfortunately entirely predictable and would not happen with most other schools. As an example, Purdue women's elite performance for a half-dozen years giving way to second round tourney exits saw very little fan drop off and even decent support for their awful product now. For IU, one year of 20 wins vs. being elite and you bleed thousands of season ticket holders. This front-running attitude amongst vast majority of the IU fan base is a very real problem that most IU fans need to look in the mirror and confront. Until then, the necessary revenue to sustain winning across board will go through these 2-5 year elite cycles followed by coaching changes and slow decline. I don't take pride in any of this and it sucks, but its a hard truth for diehards like ourselves on this board.

Hopefully, tonight will be a preview of football tomorrow as expected. IU clubbed a bad Maryland side over the head with an easy three-set sweep to stay on track to host in the NCAA Tournament.

As I've said, this is how recruiting is supposed to look with the level IU has won at. Makalusky and Caffey are clearly the highest-ranked recruits in many years for a reason (and in Makalusky's case highest ever until next year), and Battle and Nyemcheck are even higher and could well be 5* by next fall, being in the top-30. Moren said she wanted better athletes who are higher ranked, and the new recruiting coach has delivered big in the last two classes with this.

Not really. They beat a top-flight Kentucky and Notre Dame squad on the road, also. For whatever reason, conference road games have been a bugaboo much more than road games overall. If you can hold on to a top-8 NCAA seed (RPI is exactly 8), the team will play at least two NCAA Tournament games at home against non-Big Ten squads, which has been the sweet spot this fall, and the team has no. 1 non-conference RPI in the nation. Can't wait to get out of conference play and try their luck against other opponents at home, where the team has been best. As I said, offense could take the team to a College Cup or the defense could end their season in the first round, and both are equally likely given positioning. Team is 4-3-1 in Quad one, 1-1 in Quad two, 4-1 in Quad three, and 1-0 in Quad four. The resume is actually quite strong, and the committee doesn't look at conference record: https://rpiupdatemenssoccer.blogspot.com/2025/07/indiana.html

This team has two versions of itself. One that plays at home and outside of conference play that looks like a national contender, and one that plays on the road in the Big Ten that looks totally inept. With all the top wins in the preconference, RPI only fell to 8. The team is going to the NCAA Tournament as a seeded team, and if they can hold on to the top 8, that would be key for the second guaranteed home game. 2014 has struck again in every way; league play is a mess, but non-conference is elite for a good NCAA seed. Tonight may have been the Hoosiers' worst effort this season across the board. You still have no goalie who is halfway decent or a competent defense. The normally elite offense had a Michigan State night. Team needs a win and UCLA loss or tie just to make the Big Ten Tourney, but given the Bruins are playing at Washington, who will be going for a conference title, and the Hoosiers are back at home against mediocre Rutgers, where they thrive, this is well within reach. Ironically, a top-four NCAA seed is not completely out of the question if you can qualify for the Big Ten Tourney and beat Maryland or Washington in a rematch in the first conference tourney game. Quite frankly, despite the atmosphere, I'd rather rematch Maryland and their much better RPI without the cross-country trip. Terps clinch Big Ten with a win or tie, or Huskie loss or tie. The goal right now, though, is to make the Big Ten Tourney and hold on to the top-eight spot for the NCAA's.