For Harvard athletics, November, not March, is the time when language like “NCAA at-large selection,” “ratings percentage index” and “on the bubble” takes on its most significant meaning.

In what is a relatively recent phenomenon, fall has become the season in which most Harvard teams get considered for the back door of the NCAA tournament—the at-large selection.

For the majority of Harvard’s NCAA-eligible teams, the only way into the Big Dance is through the automatic invitation given to the Ivy champion. But while Ivy teams never qualify at-large for the most prominent tournaments of men’s and women’s basketball, they now make a significant at-large impact in national tournaments for most other sports.

The four sports where the Ivy League consistently gets the most NCAA at-large berths are perennially men’s and women’s soccer and lacrosse. Because Harvard’s lacrosse programs haven’t been national contenders lately—and field hockey has suddenly emerged as one within the past three years—fall has suddenly emerged as the prime time for Crimson athletes to sweat out stressful selection shows.

For the third straight year, men’s and women’s soccer and field hockey all have fallen short of winning Ivy championships, but unique to this year is that all three teams have realistic aspirations of making the tournament at-large.

This brings up the common question—how does a team earn an at-large bid? All NCAA sports have selection committees staffed by current coaches and conference representatives from across the country to make the final decision. But the soccers and hockeys are different from the basketballs in one significant ways. The selection guidelines for basketball are intentionally left more vague, which brings the subjective bias of the committee much more into play. The soccers and hockeys have much specific criteria so the process is noticeably more objective and easier to predict.

Everyone involved with NCAA sports often maintains several misconceptions about the selection process. These can easily be cleared up by looking at each sport’s respective championship handbook, where both the primary and secondary selection criteria are specified.

Men’s soccer, women’s soccer and field hockey each have distinct selection criteria, which are voted upon each year, but the three criteria are very similar in their intent.

Criteria are broken down between primary criteria and secondary criteria. Generally speaking, a team will get selected if it is better than the others in a majority of the primary selection criteria. Secondary criteria are just what the name would suggest.

What Counts

Record, Strength of Schedule (SOS) and Ratings Percentage Index (RPI)—These three are primary criteria in all sports. RPI is a weighted average of a team’s record, its opponent’s records, and its opponent’s opponent’s records. SOS is a weighted average of the latter two. An important note—teams with records below .500 are not considered for selection.

Results against teams already selected to participate in the championships, results against teams under consideration for selection—This is what you call the “quality win” category. This means bonus points for beating automatic qualifiers in the tournament or teams above .500. Both are primary criteria for the women’s tournament, only the former counts for field hockey. Neither is a criteria for men’s soccer, but men’s soccer uses an adjusted RPI, which gives bonus points for beating teams with high RPI, and penalty points for losing to teams with low RPI. The end result is about the same.

Head-to-head results and record against common opponents—This is the “I beat you, or I beat a team who beat you, so I’m better than you” category. These are primary criteria in women’s soccer and field hockey, but only secondary criteria in men’s soccer.

Late Season Performance—This is a secondary criteria in field hockey and women’s soccer. It rewards teams who start slow but come on strong.

What Doesn’t Count