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

Margin of Victory—Athletes on bubble teams will often say, “We wanted to make a statement to the committee by winning big today.” The reality of this is that the NCAA would never allow a selection criteria that encouraged teams to run up the score against hapless opponents.

League and Tournament Standing—In the three sports mentioned, final standings in league or conference tournaments only matter as far as they affect the previously stated criteria. A win is a win, no matter the conference ramifications.

Polls—Polls tend to be much more reactionary and tend to put more weight in recent results than the NCAA selection criteria. Though they can often be very good predictors of what the committee will do, they have no direct bearing.

Women’s Soccer Breakdown

Current Record—7-7-1

Poll Ranking—4th in Northeast region (NSCAA)

Remaining Games—Columbia, Nov. 9

Field Size—64

Selection Show—Nov. 11, 4:30 p.m., ESPNEWS

Good News—The Crimson played the toughest schedule in its region by far. The seven losses are against teams with a combined win percentage of 75 percent. Only three of its opponents thus far—BU, Brown, and Vermont—are below .500. Harvard has wins against Ivy auto-qualifier Princeton and likely Northeast Conference champion Central Connecticut State.

Bad News—Harvard’s record would be among the weakest in the field of 64. In recent years, the Crimson has had more marquee wins.

History Tells Us—Harvard’s in shockingly good shape to make the tournament for a team that’s presently .500. The Crimson is the fourth best team in the Northeast behind UConn, Dartmouth and Yale—all of whom beat the Crimson. Harvard’s in even better shape than Hartford, who it lost to as well, since the Hawks have had so many bad in-conference losses. The region’s top five teams all made the tournament in 2000 when the field was 48 teams, and the region’s top seven teams made it in 2001, the first year with 64. While regional parity isn’t technically an NCAA selection goal, it inevitably matters because there aren’t enough interregion games to accurately distinguish teams on opposite coasts.

How to Get In—Harvard must beat Columbia and finish above .500 to even be considered for selection. Making the tournament should be in the Crimson’s hands.

Other Notes—UConn and Dartmouth appear to be in good shape to host the first and second rounds of the tournament. A question is where Harvard and Yale would be placed, as the NCAA will typically avoid intraconference matches in the first two rounds. A possible scenario is that Yale, the higher-ranked team, will get to stay at UConn, while Harvard will get shipped out of region for the first time ever.

Field Hockey Breakdown

Current Record—11-5

Poll Ranking—17th in the nation (NFHCA)

Remaining Games—Columbia, Nov. 9

Field Size—16

Selection Show—Nov. 12 (Internet Broadcast)

Good News—The Crimson played one of the tougher schedules in its region and earned convincing wins over NorPac regular season champion California and American East regular season co-champion New Hampshire. Provided Northeastern and Boston College win their conference tournaments, Harvard should be the top team under consideration from its region.

Bad News—Harvard’s only victory over a current top-20 team is against No. 19 BU, who barely belongs in the top 20, anyway. A head-to-head loss to Boston College could loom large since the two teams were fairly comparable prior to that defeat. Harvard has a worse record against common opponents than Iowa, another bubble team.

History Tells Us—Harvard can still in without a single marquee win. It did it in 2000. The Crimson got in that season, comfortably no less, over fairly comparable teams from other regions.

How to Get In—A lot has to go right for Harvard, besides beating Columbia. The top 12 teams in the current NFHCA poll appear to be locks. Three spots will go to the Big East champion and the winners of two play-in games. That leaves one spot for about five teams in serious contention—BC, Central Michigan, Iowa, Harvard and William & Mary. The Crimson will need BC to win the Big East, all the other four teams to do absolutely nothing to distinguish themselves in their conference tournaments and no other surprises in conference tournaments across the nation to have a chance. In other words, the Crimson’s fate couldn’t be much further out of its own hands.

M. Soccer Breakdown

Current Record—8-5-1

Current Ranking—7th in New England (NSCAA)

Remaining Games—Columbia, Nov. 9, & Penn, Nov. 16

Field Size—48

Selection Show—Nov. 18, 4:30 p.m., ESPNEWS

Good News—The Crimson still has plenty of soccer left to play to distinguish itself. Columbia is second in the New York region, while Penn is first in the Mid-Atlantic region. Harvard has solid wins over Holy Cross (No. 4 New England) and Yale (No. 7 New England) already.

Bad News—Wins against Penn and Columbia are not going to come easily. The team has struggled as Kevin Ara and Mike Lobach have been out with injuries. The two losses against Princeton and Dartmouth these past two weeks have turned the next two week’s games into must-wins. Harvard had a midweek game against Boston College (No. 2 New England) cancelled earlier this season. That hurts, because it denied the Crimson another chance to distinguish itself.

History Tells Us—The men’s tournament, because it only has 48 teams, is that much harder to get into. Harvard was the only Ivy team to make NCAAs at-large last year with a 10-4-1 record.

How to Get in—Beating Penn and Columbia will be enough for the Crimson to make the tournament. Harvard’s NCAA chances are better than its regional ranking might indicate. A split with Penn and Columbia, however, and Harvard will need help.

—Staff writer David R. De Remer can be reached at remer@fas.harvard.edu.