If it served no other purpose. Harvard's 5-3 loss to Boston University in the Beanpot tournament Monday night provided an accurate composite picture of the Crimson's frustrating Jekyll-Hyde complex this winter. Until Monday, Harvard had performed its quick-change act in remote locations, far enough away from the Cambridge audience to make Crimson followers wonder what in hell was going wrong every other week.

But in the Boston Garden three nights ago, in full view of the largest one-night Beanpot crowd in history, Harvard demonstrated, better than any verbal description could have, why it has barely achieved a winning record halfway through the season in which it was supposed to have had it all.

In the opening period of the B.U. game, the Crimson played its. Hyde role, and was quite nearly blown off the ice. The consistent, steady Jekyll personality took over the final two-thirds of the game, but just as it always happened in the movies. Hyde had done more damage than Jekyll could be expected to repair.

I have covered every Harvard game this winter, with the exception of last weekend's debacle at Pennsylvania, and on three different occasions, watched the Crimson squander substantial leads within minutes. At Boston College, after two periods of play. Harvard led 4-2. Seventeen minutes later, Harvard was trailing 6-4, and the Eagles had done little more than capitalize on Harvard carelessness to make their comeback.

Three days later, after running up a fairly secure 4-1 lead over Clarkson after two periods, the Crimson was fighting for its life to avoid an overtime in the final minutes of the game.

And at the Montreal tournament, it was more of the same. With a 5-0 margin over weak McGill entering the third period, Harvard yielded four goals within a ten-minute span, and had to rally to gain its 7-4 triumph.

Last weekend, the roof fell in. A Penn team that was winless in Division 1 decked Harvard in overtime for its second Ivy win in three years. True, the Crimson was rusty after a three-week exam break, but it still blew leads of 2-0 and 4-2.

But the B.U. game scoring summary speaks for itself. In ten years of watching Boston hockey. I have never seen B.U. lose a three-goal lead. It did, Monday night, even though the Terriers never showed signs of collapse during the Crimson comeback. To anyone present at the Garden Monday night, the Harvard rally was clearly indicative of the amazing difference between the Crimson when it plays careless, sloppy hockey and the Crimson when it decides to fly. Unfortunately, Harvard has provided no proven method of predicting just when it will shift disguises. And this makes it all the more difficult to assign the Crimson a definite berth in the Eastern rankings with any degree of accuracy.

Last night. Globe sportswriter Joe Concannon placed the Crimson sixth, just ahead of New Hampshire and behind Clarkson. Clearly, Harvard is better than that, but until it can prove it with a few clutch victories, no one who is in a position to do anything about it will buy it. Unfortunately, the remainder of the schedule is relatively easy, and unless the Crimson pulls off an upset at Ithaca, there is no way of its moving higher than fourth, at the very best.

Cornell, with a 13-0 ECAC record, has the top seed wrapped up in the Eastern playoffs. If B.U. beats B.C. in the Beanpot finals and again at McHugh Forum later in the month, the Terriers take second. Barring collapse, B.C. will be third.

So it is up to Harvard and Clarkson to fight it out for fourth, and if things go as expected, Harvard should overtake the Golden Knights by default. Clarkson does not play Cornell, and in the final six weeks, the New Yorkers meet New Hampshire and R.P.I. twice, as well as tough Colgate, B.C., B.U., and St. Lawrence.

But either way, the fourth seed meets the fifth in the opening round, and the winner meets...Cornell. Cornell, regardless of its success in the playoffs, will go to the NCAA's, so Harvard, clearly, must win it all to go with the Big Red to Lake Placid. But to do it. Dr. Jekyll is going to have to be a little more dominant.