Last Saturday night, when I was supposed to have been covering the Harvard B.U. hockey game. I was sitting in the Hasty Pudding lounge, quietly drinking away the last part of the season, with Yale Daily News sportswriter Peter Diamond and our dates.

Diamond, who had had the misfortune of covering one of the worst Yale teams in over 20 years, was hardly in a hurry. His date wanted another rye and ginger, mine wanted another whiskey sour, and I wanted to stay away from Boston Garden and the ECAC playoff consolation round as long as possible.

When we finally arrived at North Station two hours late for the 6:30 game, Peter asked me what the score would be. I answered, without hesitating, "5-2. Harvard behind. They just won't care any more after last night."

And, of course, it was 5-2, Harvard behind. And from the way the Crimson was skating, it was quite clear that Harvard wanted the season's end as quickly as possible.

A lot of what was wrong with Harvard's hockey team was noticeable to anyone who saw a few games-sloppy defensive work, a tendency to sit back after running up a two-or three-goal lead, careless backchecking-but there were a few other things that were less apparent, and played a major role in the Crimson's inconsistency. During the season, I felt that it would be improper to say some of those things in print, since it could possibly hurt the team more than help. Now, with the season over, such criticism can only be constructive. I hope so.

The first problem, and one that is completely understandable, is the lack of emotional rapport between coach Cooney Weiland and his players. This is natural. Weiland is in his sixties. He has coached Harvard hockey for two decades, and coached three Boston Bruins clubs to NHL titles before that. He played for the Bruins himself, and therein, I think, lies the problem.

The performers on a professional team are usually allowed responsibility for psyching themselves up for a game. There is the natural financial incentive, as well as a certain professional pride in doing a good job. Weiland worked in that atmosphere himself, and he seems to have taken the same approach with his collegians.

He rarely, if ever, delivered a fight talk. He rarely, if ever, kept up a constant stream of comments from the bench if his squad was playing poorly. He just left it up to the players themselves, and several times, they were unequal to the task, as at Penn, where Harvard never dreamed it could lose. In the Beanpot games, when the Crimson fell asleep for the first period against B.U. and for the whole game with Northeastern. At Princeton. The Crimson needed to be hollered at, degraded, made ashamed of itself. Weiland didn't do it. Neither did captain Chris Gurry. Consequently, Harvard lost itself second place in the Ivy League and home ice in the playoffs.

Nor were the workouts, according to several Crimson players, made stringent enough. "We did more on the freshman team," one remarked.

In addition, after Harvard lost to Cornell, 9-3, last month, there was no practice for the varsity on the following Monday. But after Cornell only defeated Dartmouth by a goal at Hanover, Big Red coach Ned Harkness had his squad on the ice for five hours the next practice. Cornell won the rematch, 14-0. This is one reason why the Big Red is going to the nationals, and Harvard is staying home.

Should Harvard get rid of Weiland? Hardly. He knows more about the game than almost any coach alive. He is a superb teacher, and has brought Harvard eight Ivy titles and an ECAC crown. He will probably retire soon, of his own volition. He is scarcely the biggest problem Harvard had this season.

There was a slight amount of dissension as well, which hurt the Crimson's consistency. When Weiland benched Steve Owen and Dan DcMichele for the second Princeton contest, it was not merely to give them a rest. Their careless backchecking had often cost Harvard goals in prior games, and this, perhaps, was Weiland's way of indicating his displeasure. The backchecking improved immediately.

But the memory of individual selfishness was still there, and it will be there next year, Harvard has impressive talent. When it cohered this year, the Crimson demolished people. Like a 10-5 victory at B.C. 11-3 at New Hampshire. 9-0 with Yale. An 8-0 revenge job on Penn. It was beautiful. But when Harvard stopped playing alert, team hockey, it wasn't even worth going to watch them. Hopefully, the Crimson has learned a lesson from this season. If it hasn't, not only Cornell, but B.U. as well, will be out of reach next year.