Take a closer look at the eight wins which Harvard's basketball team managed to rack up this year, and you'll find that the season was every bit as bad as a .308 winning percentage suggests.

Couple that with the fact that the Crimson roundballers were equally adept at losing to horrible teams and good teams, and Harvard's recent season comes into focus as one of the worst in the last few decades.

First, to recap: The Crimson victories can be listed in a very small amount of space. Brandeis, Rochester, Brown, B.C., B.U., Yale, Cornell, and Columbia. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Judging the Judges

Judging by records alone, Brandeis was the best team Harvard managed to beat this year, sporting a 10-14 final record for a whopping .416 winning percentage. The Crimson's 87-78 win over the Judges doesn't stack up, however, when you consider that the Walthamites usually spend their time playing Division Three caliber opponents. The 10-14 record, bad as it is, covers the fact that Brandeis is simply in an inferior league. But a win is a win.

Of Harvard's other seven victories, none came against a team with a winning percentage of better than .350. Rochester, defeated by an 86-75 count, ranks at the top of the victim list with an 8-15 (.348) log, followed closely by Boston college and its 9-17 (.346) record.

Rounding out the abbreviated list are the old standby favorites, Columbia (8-17, .320), Cornell (8-18, .308), Brown (7-20, .259), Yale (7-20, .259), and Boston University (7-19, .269).

Harvard managed to defeat these teams, as everybody else in the United States did, but Tom Sanders & Co. have one leg up on the rest of the nation. Harvard also managed to lose to five of the teams mentioned on separate occasions, negating whatever prowess might be attributed to the victories.

The Crimson split its season series with the worst teams the Ivy League has to offer--Brown, Yale, Columbia and Cornell--not exactly something to write home about. In addition, it went 1-1 against Boston College, a squad whose season paralleled the history of the Hindenburg.

So what are we left with? The knowledge that the only teams Harvard was definitely better than this season were the outfits from Brandeis, Rochester, and B.U. Their combined record was 25-48. The Crimson's total of eight victories was amassed against teams whose final records add up to 64-140, or a .313 winning percentage.

Taken by itself, the 1975-76 season was an unmitigated disaster, ranking Harvard's basketball program with the worst in the nation. But was this year much worse than those gone by, a disaster when compared to the school's basketball history? The answer is not quite so clear.

This season included, the last 16 years of IAB basketball have produced only 4 winning campaigns, not an impressive record by any stretch of the imagination. The composite of those seasons is 168-220, a won-lost record which accurately reflects the entire history of Harvard basketball.

In 65 years of trying, Crimson varsities have turned up a grand total of 577 victories to go along with 730 losses. In view of this, it becomes reasonable to suggest that there is no basis for expecting Harvard to come up with a winning season, much less a sound program that develops a tradition of winning. In fact, coach Sanders alluded to this earlier in the year when he suggested that Harvard basketball players-students have too much on their minds to become successful on the court.

This is hardly a novel outlook, nor is it devoid of any merit. Most of the ballplayers on this year's squad will readily admit that they play the game more for fun than anything else. Few hopes for professional contracts are maintained in the IAB, and the high-powered edge of big-time basketball is non-existent there.

But the connection between big-time hoop and a winning basketball program is only a tenuous one, and the concept of the player-student often becomes no more than a facile explanation for a losing season at Harvard, one which evades the real question of why other schools can develop good programs and this school can't.

There is no need to look outside the Ivy League for examples of a sound mix of scholarship and sports. In basketball, Princeton of course provides the prime example, with a program that is respected nation-wide. Penn is much the same. And Dartmouth took exactly one season to turn its program around, racking up a fine 17-9 record after a disastrous year in 1974-75.

It is not as if all Harvard athletes have too much on their study-oriented minds to perform well in their sports. Mel Embree is a case in point, albeit an exceptional one. As for team sports, what of Joe Restic's spectacular success with the football program (none of whose participants can really count on professional careers) and Bill Cleary's annual miracle-working with the Harvard hockey program? In sum, what makes the basketball program different?

All Bottled Up

The answers to this question are bottled up in a season of dissension, unhappiness, and lost ballgames. Harvard's basketball team was far from talentless this past year, yet it could not even once get it together on the court for an effort it could really be proud of.

The second game with Boston College came close to fulfilling expectations, and indeed at the time seemed to be a turning point in the season. With 20/20 hindsight, it is easy now to see that B.C. was suffering from the same problems of disunity which have plagued Harvard all season. Harvard's 79-65 victory, by far its best performance of the year, is washed down with the honest realization that the Eagles were equally to blame for bad basketball on that night in the IAB, that the Crimson's finest showing must be swallowed with the proverbial grain of salt.

If Harvard's basketball program is in severe trouble, it is nowhere better reflected than in the incredible number of close games the team has lost both this year and in recent history. It is a constant point of debate as to whether tight losses reflect bad luck or a lack of heart in a team, but with Harvard the frequency has become alarming to the point of realizing that there is indeed something very wrong.

For most teams, a game well played results in a victory of some kind: for Harvard, good performance begets a one-or two-point defeat. Yale turned the trick by a 63-62 score. Dartmouth by a 66-64 count. Brown, 58-56. Fordham, 70-68. B.C., 72-71. Tack on a few five-point defeats, and either Harvard is very unlucky or something else is wrong.

How many close ballgames did the Crimson win this year? The answer is one: a 66-63 number against Cornell in the IAB.

There is no question that the Crimson basketball team is ravaged with internal problems, as a losing season with a number of walkouts will quickly point out. There are very few ballplayers on the team who are really pleased with the way the program is handled, and some who are prepared to say they will not play next year if conditions do not change.

Piles of Problems

The team is confronted with a myriad of minor problems, ranging from bent rims in practice, which are not fixed, to equipment which must be paid for by the individual players, and on to a communication problem which is quickly reflected in the style of play on the court.

Harvard's basketball team is in a good deal of trouble these days, and the Crimson fans are tired of watching a team with absolutely no desire to go through the motions on the fifth floor of the IAB, playing its games with the spirit of a last-pace finisher.

The problems are numerous, and they cannot be ironed out with a coach who is as ready to say "No comment" to his own ballplayers as he is to ignore the inquiries of outsiders.

It's time for the Harvard basketball team to sit down and have a nice long talk. Without some communication and honest discussion, it should prepare for a few more seasons which fit right into the history of Harvard basketball: non-descript, losing efforts. THE WINS Team  Record  Pct. Brandeis  10-14  .416 Rochester  8-15  .348 Brown  7-20  .259 B.C.  9-17  .346 B.U.  7-19  .269 Yale  7-20  .259 Cornell  8-18  .308 Columbia  8-17  .320 Total  64-140  .313