Columbia University officials yesterday admonished first-year football Coach Jim Garrett for his postgame comments following Saturday's 49-17 loss to Harvard, and warned him to tone down future remarks.

After watching his team lose a 17-0 third quarter lead by giving up seven consecutive touchdowns in just over 15 minutes, Garrett called his players "drug-addicted losers" who had been unable to deal with adversity, and blamed the loss on senior punter Peter Murphy, who the Columbia coach said would never kick for him again.

In a lengthy meeting yesterday, Norman N. Mintz, Columbia's executive vice-president for academic affairs, and Al Paul, the school's athletic director, told Garrett that "his postgame comments were inappropriate" and that they "don't expect it to happen again," Paul said.

Paul, who said he was "disappointed" by Garrett's performance, added that he believed the former NFL assistant coach understood the administration's position, but that "only time will tell" whether he will abide by its wishes.

Garrett could not be reached for comment.

The Columbia coach, who left Susquehana College in 1965 after slapping a player, was lured to Columbia last spring as part of an effort to bolster the college's slumbering football program. The Lions have not produced a winning football team since the early 1970s.

Garrett told The New York Times that he called his players drug-addicted losers "because all of our societal vices now show weakness of the will as related to drug use."

"The weakness of the will here--not wanting to go out and stay with a tremendous emotional approach against Harvard--meant that our vice was losing," he said. "So, in essence, our drug was losing, and we use adversity to go back to our old standards."

Both Paul and Mintz--who discussed the matter with Columbia President Michael I. Sovern--said they took exception with the analogy.

Both officials were more critical of Garrett's characterization of Murphy, an honorable-mention All-Ivy selection a year ago.

"I understand his desire to win and his enthusiasm for winning and the great frustration at the outcome of the game," Mintz, who oversees the athletic department, told The New York Times. "But I cannot condone the castigation of a single player or the general tenor of his comments."

Paul said that though he knew Garrett was an emotional coach when he hired him last spring, he never expected his emotions to run so far.

"At the time we were looking for a coach, everyone on the committee felt it was a time in Columbia's history to bring in an emotional coach who could motivate the players."

"Emotions, of course, are expressed in different ways."

Asked whether he thought Garrett's actions were a blow to a program that now has lost 12 straight games and that hasn't won a game since 1983, Paul said he wasn't sure.