BOSTON, Mass--While the Boston press was busy writing off the Harvard Crimson, it should have been asking questions and letting the game provide the answers.

Would the Crimson play the caliber of hockey it it is capable of, the caliber most recently evidenced in a tough loss to the Universty of New Hampshire and an early-January blowout of RPI? Would the team come out aggressive and goal-hungry only to fade in the second or third periods? Would lack of goal production continue to plague the Crimson? Would the 17 underclassmen be noticiably nervous? Would freshman goaltender J.R. Prestifillipo see youth served? Could the Crimson contain the play of Terriers standout All-American forward Chris Drury?

Finally, and mostimportantly, when the two teams met, would there be a predictable ending with such an unpredictable Harvard squad playing?

Those in the college hockey know, and those who turn out once a year for the Beanpot were anticipating a B.U.-B.C. final.

"We're going to have a tough game against B.U.," said Boston College goalie Greg Taylor in his post-game press conference. Then, he realized that the B.U.-Harvard game had yet to start and offered a disclaimer. "If, B.U.'s the one who ends up being victorious."

Two drunken men who were sitting at the bottom of the stairs at North Station were arguing loudly whether B.U. or B.C. would take home the trophy.

"[The negative pre-game press], if it factors in at all, it factors in before hand," said senior forward Joe Craige. "I think we did a good job of blocking that out and, if anything, it motivated us and I think we showed that in the first and second periods. In the third, for whatever reason, they got one or two quick ones and all of sudden we collapsed."

Although the local media, Taylor and the two drunken men would be right when the final buzzer sounded and the Terriers 7-1 thrashing of the Crimson was in the books, the game would also provide some interesting, if not unfortunate answers.

Early on, the Crimson appeared to have only positive responses to obvious questions about the teams enigmatic on-again, off-again ability to play a highly competitive level of hockey.

With the exception of a B.U. power-play goal in the first period, the Crimson played solid defense, coming out steady and confident. The young Harvard players were not noticeably nervous and Prestifilippo looked to be on his game. Chris Drury did not factor into the first goal and, in fact, did not earn any points until B.U.'s sixth tally.

After two periods, the Crimson was doing more than hanging-in or hanging-on. Trailing by only one goal after the first period, Harvard owned the second. The 11-8 shots-on-goal advantage enjoyed by the Crimson, does not begin to hint at the pressure put on the Terriers in their own end.

In the defensive zone, Harvard was led by the inspired play of Prestifilippo. While the freshman goalie deflected shot after shot, the Harvard defensemen were quick to clear the rebounds out of the zone to prevent B.U. from getting any second or third chances.

But, 40 minutes of good hockey is never enough when your playing the No. 5 team in the nation.

The third period marked the Crimson's down-fall. B.U. capitalized on its scoring chances in a way Harvard had failed to in the second.

The six goals scored by the Terriers in the third period was nothing short of embarassing. The Crimson went from a hockey team that was capable of out-skating a national power to one that looked like it didn't even belong on the same ice.

"One of the most disappointing things about [the loss] was that it was a very winnable game," senior forward Joe Craigen said. "The start of the third we were right in it...and then it was just a wholesale collapse...Today, I really don't really know what happened. It just all of a sudden fell apart...[The game] was embarassing. It wasn't just a loss."

While Harvard is left asking the hard questions "What if?" and "What happened?," the Boston media is busy writing "We told you so."