Hamilton, N.Y.--Time and time again football pundits stress the importance of turnovers.

"You can't give the ball away and expect to win," and "the turnover ratio is the key to the game," the John Maddens say.

Looking at the box score of the Harvard-Colgate football game on Saturday, one would find the Crimson winning the turnover battle seven to three, and by the experts' logic, one would expect a Harvard victory.

Well, by that logic, one would be very, very wrong.

If someone had told me before the game that the Crimson would take the ball from the Red Raiders seven times on Saturday while giving it away only three, I would have penciled in a victory--a lopsided one at that.

And the scoreboard did in fact show a one-sided victory. Unfortunately, however, the victory was not the Crimson's, as Colgate defeated Harvard 34-14.

That's right, despite winning the battle of turnovers by a staggering total of four, the Crimson still managed to lose the contest by 20 points.

How, one might ask. Well, for anyone who watched the game, the answer is quite obvious: for the second consecutive week Harvard was dominated in the trenches on both sides of the ball.

It is the play of the line that is biggest difference between the 1998 Crimson and the team that went 9-1 with an Ivy League Championship just one year ago. Where offensive and defensive line play was the strength of that squad, it is the glaring weakness of this year's.

Harvard's defense had no answer to the Colgate offense, as it gave up 220 yards on the ground, and allowed 245 yards in the air. And it was up front where it had most of its problems.

Two-time defending Patriot League Player of the year, junior quarterback Ryan Vena, kept the defensive front of the Crimson off-balance all afternoon, running the option to near perfection. Vena's ability to stay poised in the pocket and deliver accurate passes, as well as to run up field when necessary also kept Harvard on its heels.

The results was very little pressure on the quarterback, as the Crimson recorded only one sack.

To its credit, however, although Colgate was able to move the ball well against it, the Crimson defense kept Harvard in the game by forcing turnovers, many in crucial situations.

In fact the Crimson were down only 20-14 for much of the third quarter and the beginning of the fourth. But in the fourth the defensive line tired noticeably, as the Ted Raiders began to pour it on.

On the offensive side of the ball--where the biggest problems lie--it is understandable, and even expected, that there would be a drop-off from last year. With the anchor and leader of last year's line Matt Birk graduating and moving on to the NFL, it is only natural to expect a lower level of play up front.