As a former soccer player myself, I have my own theory as to why the US Men's National Team hasn't yet stuck with a single jersey in the past 17 years since we returned to serious international play: no luck.

My bigger gripe was with the fact that until last year the US Soccer Federation didn't sell ANY US jersey in the officially adopted home color of red, so I made one listing all of our recent results vs. Mexico on the back and wore THAT to the US-Mexico qualifier in Columbus a couple years ago. At least the 1950's style "Don't Tread On Me" jersey took care of that issue (and gets me compliments whenever I wear it out on game days), though I think since it was "Limited Edition" it has since disappeared to be replaced by t-shirts and a training jersey.

Athletes are notoriously superstitious when it comes to the freakish reasons why they win or lose games. Sometimes you lose to a clearly better team, but unless you are totally outclassed, you tend to see more the seeming arbitrariness that determines that any one team can beat any other team on any given day, even a 1950's US soccer team beating their English counterparts. That's why if you talk to athletes of just about any sport that I can think of, you will find that most have a pre-game ritual of varying degrees of complexity and sophistication, for practical reasons as well as superstitious.

When I played competitively, I had very strict meal rituals based on what I knew would almost never upset my stomach, and ideally even provide me with enough energy to get through the competition. But I also had rituals about what music I listened to, how much sleep I tried to get the night before, what clothes I wore under my uniform, hair length (to cut mid-season or leave grow until losing? shave/no shave?), etc.

The key factor in creating those game rituals though is that you are trying to repeat something that had previously proven successful. Without previous success, you just keep changing things until something sticks. Who wants to be reminded of the failures of 1990/1994/1998, or the 40 mostly anonymous years between 1950 and our return to the World Cup?

The only US jerseys that have any significant success behind them are the 1950 jersey, partially resurrected for the previously mentioned retro-style "Don't Tread on Me" jersey, and the 2002 edition from Korea. Of those, only the former two were really distinctive, but neither would I want to see be set up as a standard, so we're still looking for that iconic uniform.

At the same time we're still looking for our first truly iconic team. Hopefully when the team makes it to the semifinals of a World Cup, they'll have a look that will do them justice and see us into the future, welcomed into the lands of yellow Brazil, the blues of France and Italy, and white of Germany. Until then, who really cares?

The US' jersey color is not officially red, it is white. Red is the color worn by Sam's Army, who are not affiliated with US Soccer. But the US had red as its secondary color between 1998 and 2002, when it was replaced by the navy we've seen for the past five years. The red shirt worn from 1998-2000 had thin navy and white stripes across the chest with a navy collar and trim. The 2000-2002 shirt was solid red with, I believe, a navy V-neck collar and trim.

I have responded to Agovino's article on my own blog.

Who cares? I do!

I have to dismiss the superstition argument. Yes, there are are some superstitious players. Greg Maddux always eats blueberry pancakes the morning before his starts. But these rituals are less about believing in some sort of supernatural force and simply establishing a routine to prepare yourself for a game. Maddux has lost 206 games in his career, it hasn't stopped him from continuing the pancake tradition. Curt Schilling posted on his blog about his pre-game routine. He changed it this year a bit to get warmed up differently Some of the other superstitions are often as much about team bonding (shaving, haircuts) than actually believing they affect your play or the outcome.

The Chicago Cubs do not have a long, storied history of winning. However, the blue uniforms and red C are iconic. Players aren't afraid to wear the uniform becuase its associated with losing. They know there is a bond between the fans and the club that comes from that consistency that trumps worries about superstitious matters.When you see someone walking down the street with blue hat with a red C, you know they are Cubbies fan.

As a US Soccer fan, I'd like to have that same effect. Hey, he's a member of Sam's Army! Instead of "wtf, is that some kind of soccer jersey?".

I don't think the US team's primary color is white, as you mention on your blog. If it is, there are too many other jersey colors that have been worn. It's like saying the Diamondbacks primary color is red.

As for Mexico, some of the details and patterns may have changed, but they've stuck with green as the primary color. Agovino's point, a few minor inconsistencies aside, is that when you see a Brazil jersey, you know right away what it is. Barcelona may play around with the width of their stripes and the texturing of their jerseys, but you see a that red and blue vertical stripe with the crest and you know its a barca jersey. I have Barca jersey that is eight years old and i still get stopped on the street by people giving a little "Barca!" cheer.

It would be nice if the US had that same feeling. I have a Nike fit training jersey that's red which I picked up at a Gold Cup match that is sweet.

The plain white home and plain red away uniforms that the US had between 1999-2001 were the best. Simple, elegant. Not cluttered like recent uniforms (the present whites excepted) have been.

The USSF ought to stick with primarily white as the homes and primarily blue or red as the aways. Pick two and stick with them.

You don't build tradition and loyalty by changing everything every few years. MLS hasn't figured this out yet (of the 10 original franchises, only a few haven't changed name, location or colors). The USSF ought to realize this.

Let's face it. Some of those early MLS jerseys and logos needed to be changed.

One thing I've noticed is that for every fan who, like saabrian, prefers a clean and elegant look, there's another that prefers something with a little pizazz. As a result, Nike is never going to be able to please everybody.

Sure Brad, I see where you're coming from regarding superstitions. That did occur to me. But I'm surprised you considered the 1994 U.S. team a failure? In fact, I thought it performed remarkably well. It progressed to the second round and only lost 1-0 to Brazil, the eventual world champions. And Tab Ramos had to leave the game after taking that vicious elbow to his head. To me, that World Cup was the perfect opportunity for the USSF to kind of re-launch itself and say 'OK, we've made strides, we're not world beaters yet, but we've arrived, and this is who we are.' The MLS was a great step toward that, but I do think a consistent national team uniform--at least the home kit; at least the jersey--should have been introduced. Of course, we didn't want either of those jerseys anway (though the denim color seems to have had its fans, judging from some comments I've heard). Remember, too, there was momentum after the 94 World Cup: the U.S. beat Argentina 3-0 in the 1995 Copa America and made it to the semi-finals. Yes, 1998 was a huge disappointment, but in these tournaments there is rarely a steady trajectory. Even the powers have off tournaments (Italy in 66; Argentina in 74; Brazil in 90; France in 02; and England didn't even qualify in 74 and 78). Either way, 94 was a wasted opportunity in establishing, or re-establishing, a uniform. Back to superstitions, October1986 makes a good point about the Cubs. And also on the D-Backs; yes, our lead color may be white, except when it's red, blue (royal, navy, denim), and with stripes (horizontal, vertical, wavy, across the middle, down the side).

I don't think the 1994 team was a failure; what's more, I don't think the 1994 US away kit (your allegedly-infamous stonewashed denim-look blue with a sweep of large white stars) was a failure, either.

I was privileged enough to buy the last US away jersey available at Stanford Stadium, just before the kickoff against Brazil for the second round match on July 4, 1994. Brasil won that match through the cheap shot crippling of playmaker Tab Ramos by defender Leonardo (an elbow to the temple; boo, Leonardo!), which put Ramos in a coma for a week. With the red-carding of Leonardo in the second half, Brazil tightened up its previously sloppy play and scored the only goal.

Afterwards, El Camino Real was closed down for the postgame party, where I caroused for many hours with well-mannered Brasilian fans - mostly pizza delivery guys from Lafayette. Even the Brasil fans admitted they got lucky.

My away jersey - "one of the most embarrassing jerseys in any sport of any time" - is one of my most treasured possessions, to be worn only at my annual Independance Day barbecue (including viewing of "1776"). Might it have been more compelling, in a marketing sense, if it were royal blue (ala Italy, or better yet, my ex-hometown San Jose Earthquakes) or navy blue (ala the Nike US away uniforms of the last few seasons)? Perhaps. But the past cannot be rewritten, so bite me.

Part of this, though, is something that you alluded to in the piece, that there are changes to the stock kit design, either dictated by fashion or in fabrics, that prevent something the notion of a "permanent shirt." For a while in the 90s, collars were in vogue, and many nations at France 98, including the US, had collars. Now you don't see them anywhere.

And another thing that you've overlooked is that Nike (as well as adidas, Puma, Umbro, etc.) will make changes to the shirt every few years because it makes people want to buy the new shirt. Take a look at the website of any EPL club during an offseason and there will be pre-orders to buy the new shirt - home or away - on the "official launch date." It's a remarkable piece of fleecing on the part of the clubs and the manufacturers, but we go for it anyway.

A quick follow-up for those questioning the players' superstitiousness angle I mentioned at the beginning of my post from Luis Arroyave's blog posting about Landon Donovan's PK routine at the Chicago Trib (http://blogs.chicagosports.ch­icagotribune.com/soccer_redcar­d/2007/06/donovans-pk-rou.html­):

"I'm pretty superstitious," Donovan told me. "It's just to calm me down. It helps me focus and brings me back down to earth."

And on the question of whether I regard the 1994 team as a failure, I would agree that making it to the second round and getting bounced by the eventual champions Brazil was a moral victory, but that's really it IMHO. There were some players on that team who are absolutely US All-Time greats, but still mostly in comparison to who came before them. I'm really not sure how many of those players would even qualify for the current roster, much less start (Ramos, Wynalda, Friedel, and Reyna certainly could), so I really don't think of their example as something I'd like to see us some day repeat. And a couple of those great players' better days were still ahead of them.

I am looking forward to a day when an American men's team has not just world class goalkeepers 3 deep, but forwards who can score goals in La Liga, defenders who can shut down the Luca Toni's and Francesco Totti's of Serie A, and can regularly and reliably travel anywhere in the world and perform as well as we do here in the US versus Mexico, only against Germany, the Netherlands, England, France, Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Spain, etc. That's a story I'll tell my grandchildren.

The story about Tab Ramos being pole-axed out of the '94 World Cup will be more a cautionary tale of what can happen when you heavily rely on the creativity of a single player whose influence can be completely eliminated by a well-placed elbow to the face. I firmly believe that Leonardo knew exactly what he was doing and was acting on instructions, knowing that we wouldn't be able to muster an attack after. It's not exactly uncommon in soccer to have the round-ball version of a hockey goon take out the other team's best player.

The '94 tournament I'll remember more for the first time I walked into Giants Stadium to watch a soccer game and felt the concrete bouncing with the fans; the first time i went with friends to watch a game that afterwards one of them wound up tearfully on the street curb consoling his mother on the cell phone over the tragedy of Italy losing to Ireland (my other friend was Irish, so tears of joy and Guinness a-flowing for him); and the first time I saw in person a goal scored like Stoichkov's vs. Germany in the quarterfinal.

Those are the memories that stoke my fires for the return of the cup to our shores. Not the good fortune that ALWAYS accompanies the host nation into the second round.

And finally, FWIW, the US jerseys from the '94 Brazilian game with the vertical red/white stripes instead of the first round stars version is aesthetically probably the closest I've seen to something that qualifies as a somewhat unique jersey that has some connection to an instantly recognizable US-themed jersey. That might just be too similar to the blue/white of Argentina for some, so maybe something more like the FC Dallas red hoops with some sort of blue accent?

ironically enough, that yellow-and-blue brazil kit only came around after the 1950 world cup, when they gifted away the final to uruguay. it had been white with (i believe) black prior to that.