With the World Series possibly ending tonight, I think it's appropriate to finally decide which team has (or had) the better baseball hair. To help you make your choice, I've enlisted a blogger from each camp to make an argument and their debate can be found below the jump. Your vote can be cast below.

Since we're still in Philadelphia and because Tampa Bay is trailing in the Series and because they're going to have trouble beating the glory of anything involving Lenny Dykstra, the Rays are up first.

* * *

David Chalk, Bugs & Cranks: When assessing the battle between the '08 Rayhawks and the '93 Phillets, consider the following: At no point in the 1993 NLCS did Braves fans attempt to "Reverse The Mullet" and grow really long ass bangs. In 2008, Red Sox fans derivatively began sporting reverse mohawks to (unsuccessfully) counter the magic of the Rayhawk. 

Also, the women of Philadelphia never advocated or got "mullets to the South."  The Glorious Women Of Devil Ray Town not only advocated "mohawks to the South," but went out and got them, much to the chagrin of at least one Bostonian.

Continuing on, manager Jim Fergosi never had a mullet, or even a faux-mullet. Manager Joe Maddon has a mohawk.  President Bill Clinton never discussed getting a mullet.  Presidential candidate Barack Obama has said publicly he's considering getting a mohawk.

No one is proud to have once worn a mullet. Last summer, Mike Flanagan denied having a mullet — claiming his hair was long on the sides as well — and told the Baltimore Sun he was very unflattered to be named to John Renneke's All-Mullet Team.  More recently, Dennis Eckersley was adamant in a Big League Stew interview that his hairstyle was not a mullet.  No one ever denies having a mohawk.  And why should they? The mohawk is awesome like the Devil Rays, the mullet is a stigma of cultural ignorance akin to rooting for Philadelphia's pathetic sports teams.  

Speaking of pathetic, the mulleted '93 Phillies lost the World Series to a team from Canada! You certainly won't be able to say that about the mohawked Devil Rays. (Keep hope alive!)

* * *

Meech.One, The Fightins': As popularized by (white) professional athletes in the latter half of the 20th century, the mullet served as both a social and economic statement. In fact, quite literally so: The economic statement was "Business in the front," while the social statement was "Party in the back."

The Rayhawk on the other hand, is more of a newfangled gimmick brought upon by a city that is so startled by winning, they must resort to superficial means to promote team unity. (See also: 9=8)

The long-haired members of the 1993 Phillies were authentic. A no-frills group of hard-nosed baseballers who just so happened to share a love for the grimey mullet. There wasn't a clubhouse meeting where John Kruk stood up and instructed his fellow teammates to grow out their mane. They didn't make Jim Fregosi or Danny Jackson or Dave Hollins change their particular styles just for the sake of commonality. It was just them. With or without baseball, these guys would've been — as Dragline first called them in Cool Hand Luke — mullet heads.

So if you're asking me to compare, it's no contest. You couldn't decide a week before the season ends to grow out a mullet, you have to commit to the mullet. On the other hand, as I witnessed in the Tampa area this past week, any jaggov with a pair of clippers, some blue hair dye, and a horrible taste for fashion can have a Rayhawk. It's strange, but these appearances could also be viewed as a metaphor of their respective fanbases. The Phillies mullet symbolizes the time and dedication us Philadelphians put into our team.  The Rayhawk perfectly portrays the bandwagon trendiness of the Tampa fan.

But argue as we may about their differences, it seems as if both stylish teams will end up having one major thing in common — ultimately losing in the World Series despite era-defining hair trends.

* * *

Related: Fashion Ump, 2008 MLB playoffs, 2008 Fall Classic - Phils vs. Rays