Nick Saban didn't answer a question about whether he'd like to trade places with LSU and play in Saturday's Southeastern Conference Championship Game, citing the question's hypothetical nature as precluding an answer.

But it's hard to imagine that anyone at Alabama wouldn't want a chance at another SEC championship. The Crimson Tide played its very hardest against LSU on Nov. 5 - not its best, perhaps, but its hardest - knowing that one of the rewards would be a chance to play in Atlanta. LSU won the game, and a chance to be SEC champion, which is a great reward. It's bizarre to suggest that Alabama is somehow "gaining an advantage" by not playing. UA has more SEC championships than any other school, by a wide margin, but there is always room for one more on anyone's trophy case.

With that said, I don't think LSU would (or should) be penalized if it loses to Georgia. The Tigers had the best 12-game season of any team in the country and should not be out of BCS title contention due to what happens in the 13th game. But if only playing 12 games is somehow an advantage, then what about Oklahoma State? It is playing this weekend, but also got an extra open date in the course of the season because the Big 12 no longer has a championship game. What about Stanford? The Cardinal isn't playing in the inaugural Pac-12 title game. Is that somehow "an unfair advantage?" Did Oregon have an "unfair advantage" last season because it didn't have to play in a title game and Auburn did? If so, it didn't seem to help much.

This is simply one manifestation of the "Anything Else" agenda that I discussed on Sunday. The function of the Bowl Championship Series rankings is to determine the two best teams in college football, and place them in a championship game. Everything else - everything - is clutter. Acting as if Oklahoma State is playing some sort of "extra" game by playing this weekend is just that sort of clutter. It is playing its 12th game, just as Alabama played its last Saturday at Auburn. On Sunday, voters need to compare the resumes - for the entire year, not the final Saturday - and decide who the two best teams are. I think the most powerful arguments will be for Alabama and LSU, but opinions differ and time will tell.

There will almost always be controversy in any postseason format. I think a plus-one would be better than the current system, but who would be left out of a four-team playoff? Alabama? LSU? Stanford? Virginia Tech? Oklahoma State? You can't take them all. One thing I would love to see in the not-too-distant future would be a September challenge between leagues of equal sizes and stature, based on two-year home-and-home play and all-time NCAA wins. The SEC's growth to 14 teams might make that problematic, and you might not always get the best matchups (a necessary evil given the logistical demands of football scheduling and the facts that teams can change dramatically). Still, I think an SEC-Big 10 challenge with Alabama-Michigan, Ohio State-Tennessee, Penn State-Georgia, Nebraska-LSU and so on would at least give us a better basis for making decisions at the end of the year about the relative merits of schedules.

The fact is, though, that every team that isn't playing for its conference title - Alabama, Stanford or anyone else - probably wishes it could, even if there are risks involved with a possible loss. Suppose LSU had lost to Ole Miss and Arkansas? Do you really think Alabama would have turned down a berth in Atlanta? Of course not. This year's circumstances are unusual, but have nothing to do with anyone not wanting to compete for a championship.

Reach Cecil Hurt at cecil.hurt@tuscaloosanews.com or 205-722-0225.