Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the question or idea, but unfortunately it just doesn't work. We know that a generation of lifters used nolva on cycle before AI's were readily available to prevent gyno, and they ended up shutdown just like everyone else.
As to why, well I'm no expert but I'll give it a shot. SERMs aid in recovery by competing with E2 for binding to ERs, preventing E2-mediated negative feedback. (And from papers that I've read, nolva does this in the pituitary, while clomid does so in the hypothalamus, though I'm not convinced that the distinction between the two is a clean as some have suggested.) Now, would the use of a SERM be better than the use of an AI on cycle, in preventing E2 binding? I doubt it...E2 would be around in high doses when using aromatic compounds, and it would have the opportunity to bind. Competitive inhibition only gets you so far. Regardless, that's not the whole story because E2 isn't the only mechanism of negative feedback. High levels of exogenous AAS cause negative feedback at the hypothalamus, preventing GnRH release. The mechanism is a little more complicated so I won't try to unravel it here. There can also be negative feedback from progesterone, though obviously that may not be an issue, depending on the compound.
Hope that helped a bit. Perhaps others can chime in.