Firing the top performer is dumb, and it seemed to me (see below post) that Bradford was the top performer.
What'd he do? Oh, just led his team to victory in the first week, and then appeared to be the best seller on the streets. Sales ability is important.
Also, he played to win. What's with the girls not dressing attractively? It's pretty much a given that a girls team should beat a boys team in street selling. As Bradford pointed out, guys will buy anything from a hot girl. Everyone knows this; men are very visually oriented. The girls have a huge advantage here. But they chose not to use it, because they didn't want to sell themselves.
I don't have alot of patience for this idea, and I fault all the girls. Putting on a skirt and a halter top (Bradford's suggested wardrobe, according to Ivana I believe) is not selling sex, as the girls suggested. You dress more scantily than that when you're at the beach. No, it's using your attractiveness to win the game. That's not selling sex.
I play to win. I don't think there's any value in losing. I believe in acting ethically in competitions, but I'm very competitive. I hate to lose. And so if I were Bradford I probably would have been more upset that the girls chose to give away one of their greatest advantages. Why bother playing if you're not going to try to win?