if it works and people want it.... why not ?

Risk is that more away games makes it harder to build the profile of the team at home and also to get wins. Means the team are more likely to struggle financially.

I think the league is better off creating flexibility (soft caps) that can provide options for the less-financial teams.

In a 28 game season, teams would still get at least 12 home games. More than enough to build the brand.
I see this an "everybody wins" way of siphoning money form the rich clubs to the poor.

Certainly worth looking at, but the NBL would have concerns. Imagine if everyone sold their home games to Perth - they would travel less than Collingwood

Would only work if they sold their home games to places that dont currently have a team such as Canberra.

You would increase your supporter base in that region, still retain somewhat of a home court advantage and keep the league fair by not providing other teams with additional home games.

Need to look at the Hawthorn/Tasmania model.

Perth used to do this when playing in Darwin

They would pay the opposition team a fee to give up a home game

It sounds great in theory. In practice for the NBL maybe not, as has a different situation compared to the AFL. Who is going to pay?? Big costs in travel, accomodation, etc?
The AFL has massive TV deals(not NBL), Darwin AFL game played on primetime TV, corporate support (not NBL), cash flow (not NBL), etc,etc, etc, and markets keen for a slice of the pie. Which market is willing to get a piece of the NBL?
If NBL can get this type of corporate support, then great. Need a stadium with large capacity and need to sell it out to make worthwhile.
The reason the AFL clubs give up home games is because someone pays them lots of money for it.

Given the small budgets for NBL and how some teams are struggling, it wouldn't need to be millions to make it worthwhile.
But yes, at the moment only Perth & NZ could definitely afford to purchase games. Maybe in the future Melbourne, Sydney, and Adelaide if they can get back to consistently generating crowds of 7~8k+.
That said, you wouldn't want this to be a wholesale thing. I'd suggest allowing teams to sell no more than two games per season, not to the same team, and teams allowed to buy no more than two.
I don't know what the numbers would be, but they would have to be worthwhile, say $250k net per game. $500k could make a big difference to a struggling franchise, and the well patronised teams should be able to recoup that from their larger crowds.

Travel costs should net out.

"Perth used to do this when playing in Darwin

They would pay the opposition team a fee to give up a home game"

My understanding was that it was one of Perth's home games they were shifting, and the reason it stopped is because the season got too short with the reduced number of teams so they didn't want to give up a home game.
It was a great way for Perth to increase their supporter base outside of WA.

Nah, The Wildcats were paid by the NT government to play games and run clinics. This was After they were forced to move to the too-small Challenge stadium, but before Jack Bendat stepped in, so they were happy to get the cash.

Yes Dazz they were paid by NT gov, but they were Perth home games, not opposition home games.

At the time I was living in Darwin and appreciated the initiative form both NT gov and Wildcats so they became my 'home' team. Now I'm based in Cairns those days are long gone...