You raise a good point. This idea has also been kicked around by Republicans AFAIK:
put up their own third-party candidate, attempt to block Hillary by keeping her from reaching 270, then electing their candidate through the House. This scenario, while awful in its result, would have the interesting implication of highlighting just how well and truly fucked our system is.
This was always a bit of a joke of an article. Very few states are so strongly Republican that you could safely run a major right-wing third party candidate without just handing the state to Hillary.
Here's the 2012 results in the states they name:
Georgia: Romney 53, Obama 47
Florida: Obama 50, Romney 49
Ohio: Obama 50, Romney 48
North Carolina: Romney 51, Obama 48
Missouri: Romney 54, Obama 44
Nowhere do they have the sorts of margins they need that they could add a third party candidate and avoid a plurality victory by Hillary. Even in the widest gap in that list, Missouri, the Republican block would have to stay united on the same candidate, because even 10.5% falling away would give the state to Hillary if she can perform as well as Obama did.
The talk of their third-party candidate actually winning electoral votes is even more far-fetched. The only states where that would even be a possibility would be states that the Republicans expected to carry anyway. You're not going to get a victory in a swing state like this, and swing state victories would be the only way for this strategy to work.